I agree with Hornsfan that, for the most part, we will control our own destiny next year no matter where we start off in the Preseason Polls.  If we can run the table in 2007 we will certainly be in the mix for the MNC game.  As always, alot will depend on the records of all the other teams (how many undefeated or 1-loss teams).  While I agree that our out-of-conference schedule is quite weak, check out the out-of conference schedules for some of the top 5 teams currently.  tOSU only plays a marginal-at-best Washington team next season.  Florida has a pansy-ass out-of-conference schedule next season.  USC does have a return engagement with Nebraska and, as always, Notre Dame (who won't be nearly as good next year.  Hypothetically, if we run the table next year, are chances of reaching the MNC game will depend on how strong the Big XII is next season.  The Big XII should be significanly stronger next season, but you never know.

Of course, if McCoy is at risk of serious injury by playing in the bowl game, then he should not play.  It is a moral, not strategic, decision.

However, if he is capable of playing despite not being at full strength, then tactically the coaches should put him for precisely the reason that HornsFan recognizes: our SoS, particularly out of conference, will be terrible.  Accordingly, it will be difficult for us to leapfrog the teams ranked ahead of us, which in turn means that without quality wins we need to wait for each higher ranked team to lose.  Consequently, the higher our pre-season ranking, the fewer teams we need to lose and the greater the likelihood of our being contenders for the MNC.

Clearly -- thankfully -- we are not Rutgers, but if Rutgers had won out, I find it almost impossible to imagine they would have displaced a one-loss UF or UM to play in the championship game.  Notably, however, in large part due to their higher 2006 pre-season ranking, a WVa team with a nearly identical schedule would have played for the MNC.

I am not saying that I believe this is the way things ought to be, but I do think that (unfairly and unfortunately) that pre-season rankings matter, particularly for teams from second tier conferences or, like us next year, terrible SoS.

too much is being made of this.

The reality is that if Colt does not play, the Alamo Bowl won't really affect us much one way or the other next year.  If he does play, and shows no signs of the injury, that would definitely give us a boost.

I think voters put some stock in the previous year's bowl game, just look at West Virginia this year.  Even though they hadn't played anyone, they kept bouncing up just because everyone remembered them shocking Georgia(most didn't remember Georgia coming back and just running out of time, of course...).

However, if it played that huge a role, why weren't we #1?  And how was Notre Dame in the mix at all?  Because an even bigger part of the initial narrative, so to speak, is:  "who's back?"  Especially, "who's back at QB?"

And we won't (hopefully!!) be going into next year with an unproven factor at QB.  We'll be going in with a kid who was phenomenal, and who will, barring injury effects, be expected to improve as he gets older.  And the season-ending collapse is likely to read: "Colt got hurt, but now he's back, and they're great."

So, that's my story - if Colt doesn't play, we'll be dinged a little bit because "we just don't know if there was any lasting effect", but that should be a very little bit, since it wasn't a knee or a "major" structural injury.  If he plays and plays well, we'll be fine, regardless of schedule, because we're Texas, and we're a known quantity.  The only really bad thing would be if he played and played badly, or got hurt worse.