I think ccmachine runs the site well, and I can obviously understand that Sooner fans will try to argue their case. Fair enough. However, let me summarize the points I've been making there.
1. Texas fans ARE NOT pretending Tech doesn't exist. We know we laid the largest egg imaginable in Lubbock and lost. OU fans are accusing Texas fans of trying to forget about it so we can disingenously make this a two-horse race. However, I'd argue that OU is in fact disingenously bringing Tech into the conversation as a third wheel, because they know, as we do, that Tech has NO chance at the national title any longer (barring an epic catastrophe in college football). They also know that in the case of a three way tie, Tech once again has NO chance. Tech has one way, and one way only, to get to the Big 12 title game, and that is to beat Baylor and hope OU loses to OSU. If all three teams win, they're the third team. If all three teams lose (which is very unlikely), they're still the third team. Furthermore, even if they make it to KC and win the Big 12 title game, a team like Penn State will remain ahead of them and move on to Miami.
This is why the SEC uses the tiebreak that they do. In case of a three way tie, it is less likely that you get three teams that are as close together as OU and Texas is. You normally have two and then an "outlier" team, which in this case would be Texas Tech (although admittedly, #7 isn't a very large outlier). In this case, you eliminate the team that doesn't have a chance in the tie anyway, as far as rankings are concerned, and then look head to head.
I'm not saying the SEC's way is the right way; I'm merely pointing out the logic of that system, which can be argued to be good logic. Texas is not pretending that Tech doesn't exist; in fact, OU fans are the ones pretending the Tech has a legitimate shot at winning a three-way tie and/or going to the national title game. Everyone knows that national title implications as well as the BCS tiebreaker for the Big 12 South affect two teams alone: Texas and OU. Tech is out of both and can only hope for an Oklahoma loss.
2. Establishing that Texas Tech is overrated doesn't make Texas overrated. Many OU fans are trying to say that Horns fans are shooting themselves in the foot for calling Tech overrated, because we lost to them. I don't think so; that's like saying Oklahoma was bad in 2007 because they lost to a bad team on the road (Colorado). Or that USC was a fraud last year for flubbing against Stanford AT THE COLISEUM. Teams can pull off upsets; that doesn't automatically elevate them to elite status, such that defeating them later makes your team super-elite. I'd agree that using the head-to-head matchup exclusively is a mistake, but that also makes using our singular games against Tech exclusively a mistake as well. Texas, when you take our overall resume to account (which does indeed include that morning in Dallas), has the superior case.
3. If Missouri can be dismissed because the North champ is like saying they're the "tallest midget," then that totally blows up the arguments for TCU and Cincy. The Big East is garbage this year, and TCU does not even play in a BCS conference. Mizzou's only two losses are to OSU and Texas. Talk about being the "tallest midget." OU fans try to dismiss their other two INCREDIBLY weak OOC opponents, Chatanooga and Washington, by pointing to TCU and Cincy as balance, but that argument backfires because neither team matches Missouri. Even if we accept that Texas' OOC schedule was overly weak (I think it was stronger than people think), why can't we point to Missouri as the great equalizer? Why is that unfair for us to do?
That's enough for now. Isn't this so much fun?