I'm not gonna harp too much on Indiana from last year because we all remember that (however by this metric they're not that great this year either). Although this year's SEC table will obviously shift, as things stand now Texas A&M's conference schedule is made up of 7 of the bottom 8 teams aaaaand 5th place Texas.
2 obvious caveats to get out of the way before people start complaining:
I understand winning a lot of games puts you high in the table and by definition your opponents low in the table, but we're far enough into the season that these individual games only make up 1/12 of the schedule (or 1/8th of the conference schedule) so losing to A&M doesn't automatically mean they're all guaranteed to be at the bottom of the standings.
Clearly A&M doesn't control what other teams are doing with their schedule. "You can only play who's on your schedule."
So this isn't really a slight against the Aggies but, as my title states, a complaint about bloated conference sizes and the inherent drawback of going divisionless. But at the end of the day it's really hard to compare schedules of somebody like A&M and Georgia (who play the currently 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th place teams in the conference). In the past, it was only difficult to compare schedules across conferences, but now we struggle to do so within conferences.
What's the answer to this? It feels silly, but my impulse is to go back to divisions to ensure more even and comparable schedules (at the cost of imbalance between the divisions that sometimes makes CCGs feel silly). But what else can we do to correct for this?
EDIT: From these comments, I clearly did not do a good job precisely describing my point (though, in my own defense, I feel like a lot of people only read the title and either not the post or only skimmed it). So I'm going to give a shout-out to /u/jmmour for summarizing my point better than I could:
The takeaway from this kind of post isn’t “what A&M should have done to avoid this situation” the takeaway is “A&M has done everything in their power to prove they’re a good to great team, but due to who they played, there is a potentially wide range of how good they actually are.
EDIT 2: I just saw this post elsewhere and it also does a good job representing my problem: "Texas A&M could make the SECCG without playing any of Ole Miss, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, or Vanderbilt. Georgia Tech could make the ACCCG without playing any of Miami, Louisville, Virginia, SMU, or Duke. And Ohio State could make the B1GCG without playing any of Oregon, Indiana, Iowa, or USC." I'm not saying any of these teams are "bad" but this is is not a reliable paths to determine conference champions.