Count me among the minority of mainstream media folks, but I'm fine with Oklahoma getting the nod over Texas in the Big 12 tiebreaker.
Clearly, the head-to-head argument is an easy one to make, and there is no denying Texas was better in Dallas. But people need to remember it was a three-way tie, not a two-way tie.
Texas Tech was quickly dismissed from the discussion because it lost 65-21 to Oklahoma. So ... if Texas Tech had lost by 10 or so, would it have still been a three-team discussion? Would factors such as who was playing best now, non-conference performance and comparative scores been examined between all three teams? If so, those all favored OU. But because Oklahoma played so well against Texas Tech, it became a Texas-OU discussion, and the Longhorns won head-to-head. End of story. My point: you can't penalize Oklahoma for beating Texas Tech by 44.
Unlike the BCS computers, I'm a believer in margin of victory. In the round robin between the three 11-1 teams, OU was a plus-34, Texas was a plus-4, Texas Tech was minus-38. In Big 12 games, OU was a plus-195, Texas a plus-149 and Texas Tech a plus-101. Plus, Oklahoma had the toughest non-conference slate.
Ideally, we'd have a four-team playoff between Texas, OU, Alabama and Florida. But with the system the way it is, Oklahoma (assuming a win over Missouri) vs. the SEC winner does not feel like an outrage.