Talk:Texas Longhorns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to The University of Texas at Austin, the people, history, and sports teams of the University, and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
UT Portal
football
College football Portal

Texas Longhorns is part of WikiProject College football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Assessment Comments

Contents

[edit] Rivalries

Concerning which is the bigger rival, OU or Texas A&M: This has been discussed greatly in the past, and there are links to discussions here and here.

Sorry, I forgot to sign the above comment. Johntex\talk 17:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

(Fixed the first link and added another. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

At one point in time, Texas and Stanford were rivals in football. This article discusses the revival of the rivalry across a multitude of sports. Definitely a very strange rivalry, but worth noting in the wiki. [1] 24.155.179.9 00:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas for Improvement

I've been doing some digging for programs that currently have articles and adding them to the Category:College athletic programs. Those articles might give us some ideas on how to make this page better. If you come across any other programs, please add the category tag to them. Johntex\talk 02:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logo vote

Okay, first I should say as an OU fan and former student, that I shouldn't be helping you Longnut fans. But I saw that sorry *(&%*%$#!~~!@#$ logo and couldn't help but be compassionate. In the spirit of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I made some new logos for you UTex fans. First look at the sorry old logo:

Image:UT Logo with Texas and Longhorn image.JPG or Image:UT Logo with Texas and Longhorn image.jpg or Image:UT Longhorn logo with Texas.gif

Next vote for one of the new ones that I made and I will post it up. The raw ones are even bigger than these:

Image:UTex-Vote.PNG

  1. White (a new one w/white background)
  2. Lt.Grey
  3. Dr.Grey
  4. Black

Happy voting and GO SONNERS! I'll give you a couple weeks from today.

WikiDon 20:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the current one's fine -- it blends better with the page background. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the work, WikiDon, and congratulations on the Baylor game. I think the current one is OK. I think it might be nice if it was a little bigger. The main thing is to stick to an official, undedited official logo. Johntex\talk 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can make it look like any of these: Offical Longhorn Logos @ utexas.edu
(You know OU football is down when they have to go to overtime to beat Baylor.)
PS They reason this sickly logo (if it was a real longhorn the vet would put it down) came to my attention, was I wanted to put all of the Big 12 logos on the Big 12 Conference page. Take a look at the page and you'll see what I mean. Try not to laugh at that sickly-chicken looking jayhawk for KU. WikiDon 00:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should probably go a little bigger, but I agree about having an official logo. Definately stick with the white background. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You need to move the whit Longhorn to the bottom right to make you list under it make scense. Trav230 19:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC) It was easier to just re-order the list....WikiDon

As a Longhorn, I cannot sign off on any of the four-grid Longhorn logos. No offense, but they visually just don't appeal to me. I also now realize that my first upload doesn't match the official color guidelines, so maybe that image should be put up for deletion.
As for what I've just added, it is taken directly from the university's Longhorn Graphic Visual Guidlines.
Also, PNGs, SVGs or GIFs preserve colors better when it comes to logos than JPGs (which are made to compress photos) do. So our best bet will be with one of the first three said formats.
Finally, I'm emailing the Office of Trademark Licensing Graphics contact tonite to ask for a high quality, official Longhorn logo. With a high quality logo file and the blessing of the university, that may help settle this discussion. jareha 07:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Jonathan, your not picking any "four-grid logo", your were to pick from ONE of the FOUR.
1 White (a new one w/white background)
2 Lt.Grey
3 Dr.Grey
4 Black
So far every one wants WHITE. I just put them together for voting purposes, hence the name UTex-VOTE!!!! Mine are PNG's. they are 431x441 and 558kb. WikiDon 08:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Last I checked, WP is still a collaborative effort. I must agree with Jonathan and say that I find your four choices to be unappealing, especially with regard to the strange (and unofficial, to my knowledge) black borders around the text and the overall lack of quality of the images. If we can obtain an official high-resolution Longhorn logo from the Trademark office, then I think that's definitely the best direction to take. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 09:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
WikiDon, I wrote that I don't like "any of the four-grid" logos. In other words, I'm not picking any of the four. Even though the logos you have are PNGs, and large, they aren't crisp/sharp, largely due to the logo outlines (as bbatsell mentioned). The logo currently on Texas Longhorn Athletics is official — albeit small and therefore temporary. We'll see what the trademark office's thoughts are about offering a proper logo, though. I'm optimistic. jareha 09:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Bbatsell, I said I can make it look like any of these: Official Longhorn Logos @ utexas.edu
Why would you say this is NOT a collaborative effort? As for the border around the word "Texas"; try going to the OFFICIAL site, downloading the image, and then enlarging, or magnifying it, you will see (although crappy) the border in black and white.WikiDon 16:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Image:TxSOLID.PNG is the best I want to do. 1000 times better than the piece of shit that was there in there first place. WikiDon 16:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
WikiDon, no need to shout/curse. The logo I took directly from the official site doesn't have a black border. And the image you just mentioned still doesn't have clean edges. I'd rather go with a quality small image, than a poor, large one. jareha 19:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Olympians

