Talk:Red River Shootout

SBC

Yuck. This renaming business leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sorry, but to this Longhorn it'll always be the Red River Shootout. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• I could not agree with you more. It is a particularly ugly combination when big business meets political correctness. That is why I have not even been tempted to hit the Move button. Someone else can do it, and probably will eventually, but it won't be me! Johntex\^talk 22:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the naming rights contract, but I'm assuming it expires at some point - frankly, I hope the article isn't moved at all. It will always be the Red River Shootout.Bbatsell 00:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it's limited -- two or three years I think I read. I agree on the page move, too. Shoot, I'm certainly not going to do it. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your take on the name change - I think it's the general consensus that the name stay the way it is. SBC can call it whatever they want - it will always be the Red River Shootout to me.

In truth, "Red River Shootout" was just the first corporate-concocted nickname for the game. Texas-OU certainly hasn't always been called anything like "Red River Shootout" or "Red River Rivalry." My memory fails me on the exact dates, but I don't think "Red River [whatever]" is much more than 15 years old, if that. Because of their contrived origins, I have no attachment to either of the two corporate sponsor-generated names for Texas-OU, and I wouldn't mind at all if the first lame nickname (RRS) were replaced by the latest lame nickname (RRR) as far as the naming of this article goes. Historically, this game is "Texas-OU" if you're a Texas fan, and "OU-Texas" if you're an OU fan. ~ João Do Rio 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Will this game be changed to the AT&T Red River Rivalry?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.9.189 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2006 June 20

We actually cover this in the article. Johntex\^talk 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The corporate co-opting of these events is disgusting. Thank you all for leaving this as the Red River Shootout. -Rolypolyman 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Red River Shootout" was also a corporate invention -- just an older one. ~ João Do Rio 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

UT Stadium

The article states "Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium seats 84,000 and may soon be expanded further." I was not aware expansion plans were being considered. We should add that the article on the stadium as well. Do we know a source? Johntex\^talk 22:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, DeLoss Dodds just recently told the Statesman that they're considering an expansion. It's very tentative though, hasn't been approved or really even planned yet, but they are doing some preliminary estimates now on what it would cost to expand seats and suites on the north end up to about 90,000. (HEADLINE: Hook 'em home? Rivalry might move from Cotton Bowl to campuses, Statesman, Oct. 3, 2005; Mark Rosner) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, they should just close in the South End as well. If Michigan can fill 100,000 seats, so can Texas. Johntex\^talk 23:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

All right, I know DKR fills up to about 84K normally, but Owen Field fills up to about 85K usually. I'm going to change the capacity of DKR to 80,082, the number listed on the official UT athletics site, just as the 82,112 is the official OU number. Tmrobertson 19:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

100th Meeting - 2005

Whats the relevance of the information in this section? It reads like a Sports Illustrated article, not an encyclopedia article. Mainly because this section will require editing immediately after the final outcome of the game - not a good standard for encyclopedia articles. Sorry for not being a registered user, I will get around to that soon.

Anon touches on an issue that comes up periodically, which I would paraphrase as "To what extent does/should Wikipedia concer itself with capturing/documenting/referencing current events". My opinion is that people expect a web-based information source to be up-to-date and topical. We have an opportunity to meet this expectation since Wikipedia is not paper. Also, current events, such as the recent nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court, and anniversaries, such as October 5 being Republic Day in Portugal are likely to cause increased traffic to those articles. As for needing to change the article again right after the event, that shouldn't be difficult with so many editors interested in the topic. Given that there is a table with all 99 previous game results, someone would need to come here to edit in the 100th result anyway. Johntex\^talk 17:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a good and valid question, but I don't really see the harm in it. Folks might reasonably come here prior to the game looking for good information. As long as the information is good, I can't see a reason to excise it. Somebody will clean it up after the game is over. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I took out the information as it is now 2006. Let the score board do the talking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.9.189 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2006 June 20

The information has been restored. First, the 2006 game has not been played yet, so the 2005 game is the most recent on-field result. Second, the 2005 game will always be a special result since it was the 100th meeting. Johntex\^talk 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I think the information in this section is perfectly good, I also think that merely having this section is rather POV. Sure, it's the 100th meeting, but most of the information revolves around Longhorn records and their path to the national championship. To fix this problem, we could include:

• A) A section on notable Red River games, including others besides 2005, and
• B) A section on Red River Shootout records (including stats such as Jamaal Charles' rushing records)

