The best way to reduce or eliminate horrible OOC games is to eliminate the incentives, i.e., to have a playoff of conference champions. This would change the purpose of the OOC schedule.
The importance of conference games should come down to win or lose, without style points. There should be no selection committee to decide "best," "most worthy," "playoff seating," or whatever else can be thought up to make the process subjective.
There should be eight conferences, based on geography, and a playoff of eight teams. Teams not in a conference do not get an opportunity to be considered "national champion" of the division. The number of games should be an even number, and the size of the division should be 11X8=88 teams. Smaller schools would be relegated to a lower division.
One or two preseason games would be played to preserve certain traditional matches but these would be nothing more than exhibition games to prepare for the season. This would, for example, provide schools with a no-penalty means to decide a starting quarterback, much as the NFL uses these games to come up with a final roster. Some OOC games might be "important," like Pitt-PSU and its impact on recruiting.
Schools would have flexibility with their OOC scheduling, to include a bye week after the preseason, if desired. They can decide on timing and difficulty -- whatever they think is best for season preparation and/or other benefits to the school. [Most coaches probably would not consider a cupcake game would help prepare their team.]
Playoff seating would be based on conference record, with predetermined rules to deal with ties, but no subjectivity. Same would be true in deciding conference champions. The lopsidedness in the final score, in any game, should not be a factor. That's the best way to ensure balance in competition and minimize bias at any level, including officiating.