Hmm... we mention one Olympian connected with the womens volleyball team. But I know for sure that there was another athlete that went to the 2000 Olympics, because I was in several J classes with her at the time: Erin Aldrich [2]. She was on the UT volleyball team but I think she was in the Olympics for high jump. Should we mention all Longhorn Olympians? I'm sure there were probably more. Or was it only interesting enough to be mentioned because the volleyball program kicks ass? · Katefan0(scribble) 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

We should definately mention all Olympians. I know there are plenty- pretty sure there was at least one swimmer; Cat Osterman was on the softball team; and I'm sure there were several more. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Update: Here are some good pages to get info on Longhorn Olympians: Roster of 2004 Longhorn Olympians. All Longhorn medal winners can be found at this page. I don't have time to put all of this together, but we should probably think of a good format before just throwing this info on the page. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
A comprehensive page would probably eventually encompass its own article come to think of it. Of course it'd only be natural to start with the most current (and therefore most verifiable) information. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New logo image, fyi

Image:Texas.gif · Katefan0(scribble) 21:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • (Changed the above to an image link — hope you don't mind Kate.) I've found a logo (Image:Texas.gif) that might suit our purposes. As I simply updated the previous image, no image links will need to be changed. Benefits of the new version:
    • Pulled from an official source: Live the Dream 2006.
    • Features transparency, which should give the image some flexibility. My next goal is locating a logo with alpha transparency, so that it can be placed on backgrounds of any color.
    • Clean edges.
    • And finally, it's fairly large (372x190 px), yet very small in file size (4.89 KB).

jareha 10:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Longhorns

Show of hands: what would you all think about moving this page to Texas Longhorns (which already redirects here)? jareha 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd oppose. Many other groups, etc. are called Longhorns that have nothing to do with athletics. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 17:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Same here. We discussed this before this page was created, and decided that Texas Longhorn Athletics was the best solution. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Apologies, I hadn't known of such a discussion until now. Nevermind this casual vote then. jareha 18:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jareha, thanks for the suggestion. There is no need to apologize - the discussion was over at the main UT article back when we created this page from info off that page. The advantage to this name, as Katefan points out, is that this name is fairly descriptive and fairly unique. On the other hand, it is a little longer and not the most common term one would expect to hear used. I myself don't have a stron opinion either way. Johntex\talk 16:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
With both yours and Kate's reasoning in mind I wholeheartedly agree. Glad to see you back from your wikibreak! jareha 16:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005-2006 Texas Longhorns football

Isn't there too much content in this article regarding that particular season? Can't we just let the link to 2005 Texas Longhorn Football Team suffice to access these details and let the size of the football section of this article be consistent with the other sections? - Bevo 15:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think one motivation for creating the seperate story is to be able to reduce the amount of space here that is devoted to just one teams season. I do think the total amount of space we have devoted to the football program is not the problem. Rather, the problem in my view is that too much of the space focuses on the most recent season, and that the other sports are getting too little space, as opposed to football getting too much. I would like to see us re-write the football section to cover more of the programs overall history, and I'd also like to see coverage of other sports expanded. Johntex\talk 18:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School colors

The question of what are the official school colors has been discussed at Talk:University_of_Texas_at_Austin#Color_Controversy, and further references are provided at that page. Please go there for any subsequent questions or discussions about this. Johntex\talk 18:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable fans

