Talk:Red River Showdown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Red River Rivalry)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject College football (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of College football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Oklahoma / University of Oklahoma (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by OU Task-force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Bridge War?[edit]

The inclusion of the Red River Bridge War is silly. the Bridge war was in 1931 and the Shootout started in 1900. The fact is that the shootout refers to boundary disputes between Oklahoma and Texas and the Red River War. The disputes often included Rancher interests and Indians in the disputed area. The reference to the red river Bridge War should be removed. SaltySailor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.217.52 (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent Game Results[edit]

Now that the 2011 game is complete, I would be much obliged if somebody with the necessary privileges would update the information. Relevant news article can be found here. 70.113.200.133 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Cotton Bowl[edit]

The Cotton Bowl sets East to West so there is no South or North end zone. Just wanted to clear this up. This is why the game is played near noon because the sun would affect the player's vision if it were later in the afternoon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.50.183 (talkcontribs) 10:11, March 13, 2009

Not so. The stadium field is on a NW and SE line, not East / West. Look at any aerial map. In recent decades the game is played at 2:30, occasionally at 11:00 A.M. No game is scheduled because of the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.134.29 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Meetings section[edit]

A rewrite of the Meetings section is sorely needed, but I do not have the time nor desire right now to undertake it. Hopefully someone else can or this can serve as a reminder for me in the future. This section reeks of WP:RECENTISM. Very little is provided prior to 1990 and what is provided is hit-and-miss (no writeup for 2002, 2004, & 2006). Ideally, I would like to see this broken down by era or decade. Following the 2009 matchup would be a good time for all 2000-2009 sections to be merged into one decade or Brown/Stoops era section with a length of 2-3 paragraphs.↔NMajdantalk 18:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't stop thinking about this so I decided to take a look at coaching tenures, win/loss records and team ratings to come up with a way to break down the article when it is rewritten. This is just a guideline, not set in stone so this can be improved. Here's what I got along with some brief explanation of how I came up with it:
  • Early days of the rivalry (1900-1923)
Obviously, this is the place to start. Texas went through many coaches and OU had coach Owen from 1905-1926. The location jumped around between Austin, Norman, Houston & OKC. No other easy way to break this down. Also the earliest years will be the hardest to find sources, so it makes sense to group more years here. Texas dominated the early years going 14-8-1.
  • Move to Dallas (1929-1945)
First year the game was permanently moved to Dallas was 1929, so I thought this was a good way to start a new section. Texas had a little bit more stability at head coach with Littlefield and Bible. OU this time went through 5 coaches in this amount of time. Texas improved its early-rivalry dominance going 13-3-1.
  • The rivalry intensifies (1946-1957)
This era is when the two teams really began to improve. Texas came into the game ranked #1 in 1946 (OU unranked) and for the rest of this era, at least one team was ranked every time they played including 3 games where OU was #1 and 8 games where one team was in the top 6. This was also the time of OU's 47 game winning stream under coach Wilkinson. 1957 was the first year of Texas's lengedary coach Darrell Royal. OU gains control in the rivalry in this era going 9-3.
  • Texas regains control (1958-1970)
Some of these titles may change as more research is done. The current title was decided considering during this era, Texas went 12-1 including a 9 game winning streak, still the longest in the series. This era covers most of Royal's tenure (all but the first year and the last 6). With the exception of 1958 & 1963, OU was down most of this era while Texas was ranked in the top 4 eight times. OU's lone win came when both teams were unranked.
  • Battle at the top (1971-1988)
Again, titles can change. This era covers the end of Royal's term and all of coach Switzer's and coach Akers's. In this era, every game but one featured one of the teams ranked in the top 10 including 9 games where both teams were ranked in the top 10. Of all the sections I have layed out, this is the one that stands out that may need to be broken into two sections. OU went 11-5-2 in this era.
  • The underdogs and the brief decline (1989-1997)
I would assume this would be the shortest section given the smallest time slice. This era covers the Mackovic term at Texas and the Gibbs/Schnelly/Blake era at OU. Texas was ranked in the bottom half of the polls in 1994-96 and unranked the other years while OU was ranked in the middle of the poll in 1989 & 1992-95 but at the top of the poll in 1990-91. Despite those rankings, OU only won one game. Texas regained control in this era going 6-2-1.
  • Resurgance to national prominence (1998-present)
This final part of the article can mostly be culled from the already written sections while summarizing what exists and filling in the holes. The section covers the Mack Brown/Bob Stoops era. This era is probably the most balanced of them all with OU going 6-4.
Sources:
Again, none of this is set in stone. Just throwing ideas out there for anyone else to look at and/or for myself when and if I ever to revisit this article. But that is seven sections (eight if you break up the 1971-1988 section), so this would make for a lengthy article. The best precedent for this article looks to be the Michigan – Ohio State rivalry article.↔NMajdantalk 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Section[edit]

The 2009 section is clearly written with a favorable bias in favor of the University of Texas. While I may re-write it, I'm a bit busy at the moment. Thought I'd post it up.

