No, it doesn't work like that.
NET rankings are now calculated in a fashion very similar to Pomeroy by comparing output per possession against expected output per possession against that particular opponent. There will be minor deviations between their formulas for calculating how strong a particular opponent is, but the gist of it is that no team gains in the ranking unless it beats the other team more emphatically than a similarly ranked team would beat it. So what Texas gains in the rankings even if it beats MVSU by 70 tomorrow won't be worth the waste of a game. Missouri, a mid 60s team, rose to 55 by winning by 72. ISU dropped from 6 to 10 by winning by only 39. Now the level of MVSU is established by combining those numbers, a team in the mid 20s would need to win by 60 or more to avoid a negative effect.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2022-12-05/college-basketballs-net-rankings-explained
And this puts pressure on the coaches to play at max efficiency instead of working with players who need pt either individually or in combinations. You can't really afford to jiggle line-ups in these games. You are better off playing against good to decent competition to get your troops ready for the real teams it will face later in the season.
While the committee looks at each teams' quad record when selecting and seeding the field, it largely ignores q4 wins. q1 losses are bad, but they won't entirely disqualify a team from the tournament. Indiana State, Mississippi State, Northwestern, and Florida Atlantic each had a q4 loss but received an at large bid. FAU had two such losses, but they were in a home loss to a 175ish team and a road loss to a 250ish team. Texas was closely scrutinized by a lot of people late in the season because it was still under .500 in q1-3 games. A couple more q3 wins instead of wins over the worst in the q4 would have ended that discussion in a hurry, and we would not have been in the position of needing that road win over Tech to make us feel safe about our chances.
I have no problem with scheduling a laugher or two, but we have way too many such games this season. We play 3 of the worst 7 teams in the country, 6 of the worst 22, and 7 teams ranked 300+ in Pomeroy. That cheats the fans or meaningful competition to enjoy,and it cheats the players and the coaches of meaningful competition to use to improve the team.
And throw in an occasional true road game. There are plenty of decent teams in the state that would love to schedule 2 for 1s against us, like SFA, Sam Houston State, UT-Arlington, UTEP, etc. We don't get much in the way of extra exposure by playing Texas State in San Marcos, but why not do that once a decade? Playing Rice annually makes sense. It will have some lulls but is usually 200-230 range, and we can even schedule games in Houston against it. And now we have a bunch of former conference opponents we could schedule home and home against.
There is so much more we can do with our non-conference schedule than a couple of neutral site games against tournament bound teams. Alabama has played at least 2 road or semi-road games in non-conference in each of the last 3 seasons with a couple of semi-home and a ton of neutral site games on top of those. We needn't go that all out in scheduling non-conference, but we should do a lot better.