i think most of us are literally on the same page when it comes to this topic.
Also, sorry to get all existential but what is everyone's criteria to define "best"? Seems to me there are 4 primary things:
1) Just looking at the game itself in a vacuum, did the cats have any business winning that game? Were we outgunned/outclassed/outmatched but compensated by outscheming/out5hearting?
2) Was the game itself actually interesting? With the exception of the 35-7 curbstomping of OU in 03, I feel like if the outcome was never really in doubt, or the cats were never really challenged at any point during the game, its hard to call that a "best" win although I would imagine if the cats had an absolute blowout victory in the natty then that would definitely qualify as an exception.
3) What outside influences, if any, where at play? Things like a hostile road environment, or playing against a team you'd lost to the previous 29 times would be examples of outside influences.
4) What is at stake? Obviously every game matters and few teams have the luxury of being able to crap the bed without much fallout but that cats are not one of those teams. I think it's fair to say, too, that no matter who the opponent is, the pressure is ratcheted up as the season goes on. Had we played Baylor in september the most that could be said at the time was "possible CFP implications" but this late in the season the stakes are much more clearly defined.
How much stock goes into each of those 4...i'm not really sure.
