Skip Bayless. Lou Holtz. Woody Page. Of every national voice of sports’ punditocracy, this is Oklahoma’s lot: A guy as contrarian as the Flat Earth Society, the old Notre Dame coach who fits ESPN’s bill as college football’s crazy uncle and Page, of the Denver Post and Around the Horn, who likely has no problem accepting his place as roundtable buffoon.

The Sooners might prefer Brent Musberger, Kirk Herbstreit and Mark May, but this is their cheering section. Apparently, it takes a trio of certifiable characters to say no to demagoguery and scoff at the idiot masses.

Religion isn’t the opiate of the people. Instead, it’s the annual BCS debate each December that has everybody thinking they’ve figured it all out.

But they haven’t.

They haven’t because the other side — call it Texas’ side, or the BCS-is-no-way-to-decide-a-tiebreaker-side or the head-to-head Turette’s side — continues to make no sense.

I’ve yet to hear a practitioner of that side do one of two things. I’ve yet to hear somebody who wishes Texas play Missouri for the Big 12 title explain the criteria by which they have eliminated Texas Tech from the debate, just as I’ve yet to hear them attempt to make the case Texas is the better team.

Because believing Texas the most deserving team to play Missouri at Arrowhead Saturday night because the Longhorns are the best team in the Big 12 South is a very sound argument. Only nobody’s making it.

Just the same, a reasonable person might claim a better system would employ a fifth tiebreaker that invokes the BCS to eliminate one of three tied teams atop a conference division, at which point the head-to-head component is taken up again. Such a tiebreaker would eliminate Texas Tech from the discussion and send Texas to Kansas City. But nobody’s making that case either.

Instead, reason’s on holiday. Everybody from Chris Fowler to Matt Palmer to Lee Corso is yapping about Texas beating OU on a neutral field, like the Sooners and Longhorns are the only two South Division teams standing around at 7-1 and it’s just that simple.

It’s as though Texas Tech was eliminated from their consciousness because yes, everybody beat everybody, but we can forget about the Red Raiders because they got beat by 44. As though OU would have bolstered its case by artificially keeping Tech in the game. It’s absurd.

Another case nobody’s making? If OU and Texas played again, the Longhorns would be favored. It’s neither here nor there, but when so many tiebreakers fall short it seems like a reasonable question to ponder.

In the end, there is only one passion-free voice yet to succumb to the daily gabfest that serves to ratchet emotion but decide not a thing. Actually, six voices. Six voices in harmony with no bone to pick, nor perceived injustice to whine or yammer against.

The computers.

While others huff and puff, they think clearly, their only charge to spit out the best team. They picked OU. On that singular count, of who’s better, not even the screaming idiots disagree.

Clay Horning