makes a point to the press and pundits, who ultimately shape the view of how conferences and teams are perceived.

Your point about who remembers the other team is irrelevant. That is for fans. The pundits know and they are the ones doing rankings. They are the ones coming up with conference bias.

If your argument were correct, why wouldn't it be better for the BIG10 to have only Oregon be in a undefeated? That makes no sense. Should the BIG12 want one undefeated team each year? Of course not. The BIG12 needs to have a reputation of very good football so that if there is a loss or two, teams are still ranked high enough to make it to CFP. This starts with pre season rankings too.

If only BYU wins because of undefeated season the press says, that was a one off and they didn't play anybody because conference is weak. What's good for BIG12 is getting multiple teams in, year in and year out and the teams winning. This year is no different. Additionally getting more teams in gives BIG12 more money.

I agree that what's good for BYU and what's good for conference aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but in this case, it's not a factor. Just look:

1 team, BYU, wins it all undefeated.
2 teams, BYU loses to other BIG12 in championship.
2 teams, BYU beats other BIG12 championship.

If you're Yormark, which do you pick? I guarantee he's not picking the first. This argument is clear given we can pick the outcome (original premise). But since we can't, it's better for the conference to have two contenders for a chance to win it all. In the end BIG12 won't care if it's BYU or ISU. In fact, it COULD be argued that ISU with 2 losses winning the whole thing shows how tough the conference is - that a two loss BIG12 team beats up on other conferences to win the whole thing.

Having said all that, as a fan, I want BYU to keep winning. I'd like the undefeated NC.