Warbirdadmiral (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

Rewriting this article is on my long-term list of things to do and if I ever do get around to it, I'd probably remove a lot of the individual game writeups. They suffer dramatically of recentism and the 2009 is completed unsourced and yes, very POV. It definitely needs to be cleaned up. I still have to do the write-up for 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team.—NMajdantalk 18:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have finished my write-up of the 2009 game at 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Texas. Feel free to copy over to this article what you need. But, it doesn't need to be as long.—NMajdantalk 21:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Common Name OU-Texas/Texas-OU[edit]

A small edit war has been going on for quite sometime regarding if it is "OU-Texas or Texas-OU" or: "Texas-OU or OU-Texas". This occurs especially during the leadup to the game each year with constant editing of this including deletion of Texas-OU or OU-Texas. I myself am from Dallas and hear it only as "The Texas-OU game" however I have many friends in Norman who refer to it as "The OU-Texas game". I have edited this several times over the past few years citing that we should use alphabetical order in regards to which comes first (even though I refer to it strictly as the Texas-OU game) and to address any vandalism attempts at deleting one reference. What do you all think? Snump (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is unlikely any way to take a widespread poll of the populous, but anyone with a basic insight into the landscape of the country would tell you that it is more commonly referred to as "Texas-Ou" than "Ou-Texas", and therefore "Texas-Ou" should be listed first. I am all for the page being kept free of vandalism and the game being listed in bot fashions, but in this instance majority rules.Jexes23 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Alphabetical order would be the better option you cant list by which state you you live in. I live in Oklahoma and refer to the game as OU-Texas but I know that folks living in Texas use Texas-OU, which is fine but for this page it should be listed in Alphabetical order to ovoid pov issues and be in line with WP:Neutral point of view which is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies.--SteamIron 10:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, although as I previously stated I live in Texas and commonly refer to it at the Texas-OU game but see it as affecting WP:Neutral point of view since Oklahoma refers to it as OU-Texas. For the time being I will keep reverting changes to OU-Texas first to keep with WP:Neutral point of view. Snump (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Well its not affecting point of view just on your part as I refer to it as OU-Texas so its both of us hence why Alphabetical order is a good idea to avoid point of view issues.--SteamIron 22:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The neutrality that is outlined by Wikipedia policy is met by having the game listed in both manners by giving both points of view. So with that established you should refer to the section of your previously linked article on "Due and undue weight". Using your logic that those who live in Texas more commonly refer to the game as Texas-OU and that those who live in Oklahoma more commonly refer to the game as OU-Texas it would only then be fair to take a look at the collective demographics of those states. The 2010 census estimates the population of Oklahoma to be around 3.7 million people, while that same census estimates the Texas population at around 25.1 million people. With the probability that the game is referred to as Texas-OU by almost 7 times as many people as those who refer to it as OU-Texas; (by your own logic) listing OU-Texas first gives undue weight to a minority position.Jexes23 (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
We are not going to look at census estimates read the policy on this issue--SteamIron 15:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Local bias will always be local bias no matter how large of a population there is; therefore alphabetical order keeps the neutrality of the article's introduction. Overall consensus at this point appears to be in favor of alphabetical therefore I'm reverting it back. Snump (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you on this we cant look at local bias no matter what as there will most likely be a larger population for the foreseeable future in Texas then in Oklahoma but that does not matter cause if we went by population there would be undue weight in the usage of Texas- OU which is what we want to avoid at all cost so the usage of alphabetical order is the best way to fix this issue. If Jexes23 continues to disagree I might ask an Admin to step in and mediate the situation.--SteamIron 21:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There is not a consensus, and since one cannot be reached the thing to do is to remove the line altogether. The article functions without the unofficial terminology. Jexes23 (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because you do not agree with the outcome does not mean that a consensus hasn't been reached. We are holding to the neutrality of WP's guidelines and are attempting to keep a common name in the article since both are common references to the gamename. People rarely refer to the game by it's bowl name but use the more common regional terminology. Therefore they will also search for it under those terms as well. We have attempted to discuss this on here but you have only provided one argument based upon the census on the areas and not WP's guidelines. Snump (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have asked an uninvolved Admin to come take a look at this to see what the say about this.--SteamIron06:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks Dcheagle. Snump (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A search query of the game will lead you to this article no matter if that line is present or not. While someone who commonly refers to the game as such will know what page they are on with or without that line. We've all read the neutrality policy, hence the reason I mentioned "undue weight" which is outlined in just that policy. Two people disagreeing with one is not a basis for a clear majority. After two weeks of the line being changed back and forth over and over, I think removing the line altogether is the best compromiseJexes23 (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I sorry but complete removal is out of the question.--SteamIron 06:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't strike me as a discussion. Hopefully you let the neutral admin know that compromise was out of the question, because you said so.Jexes23 (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

