Obviously, OSU got their scheduling off cycle - and has 8 home games this year, and only 6 next year (as opposed to the more typical 7 per year, like PSU has)
That said, comparing the OOC schedules, into the foreseeable future, of Ohio State (and Michigan, and Wisconsin, etc) to Penn State's does anything but paint PSU in a favorable light.
Just looking at OSU, over the next decade:
They start a home and home with Notre Dame this year - than have Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Washington, and Oregon all in home-and-home series over the next decade. Michigan (Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, Notre Dame) and Wisconsin (Alabama, Notre Dame, Utah, Virginia Tech, UCLA, Pitt) have similar slates of OOC games
Penn State finishes the home and home with Auburn this year, and then has home and homes with P-5 programs West Virginia and Syracuse on the schedule. That's it. (Penn State does still have possible open dates in the 2029-and on time frame)
This all started with the introduction of the CFP. At the time, it was sold to the public under the premise that the teams would be chosen by a committee of "experts" who would do a deep dive into factors such as SOS, whether games were played at home or away, margin of victory/loss etc. (just like the selection process of the NCAA bballl tournament).
So, the B10 jumps up and goes from 8 to 9 conference games and also created a "rule" that no B10 teams could play a non P5 opponent. I believe the P12 also went to 9 conference games and the B12 also went to a full 9 game conference schedule.
Then, in 2016, it all comes to a head when PSU and Washington each finish the year with one conference loss. However, PSU also loses on the road to a respectable P5 opponent in Pitt (42-39), to give them a 11-2 record. Washington goes undefeated in their non conference schedule of Rutgers, Idaho, and Portland State. We know who was chosen as the 4th team.
So, all the initial bs about considering SOS, home or away, final scores, etc. was thrown out the window by the committee of "experts". These folks simply decided the only rules they were going to follow was the final won-loss record:
0 losses - you are in.
1 loss - you are probably in.
2 losses - you are out.
I tip my hat to those schools you mentioned above that have attractive P5 non conference opponents. As a fan, I would much rather watch PSU play a "name" P5 opponent than Delaware or Villanova. Unfortunately, there seems to be almost all risk and no reward for scheduling and losing to a P5 non conference opponent. Might as well go ahead and schedule a cupcake for the guaranteed win. Tough choice to make if you are CJF, but I can understand his position in seeing how he got burned in 2016.
In the meantime, the SEC sits back and laughs at the B10, B12, and P12 and creates their own scheduling "rules". They stay with 8 conference games and always play a conference game early in the year (the first week or two) so they can then all play cupcakes on the 3rd week in November. They were smart enough to realize a loss in the first week or two of Sept doesn't have the impact on the pollsters as does a loss in Nov. So, while all the other conferences are guaranteed to have half their teams lose on the 3rd Saturday in Nov, the SEC guarantees that all of their teams will have a win on that same day.
Its not hard to design a selection process that relies mostly on objective factors (such as winning your conference championship) instead of subjective factors such as "the eye test", but college football just can't get out of its own way on this topic along with NIL, portal, etc.
