If you go to 20-24 teams in one conference... the losses are not going be what you think they are. You're still only playing 8 or 9 conference games. There is going to be a lot of room to dodge the other elite teams in a given year, just like now. More so than now, actually. And that's actually their plan.
It depends on who those additions are. If for instance, as some want the next round of additions are FSU, VT, Miami, and Clemson, you're simply adding football powers. Add that to Oklahoma and Texas and you've added not just the top ACC and Big 12 teams but let's review the list, Oklahoma, Texas, FSU, VT, Miami and Clemson. For every conference game involving those guys that will be one win one loss. So even if you just imagine those 6 teams playing each other, that's those teams on average going 2-3 or 3-2
in just those five games! That's already more losses than some of those teams are expected to get in a year, and they're only halfway through a conference schedule.
That's the other part, SEC teams are not going to give up rivalries so under this mega conference scenario they're going to add conference games. It might be 2. So, if you're Arkansas for example now you've just added Oklahoma and Texas to your schedule every single year.
Now, if you do it differently and you say ok, we're adding Virginia, North Carolina... then that counter balances Oklahoma and Texas and that's part of what I've been getting at this whole time. Someone will lose, but if you don't engineer that somewhat you are going to tarnish some of your bands because everyone likes a winner, losers not so much.
It actually makes more sense to counter-balance the valuable football brands with additions that offer other things (for example North Carolina's tier 3 rights are worth just as much as Alabama's, that's how valuable their basketball brand is). So you don't hurt your football brands, you get into a massive new state, and you gain revenue.