Until such a time as the section doesn't purely emphasise Longhorn success, I'm putting a POV tag on the section. - Runch 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for expanding the article, but I strenuously object to the tag. The 100th meeting was significant and the section talks about the meeting in a NPOV way. A POV tag is not warranted because the section is written in correct NPOV style. If there is such a things as a "needs expansion" tag that might be less inappropriate, but I don't know what good it would do since most articles on Wikipedia do need expansion. Johntex\^talk 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What is significant about the 2005 game other than it being the 100th occurrence? If it is because the winner went on to win the Nat'l Championship, there should be sections for many years. No offense, Johntex, but you and I are a little biased and truthfully many people that visit this page are probably as well. So getting the input of outside readers, people who wouldn't normally read the article, may be beneficial and definitely couldn't hurt.--NMajdan•talk 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Significance of the 100th game (from weakest to strongest in my opinion) is:

1. It is human nature to consider milestones like 100th and 1,000,000th as being more important than other similar events.
2. Both teams were very highly ranked (not unique, but doen't happen every year, either)
3. One team went on to win the National Championship (again, not unique, but not an annual occurance either)
4. First game played since creation of the article. (Although we should strive to achieve historical balance, it is natural that people will tend to write about recent events where there is easily available information at hand).
5. Game received extra media attention as a result of being the 100th meeting and a special commemorative DVD was released.
6. First year with corporate sponsorship and corporate name.
7. Most recent game played in the series. (For a few more weeks at least)

Again, I have no objection to adding other sections, but this section is written in a NPOV manner and does not deserve a POV tag. I certianly never objected to outside opinion, but I most assuredly have the right to disagree with those outside opinions when I believe they are in error. Johntex\^talk 19:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OU was unranked going into that game.--NMajdan•talk 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! My memory plays tricks on me. I retract that statement. At least I was right when I said it is not every year when both teams are highly ranked.  :-) Johntex\^talk 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me try and clarify my position: The only aspect of the section that I feel is at all biased is that it focuses on a year that we (Texas) did very well and ignores all other performances, both good and bad, by Texas or OU. Perhaps a POV tag wasn't the best option, but it has generated some discussion on the matter, and as you mentioned, Johntex, perhaps we just need to expand the article. When I get a chance, I'll be more than willing to help. I think we should start by adding a section on historically notable games, and Red River Shootout Records.

As soon as we have at least one or two more notable games summarized, I think we can move the 2005 game summary into a new section, and of course, remove the POV tag.

Also, does anyone happen to know any credible sources that we could use as references for these sections? - Runch 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Runch, thanks for your reply.

For recent years, it should be possible to find pretty good results using Google or other search engine. I would suggest starting out using as one of your search terms either the date of the game or the date after the game, since many articles would presumably come out the next day.

For older games, it will probably be considereably harder since we can't expect the news sources to be available online. In the section below this one, there is the full text of an article on the first game, which has now passed into the public domain because it is so old. We could certainly quote from it with attribution.

Since you agree that the section does not violate NPOV, I ask that you remove the POV tag you have placed on the article.

I believe I have found a more appropriate tag, which is is . According to this list of templates, the correct usage for this template is on the Talk page of the article, not in the article itself.[1] Best, Johntex\^talk 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Or this: .--NMajdan•talk 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Runch 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you both! I added a new section break called "Notable games" though that may not be the best title since the word "notable" might be problematic. I added the 1900 game, which in a way worsens our problem because now we have 2 Texas victories described, but at least the Austin paper spends most of their time complaining about the Texas team not being better than they wear. What other games should be included and which ones should we focus on first? I would suggest that the 2000 season should be added since that game led to OU's most recent national title. It's also notable as the biggest blowout of the series. Again, it should be easy to find information on that one. Johntex\^talk 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've now added the 2000 game. I look forward to everyone's edits. Johntex\^talk 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Austin Newspaper Story on 1st Meeting

The following is the Austin American-Statesman article on the first ever game between UT and OU. It was published October 14 1900. Note that neither team was using their current team name at that time:

TEXAS 28, OKLAHOMA 2

Practice game yesterday

The game of football yesterday afternoon at the Varsity athletic field was an interesting contrast, notwithstanding the rather one-sided score of 28-2 in favor of the Varsity.

The Oklahoma men played a very good game, but they had weak points and the Varsity men found this out, and proceeded to take advantage of them. For instance, the visitors' tackles and ends were weak, and the Varsity men made most of their gains through these men. Their guards and center, though, were stiff enough, and the Varsity's attack at these points never netted large gains, and were frequently futile.

