Great write up. I hope its ok if I provide some thoughts and constructive feedback. This work is very much needed.
While we ultimately all feel that this bias is an attempt to elevate Texas over A&M to improve state and nation-wide perception of program success and superiority, the whole "Texas got a bump but A&M didn't" does come across a bit as sour grapes. But I think there is a HUGE opportunity to write a follow-up to this piece that will reduce this sentiment and appeal to a broader audience by including comparisons with a) a more national perspective and b) incorporating more data from years past. Here is why I think this is important...
a) National Perspective - Texas is not the only blue blood, but it has been "down" for the last decade, accompanied by "Texas is back" claims at any chance they get. If other blue bloods get similar kinds of bumps in ranking services, then this whole argument becomes less convincing. I could then make the point that its not a Texas bias, its a "blue blood" bias. However, I dont think this is true, and showing that Texas gets these huge bumps when other programs of repute do not, THAT is more convincing.
b) More Data - This bias is nothing new. It seems like its more extreme this year because Texas had to make up more ground to surpass A&M. This requires more obvious and blatant "bumps" and manipulations (I mean, holy ****, its just obvious this year). BUT, someone could argue that Herman is just great at finding talent, so that when Texas became interested in X recruit, that drew attention from services who then evaluated X recruit more carefully and then adjusted their reaction. Including multiple years of data I think would show that this is a systemic bias that has transcended coaching staffs and its not some kind of "Herman effect."
Just my thoughts on how to strengthen your arguments. Great work!
