Need to pay closer attention and read the post...
Told you I don't dispute that.
Now what exactly did Texas "earn"?
The same thing Cal "earned."
So how did they get in to the Rose Bowl, who didn't want them.

The common opponent thing doesn't really prove anything. Are you saying that Texas is 45 points better than Cal due to records vs. common opponents? All this does is create an argument for ranking in polls, not who is better.

By your argument I would say that Yale is better than North Carolina this year in basketball. Yale beat Santa Clara who beat North Carolina. Not much of an argument for who is better. Who is better has to be settled on the field, and the better team does NOT always win.

Again this is about who went to which bowl, and whether or not they should've. Texas should NOT have gone to the Rose Bowl. Nobody says they couldn't play. By your logic you would have to say that Oklahoma did NOT belong in the Orange Bowl, since they lost badly. Most teams who turn the ball over 5 times lose badly, this doesn't mean they shouldn't have been invited.
8-)

that's why the term "earn" was used...against common opponents (Oregon, USC, Texas Tech), Oklahoma's record was 2-1; Cal's was 1-2...why does the NFL use "common opponents" as its third tie-breaker?

Hook em Horns... :P