If i was on the Committee, and people were in chaos about what to do with the BIG12, the first thing that I'd look at would be their schedules and not how many points they scored or how much dazzle they showed.
If you do that, you see that they have 20 wins against non-power conference teams, none of which is rated as very good. They've scheduled two non-power 5 teams which are considered good, and lost both of those.
They have played 8 teams from the power five conferences and gone 4-4. Their wins were over TN, MN, AR, and MD. MD is 2-7 on the season with wins over Richmond and USF --- even though they are slowly getting better, they are hardly brag-able. That leaves TN, AR, MN from which to find an argument [other than eye-tests] for rating anyone in this conference highly.
Oklahoma beat TN -- two OT early in the season. TN has been getting better lately, but are only 5-4 with wins over West and South Carolina, BG first game, and KY. Was the GA win a good one? Maybe, maybe not given what those people are doing lately. Still OK deserves some credit for beating TN.
TCU beat MN. MN is 4-5. Several people beat them. Their four wins are CO State, Kent, Ohio, and Purdue. Not impressed.
That leaves TTech beating AR. AR is a bit crazy. They're 5-4, they beat TN and just now they went multiple OTs to beat Ole Miss --- is Ole Miss any good anymore?
The point is: if I was looking at this, I could not honestly make much of a case for the entire conference. Some "good" teams? Sure. Top Ten teams? Where's the beef? THAT's why I wonder why I'd rate ANYTHING these guys do from here on out as making any difference, as they're just sleeping in their own beds. The Committee will probably think differently, but I'll bet a few of the people on there think that same way. It's like you're trying to make a case based on one game [OK vs TN in two OTs]. And of course the "infallible" eye-test.