Should Conference Games and Non-Conference Games Be Viewed Equally?

A couple days ago, I saw a post of a user stating that the Colorado game objectively has lesser importance due to it being a non-conference game.

This may have been true in the past, but with the new format, is that still the case?

With the removal of divisions and the addition of four members, the Big Ten Championship has become immensely more difficult to achieve. Let’s be real, Nebraska is no where near the level of the likes of Ohio State, Oregon, USC, Michigan, and Penn State. Barring a miracle, we more than likely will not be making the Big Ten Championship (I hope they prove me wrong.)

So that brings me to my next point, if the Conference Championship Game is out of reach, should non-conference games be viewed as the same importance as conference games?

With the playoffs expanding to 12-teams…does the committee really differentiate between your overall record and your conference record? I believe they view a loss, as a loss and vice versa. Obviously a loss to a low non-conference (UTEP) team would be damning at chances for a CFP…but should the Colorado game be viewed as the same importance as let’s say a Purdue game?

This is purely hypothetical and is not reflective of how I believe the season will go, but the end of the year, what would the difference be between the two records?

9-3 (6-3 Conference Record)

9-3 (7-2 Conference Record)

Both records would likely not be enough to make the CCG. Depending on the quality of wins and losses, you may have a slim shot at the CFP. I know a lot of people are going to come in and say “all wins/games are important” which is true, but are all games now equal for teams like Nebraska who would need a miracle to make the CCG? I believe it is way more difficult to make the Conference Championship Game than it is to make the College Football Playoff. This is a genuine question and I would love to hear input!