I thought about the Playoff system, but even when it is in place, I don't think it will change the equation unless they don't take conference affiliation into account. If they are going to limit any conference to a maximum of two teams (which I think will be the practical case, even if they don't explicitly limit it), we're still looking at having to be the second best SEC candidate. If we are in a situation where the west is stronger than the east, and we are second in the west with one loss, a really strong OOC schedule could help us get chosen over the winner of the east (or conversely, if we lose the SEC championship game, a strong OOC schedule could get us picked over the second place team from the east). But I think it's a better bet right now for us to focus on maximizing our chances in conference games and to let the chips fall where they may as far as what happens if we are a one loss team. Four OOC patsies that allow us to play a lot of players, minimize injuries, and work on weaknesses maximizes our chances in conference games.
To look at it another way, we'll probably never have an easier schedule in the SEC to go 11-1 against. We could lose to Bama, and if LSU struggles, Arkansas stays down, and A&M fizzles, I'm not sure what win we'd have that would be that impressive. We'd have several solid wins, but no really good win. We'd almost certainly get passed over by the loser in the SEC championship game and end up in the capital one bowl, or even drop to the Cotton Bowl if USCe and UF both finished with one loss. Would replacing USA with OkSt. change that this year (assuming we won)? I'm not sure that it would. If we end up in that situation, I think we would just have to accept that we were "unlucky" that our SEC schedule turned out to be weak. I don't think it's a good idea to beef up the OOC schedule just in case we luck into an SEC schedule that comes around roughly once every 10 to 15 years.