I would like it if they showed some notable fans of the Longhorns, because there is some.

lots of teams have notable fans, and I'm not sure I'd like to see that added to each team section which is what would end up happening. On top of people claiming one person is more of a fan of one team over another. Cliveklg 05:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References for Rivalry section

Today someone tagged the rivalry section as unreferenced. I've now added 27 references to this section. However, I couldn't find references for the following information, and I'm removing it from the article to this talk page, pending verification:

  • The Red River Rivalry has given rise to a great deal of negative stereotyping on the part of both fanbases: Sooners are often portrayed as poor, ignorant hillbillies envious of the state of Texas while Longhorns are portrayed as arrogant, self-glorifying cowboy pretenders.
  • Prior to the game, a ball is run from the 50 yard line of each school's football field to the cotton bowl by members of each school's ROTC. Though more than 50 game balls are used during the game, the first balls used by each side is the ball that is run from their stadiums.
  • So far the Longhorns' most distant rival is the University of Southern California Trojans.

If anyone can find a good source for any of the above, please add it back in. With that done, I'm removing the tag. Johntex\talk 21:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Would anyone object to a move to Texas Longhorns to be in line with most of the other college athletics pages? -Elmer Clark 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • OK by me. - Bevo 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be OK with the name change. When we first created this page, we wanted to allow inclusion of intramural sports. Since intramural sports teams are playing each other they naturally don't call themselves the Longhorns. At the time, there were very few similar pages on Wikipedia. Now that other school pages have tended to go with the shorter names, perhaps we should too. If necesary, we can split off the intramural sports into its own article now that this main article is getting longer. Johntex\talk 23:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PNG version of the logo

Can someone generate a PNG formatted version of the logo in the infobox? - Bevo 20:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rv in error

My "23:10, 16 September 2006 Bevo (Talk | contribs) (rv)" edit was an error! Thought I'd better place a note here in case someone was curious. - Bevo 22:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Leading into the 2006 season"

This section is no longer relevant. Can someone familiar with the team rewrite it to summarize the season so far? -Elmer Clark 22:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point - thanks! I took a stab at rewriting it to reflect the current situation. Johntex\talk 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Much better, nice job (and quick too!) :) -Elmer Clark 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schedule

Including two football schedules seems a bit over the top as far as content goes. The External link covers the schedule just fine. If we are to include those, why not all the schedules past and present? Cliveklg 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is primarily a historical accident. We got active at updating the schedule during the 2005 season and just never deleted it as the 2006 season began. I'll remove the 2005 season unless there are any objections. Johntex\talk 02:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I would support its removal. -Elmer Clark 03:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I also support the removal of the 2005 schedule in this article. - Bevo 02:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Works for me, and perhaps a precedent for each season when updated to remove the old. Cliveklg 05:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed it since consensus clearly favors it. -Elmer Clark 18:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Accuracy

As Notre Dame is considered the 1970 National Champion team by everyone outside of Texas, isn't it better to say that the 1969 Texas team was the last non-integrated National Champ team? It certainly is the last consensus champ team.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.237.159 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2006 November 26

Well, UT was crowned the 1970 National Champions by one of the two most commonly cited national polls, so I don't think you will find support for the idea that no one outside of Texas acknowledges the 1970 UT championship team. Johntex\talk 06:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football subsections

I noticed there is a subsection for each of the past three football seasons in the football section—are subsections for the upcoming football seasons going to be added (when the time comes) as well? Wouldn't that make the article a bit lengthy? --Blueag9 (Talk | contribs) 07:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. I have re-written and condensed these individual seasons into a section tited "Texas Longhorns under Mack Brown". I also added a navigational template to help the reader find what individual season articles have been written so far. Johntex\talk 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • On a related note, what about the "Football All-Time Award Winners" and "All-Time University of Texas Football Team"? They are listed both here and at the football article. Should they stay in both places, or only at the football article? Johntex\talk 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Players