While Oklahoma should be given credit for the stiffness of her center trio, the fact that the Varsity backs made but small headway at these points is partly due to the Varsity backs themselves. They had not the life and dash that is necessary to successful line plunging, and they failed to heed Coach Thompson's oft repeated admonition to hit the line low and with speed, and the consequence was that when they got to the line they did not have the necessary momentum to plunge on through.

This was the case, notwithstanding the fact that the men are coached to play a good distance behind the line, so that they can get up speed by the time they reach it.

Leslie was particularly slow in this respect, although he sprinted well on the end plays. Napler comes in for criticism on this point also, as does the elder McMahon and the other men who played behind the line.

Posted by Johntex\^talk 22:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Imitation and Flattery

WOAI (San Antonio) ran an article on their website (here) which was a copy/paste of information from this article. I contacted them to let them know that Wikipedia is available under the GFDL but that they had to comply with that license, cite Wikipedia properly (WP:CW), etc. They promptly took the article down. Good work to everyone who has made this article worth copying by a commercial news outlet!!! Johntex\^talk 22:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

1975 game

Johntex, I reverted your edits back to the previous by IP. He had the correct score which you reverted back to the incorrect score. Here is proof of the correct score: http://soonerstats.com/fb/seasons/schedule.cfm?SeasonID=1975. Just letting you know.--NMajdan•talk 01:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Listing of the 2003 game in Notable Games

There should be a mention of the significance of the 2003 game. Currently, it is the game with the largest winning margin for either team.

I agree. Please add it in if you like or if not then I'll try to remember to write something up when I have a bit of time. Johntex\^talk 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Verification / POV

I removed a verification/POV template from the article today because there were no specific concerns raised here on the talk page. I'm sure we can do better, but the article has a fair number of sources and generally seems (to me at least) to be pretty fair at discussing the two teams. If anyone wants to re-tag the article please list actual objections here so that they can be addressed. Thanks! Johntex\^talk 07:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed subjective section from 'Venue'

I removed a section from 'Venue', because it sounded biased. There may be a better way to phrase what was written regarding the OU fans heckling the Texas players. It may be true, but at the very least, it needs a more neutral tone. I removed it because it sounded a little inflammatory. If someone can reword it neutrally, I wouldn't have a problem with them undoing my revision.→Deser† sapper•≈talk 17:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Desert sapper, thanks for explaining your reasoning. I agree with you that the information was not well worded.

However, it is true that the Sooners did formerly control the south end zone every year. It is true that they pelted the Longhorn players with debris (though this has been lessened by a cover over the entryway). It is also true that as a result of the extension that the two teams will now alternate which has the south end zone.

Most opinions I have read say this equates to the Sooners giving up an advantage, but some think that the sorth endzone confers an advantage because there are a few more seats there and whoever controls it will have an advantage in crowd noise for plays going into the North end zone.

We should leave the info out until it is written a bit better and backed up by one or more sources. Johntex\^talk 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is true, Johtex. It's fairly well documented ('Bootlegger's Boy', 'Running with the Big Dogs', various DMN and DO articles throughout the years). The wording didn't sound objective enough. This DO article is the latest I've seen that mentions it: click here →Deser† sapper•≈talk 16:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable games

I dont think this section belongs in the article because whatever games are chosen, it'll be subjective to the views of the editor. Its ok for Bill Little to do it at Mackbrown-texasfootball.com, but I dont think wikipedia's the place for it. Corpx 05:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to Red River Rivalry

• I think it should be moved there because its the new official name. Place a redirect in the current place, similiar to what was done on UFCU Disch-Falk Field. Corpx 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a recent OU graduate and I've never--ever--heard anybody call it the "Red River Rivalry" (aside from the media or corporations involved.) The name "Red River Shootout" is by far more common and will probably continue to be far more common for the foreseeable future. Thus, the article should be left where it is. (As as example, take a look at the article for South Korea. The country is officially just the "Republic of Korea", but because it is more commonly known as "South Korea", that's what the article is named." 211.18.204.250 (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OU-tx2006.gif

Image:OU-tx2006.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:SBC Red River Rivalry 100 year logo.JPG

The image Image:SBC Red River Rivalry 100 year logo.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Red River Shootout/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a fairly well written article.. I'm not sure how expansion could take place but from a glance, it does not appear to be up to GA or FA standards. drumguy8800 C T 06:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)