Does this argument have any merit? Absolutely not, it’s completely stupid. Every league, from the SEC to the Sun Belt, has schools with different scheduling philosophies, needs and priorities, and one school taking one deal doesn’t restrain any of the others. Indiana, for example, signing a home and home agreement with Western Kentucky (which they did), does not mean Ohio State suddenly has to play a road game against a Conference USA opponent. Miami played a road game against Toledo in recent memory. This does not mean Clemson is obligated to do the same. If UCF is the top dog in the AAC, and boy they sure think they are, then why should they give a crap what UConn or USF or anybody else does? You set your own market.
Furthermore, USF, or any other school, getting P5 programs on their schedule is a positive for UCF, since it would make their conference wins look more impressive by comparison. Nobody cares outside of interstate 4 if UCF pummels a four-win South Florida. But if USF knocks off a Miami in September, well, that matchup gets a bit more sizzle.
In a perfectly just and meritocratic college football world, UCF would probably deserve some home and homes against bigger name opponents. But that has never been how college football has operated. Historically, when an upstart program tries to challenge the established order, they have to play a lot of road games. That’s what Florida State did. That’s what Louisville did. And that’s what Boise State did. That’s the game.