I think this is based solely on POV and not any objective criteria. Even then, I dont think an encyclopedia should be setting criteria on who is notable. I came upon Point Guard, Power Forward etc having a "Notable Players" section, which was discussed at wikiproject NBA (Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#.22Notable.22_players_on_position_pages) and was decided that this didnt belong in the article. So, I think this should also apply here. Corpx 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Many articles on Wikipedia give a short list of notable alumni for a school, notable residents for a city, etc. Wikipedia is by our very nature involved in setting criteria on who is notable. We actually have policies and guidelines about this. For instance, please see WP:BIO and WP:BAND. All or most of the players mentioned in this article have their own articles on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think we should use as our criteria whether the player has their own article. If so, then we list them. If not, then they are not notable enough to be listed in this article. Johntex\talk 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My concern is that everyone could add their favorite player form Category:Texas Longhorns football players into this sentence, because they all pass the notability guideline. This was the same problem in Point Guard, where users kept adding their favorite players to the list of favorite PGs, since they're all pass WP:BIO. Corpx 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is certainly a risk of that. How about if we say something like:
Two Texas Longhorn running backs have won college football's most prestigious individual award, the Heisman Trophy: Earl Campbell (1977) and Ricky Williams (1998). Eleven Longhorns have been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame[1], while four are enshrined in the NFL Hall of Fame.[2] Other Longhorn players have also recognition for their performance.
- Johntex\talk 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I like it, except for the last sentence. Is there a way to reword it, because not everyone in that category has received recognition for their performance. (which I interpret as winning an award). Corpx 18:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would argue that from a literal stand-point, these players have received some sort of "recognition" in that they are notable enough to have an article, but I agree with you that it could be interpreted to mean they are award winners, which may not apply to everyone. I bet we can come up with an improvement if we think on it. I don't have a better idea at the moment. I don't think we want to call these players "notable" and we should try to avoid self references like "Other Longhorn players who have Wikipedia articles include...". Any ideas? Johntex\talk 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conference Championships?

Is this section necessary? It's exactly what's on Texas Sports and I think it clutters up the page. Should we replace the years with just the total # of championships in each sport? Corpx 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't really see a compelling reason to remove it. One can find all manner of information on this subject and others on external sites. We're striving to gather this information and make it accessible in one location. I don't see inclusiveness as any sort of flaw here. If you find the section too large, perhaps you could experiment with decreasing the text size of the years (2000, 2002, 2004).~ João Do Rio 05:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also think it should remain in the article. It is more infomative than just the number of championships in each sport since it gives the reader a good indication of whether success is a new or ancient phenomenon, or whether it has been sustained over time. Johntex\talk 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas Longhorns rather than Texas

I have modified several references to the team as "Texas" added Longhorns to provide better clarification. With a Texas State university, a Pro team named the Texans, and another pro team named "Texas" the addition of the Longhorn name will ensure that there is no opportunity for confusion. Additionally, it does not lengthen the article or affect the readability of the article to add this additional information Macae 08:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • In the context of college football, only UT is referred to as "Texas" and this article is solely about college football, so would like to say that I dont see the need for this replacements. Corpx 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Texas College out of Tyler, Texas refers to themselves as the Texas Steers. Now I don't think most people reading this article will confuse the two programs but why not provide the more correct, clarified term in the interest of being more specific when possible. I don't think the changes adversely affect the content of the article. Additionally, the term "Texas Football" does not always refer to just Longhorn football. It also is used as a generic term to describe all football in Texas. i.e. Dave Campbell's annual "Texas Football" magazine. Macae 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't mind sprinkling the word "Longhorns" throughout the article to reinforce that this is the particular team we are talking about. However, we should not take the existence of a couple of more minor sports teams to drive us to use "Longhorns" at every occurrence. Calling this team simply "Texas" is an extremely common name. We should point that out in the very first line of the article, and we should be prepared to use "Texas" as a synonym to avoid endlessly repeating "Texas Longhorns". Johntex\talk 16:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • N.B.: The article originally contained a note in the opening paragraph explaining that UT and UT sports teams are frequently referred to as "Texas." Macae inexplicably removed this note while substituting other names for "Texas" in almost all cases. ~ João Do Rio 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why the additions to the "Texas" name are creating concern. At best, it clarifies the article, and at worst, it doesn't do any harm. Also, there is no need to add Longhorns to every example and this has not been done. It is also just as practical to use the term "University of Texas" to again avoid any possibility of confusion while still maintaining readability. And in a few sections of the article where there appears to be absolutely no chance of confusion, the stand alone "Texas" name is still listed.Macae\talk 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Some repetition is OK, but endless repetition is tedious and we also want some variety. We should be using synonyms such as "Longhorns", "UT" and "Texas" throughout the article in order to help keep it fresh for the reader. There is no significant chance of confusion here between The University of Texas and other teams like Texas State University. Johntex\talk 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CLC

