Only one change: moving Texas above Alabama. There was a fierce, intelligent discussion in the comments that I considered but ultimately didn't change my mind, as I found this argument from LandonC most compelling:
As for Oklahoma/Texas debate... here's my problem with the argument of going straight to head to head. If Oklahoma had merely beaten Tech by 14, most people would still consider all three as being more or less tied. Then Oklahoma's advantage in non conference schedule would obviously carry the day. So Oklahoma is being punished for clobbering tech by 41 or whatever.
Also of note, If you look at the computer rankings they go Okla 1, UT 2, and TT 4, roughly tied with UT getting the bump over TT by having played Missouri. In my mind there's only two reasons for TT being completely eliminated from the conversation: Polling bias early in the year against TT and Oklahoma's outstanding game. Neither reason is good enough in my mind to eliminate TT from the comparison and thus turn to TT-Okla head to head results.
In my mind we're still picking from three teams that are 1-1 against each other, and the head to head Texas win can't be considered in isolation. Before Oklahoma beat Oklahoma State by 20, Texas had the better overall resume; now Oklahoma does. I would again like to stress that There Is No Right Answer here and that many of the Texas arguments are convincing.
Side note: why even have divisions? If the Big 12 did away with the N/S distinction we'd have a super easy way to figure out the answer to "Texas or Oklahoma": the Big 12 championship game. CFB would be better off if the 12-team conferences added another conference game, got rid of divisions, and just took the top two teams for the championship game.