All I said was complete removal was out of the question I'm willing to compromise but not to that.--SteamIron 06:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It can go in one of two orders or be removed. So what is the compromise that you propose once the only compromise to speak of is off of the table? Jexes23 (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, hey, let's stop butting heads. Alphabetical order is one compromise; another option would be going by number of external references from reliable sources. I'm not saying this is the option I support, but here's what I'm thinking;

Texas-OU
OU-Texas

I found more Texas-OU references than I did OU-Texas, but I spent ten minutes looking. However, I'll leave it up to you guys to decide. That's just an unofficial suggestion. Officially, I'm here to ask you guys to stop edit-warring, or I'll have to start handing out blocks. Please, be mature. Next person to revert without consensus will be blocked, so don't do it. m.o.p 07:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The number of external references is a good measure in my opinion, and I would guess that the reason for the difference is because, for whatever reason, disproportionately more people refer to the game as the "Texas-OU" game than the "OU-Texas" game. Jexes23 (talk) 2:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I still believe we need to use Alphabetical order as its the best way to avoid any issue that is to rise from some thing like this. Any one can come on here and say because we list it as Texas-OU, OU-Teaxs that we are giving the fans in Texas more weight then the ones in Oklahoma so alphabetical order in this case would give equal weight to both sides. The whole point is to give both sides equal weight while not having any POV issues which I believe we have. I live in Oklahoma and I support the Sooner's and call the game OU-Teaxs but I leave the POV issue at home where it should be and yes if we do it alphabetical OU will come first but who cares about that all that matters is that we avoid any and all Pov issues and look forward to next years game in one of the best and historic Rivalrys in the country.--SteamIron 08:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that the 2012 football season, which began at 11 this morning, is officially over (roughly 3:00 PM CDT, Sat Oct 13) I just want muddy the water by saying that I, a native of Norman, never referred to it as anything but "the Texas game" until forced by a move to Houston into communicating with foreigners:-)Treethinker (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent games[edit]

The Recent games subsection is a bit of a mess. It is broken up into a series of very short blurbs, most of which do not indicate the year of the game being discussed. Since there are five paragraphs, it initially seems to address all games since 2008. However, the last paragraph appears to be a continuation of the prior game discussion. It would be much more readable if the specific games being discussed were noted (by year). It also seems reasonable to keep the discussions in a single paragraph for each game (unless the game is important enough to warrant its own section above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up some and added 2013 game. Someone who knows the history of the game better please check. I added the stat that brought me here, though - two defensive linemen scored in one game! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.34 (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Red River Shootout[edit]

The mention of the games former name is already addressed in the "series history" section. It does not need to be inserted into the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jexes23 (talkcontribs) 22:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The introduction is an overview of the article so its ok to mention the name in the the introduction.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 23:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure it's "ok", but that doesn't change the fact that it's redundant and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jexes23 (talkcontribs) 00:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
It's ok per WP:Lead the lead is meant to be a overview of the article that way first time readers who know nothing about the subject can read that and know that they have found the right page that covers the subject that there trying to learn about. So Red River Shootout should in the lead as it was the name for this game for years before the name was changed and its necessary and not redundant.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 02:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Since you insist on the edit, I'll at least make it grammatically correct since that seems too tough for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jexes23 (talkcontribs) 02:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I have always heard it refereed to as the Red River Shootout. SaltySailor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.217.52 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)