Why is the line "Many large schools are not members of Collegiate Licensing Company however and were not ranked. " needed? The article does not say Texas was the #1 college in sales, but rather was the #1 client by CLC. I see no need for the statement Corpx 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

While the statement is correct, it could be create confusion since since the name Collegiate Licensing gives the impression that all colleges are part of this ranking. A single additional sentence clarifying that not all schools are part of CLC will eliminate this potential confusion without affecting the readability of the article.Macae 04:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it causes confusion, neither did BlueAg09, who added the information in the first place and neither did JohnTex, who moved it. I think the consensus is that it does not cause confusion Corpx 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I think Macae's clarification should definitely be in the article. I don't really think it needs to be in the lead. The lead is for touching on topics, not explaining them in detail. Johntex\talk 15:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I was fine with your revision, in moving it to the body Corpx 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not think Johntex wanted the removal from the lead, as his edits do not reflect it. I've asked him to comment further Corpx 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry I was not clear. My preference is to mention the merchandising record in the lead. However, I think that the more detailed explanation of who is / is not included in the CLC record belongs in the body, not the lead. The lead is a summary of facts/events that are covered in more detail in the article. I made this edit as an example of what I am suggesting. Johntex\talk 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This revision was what I was in support with earlier. I see that my comments were also ambiguous Corpx 15:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that the marketing information is important enough to include twice in the article. It would seem to fit better in the main body itself. However, it is also not a big enough issue to merit endless debate and I am fine leaving as is if this is consensus.Macae 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DKR/Former OU safety

Mention this information at Darrell Royal, but there is no context to justify addition of this information when talking about the national championship history. Shouldn't contested changes be removed while discussion is taking place? Should Mack Brown be referred to as the former Sooner offensive coordinator in context of the 2005 MNC? Corpx 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Mack Brown was only the OU offensive coordinator for a single year (1984) and also has held a large number of such jobs over the years, I am not sure that this is quite as relevant as the fact that the greatest coach in Longhorn history played football for, and still holds several records for the Longhorn's second biggest rival. As far as contested changes being removed while discussion is taking place.... If the information was thought to be inaccurate than it is probably warranted. But since this information is correct, it doesn't seem to warrant immediate removal, especially without explanation as to the reasons for removal. Macae 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the appropriatness of the mention of Royal's alma mater as part of a description of Longhorn football, I based the validity on the mention in the same section of Mack Brown's former coaching position at North Carolina and the fact that it does not hinder the readability of the section. However, if others in the group feel that the information is not necessary, I certainly will have no problem with removal the reference. Interesting information? Certainly. Vital to the content of the article? Not at all. Macae 15:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DKR holds several OU records, but all that information is completely irrelevant, when mentioning the 63/69/70 national championships. That would be like saying Peyton Manning, former QB at Tennessee, won the MVP of the super bowl or saying . The fact that DKR played at OU is trivial, when it comes to mentioning the national championships at Texas. It is appropriate for his bio. Corpx 15:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this opinion CJC47 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is noteworthy that the most successful coach at Texas played his college ball at the university's rival. But, to me, in this context, it is a toss up. I would have no problem going either way but I would lean towards removing it from this article.↔NMajdan•talk 21:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important that we keep college rivalry weauxfing (which annoyingly seems to have been deleted) out of these articles. There isn't much reason to include that detail here other than for the amusement of OU fans. --B 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning he's a former OU player would be interesting and noteworthy if talking about the rivalry between these schools, but otherwise isn't needed, including here. MECU≈talk 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Club teams

Should club athletic programs at Texas be added to the list of sports?69.134.196.7 19:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)