OU fans wanted to include the number of players picked first overall in the NFL draft. OU has had 3 such players: Billy Vessels in 1953, Lee Roy Selmon 1976, and Billy Sims 1980. (Note that Billy Vessels WAS the #1 NFL draft pick in 1953 but he turned the NFL down and went to the CFL; furthermore, Brian Bosworth was #1 in 1987 supplemental draft). UT has had three players picked first overall in the draft (Tommy Nobis 1966, Earl Campbell 1978, Kenneth Sims 1982).

Someone wrote that I should include the following quote from http://ww2.nfl.com/ce/feature/0,3783,5257458,00.html about Mack Brown: "During the past three years, he has coached, or recruited to his school, 15 first-round draft picks, including Dolphins running back Ricky Williams, Cardinals guard Leonard Davis, and Packers defensive end Vonnie Holliday." The "15 first round picks in three years" is probably a typo since it is obviously wrong. The date for that article is April 20, 2002. That means "the previous three years" would include the 2000, 2001, and 2002 draft. Including the entire list of the 94 draftees from those three years according to http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/drafts only 4 UT players and 2 North Carolina players were drafted in the first round. And if you want to talk about preparing a high-school recruit for the NFL, I'm not sure how much credit Mack Brown deserves for North Carolina stars Julius Peppers and Ryan Sims -- he did recognize their talent and recruit them to North Carolina before he left but he never coached them for even one down.

Someone wrote me that UT has four NFL Hall of Famers (Earl Campbell, Tom Landry, Bobby Layne, Tex Schramm) OU has two(Tommy McDonald, Lee Roy Selmon). I'm not sure how much that will matter to high school recruits. I think most high school players with aspirations for the pros want to PLAY A POSITION in the pros. Tom Landry and Tex Schramm were not inducted to the NFL Hall of Fame based on playing positions.

Someone wroteThe University of Texas had an NFL-record 17 players drafted in 1984 -- http://www.nfl.com/draft/2002/brandt_didyouknow.htmlThe OU single-season NFL quantity record appears to be 13 players drafted in 1988. If a high school recruit wanted to consider NFL preparation, they would probably be more interested in how the current coaches are doing with respect to placing players in the NFL. The following table compares 20 of the top recruiting schools and how they have faired with putting players into the NFL during the last 5 classes.

Someone wroteTWO longhorns were selected in the top five overall in 2002. Two OU players were selected in the top 4 in 1955, and again in 1976.

Someone wroteTWO longhorns were selected in the first round in 2001 and 2002. Actually, both schools have had 9 occurrences of two players drafted in the first round: UT years include 2005, 2004, 2002, 2001, 1991, 1980, 1664, 1953 and 1948. OU's nine years include 2005, 1988, 1984, 1981, 1980, 1976, 1970, 1955, and 1950. (Source: http://www.drafthistory.com/colleges/o.html, http://www.drafthistory.com/colleges/t.html) It is interesting to note that OU has had two draft-years where 3 players were drafted in the first round (1976 and 1970), and UT has had one such year (1980).

Someone wroteThere more Longhorns active in the NFL. This is currently true (as of July-25-2009).

Several years ago, someone wrote that Former Longhorns have been members of four of the last six Super Bowl Champion squads. Last year the top two running backs in the NFL were Longhorns. (Ricky Williams) The Offensive Player of the Year for the NFL last year was a Texas Ex. (Priest Holmes) I don't have a source for this kind of data, and my intent is to compare the college football programs of UT and OU, but OU alums have had success in the NFL too.

Someone wrote that UT holds the NFL record as the only school to have a player drafted every year since 1938. That is every year but two (1936, 1937). Since 1936, OU has also had players drafted in all but two years also (1962, 1995). (Note that OU placekicker Scott Blanton made the Washington Redskins squad as a free agent in 1995.) What I think high school players would find interesting is that Mack Brown has coached 10 players to be drafted in 5 years, and OU has produced 13 players to be drafted during that same time span. OU has more overall players to the NFL, and more recent players to the NFL: If having a future in the NFL is important, select OU over UT.

The following information shows Rivals Top 100 recruits by year. Note that this table is only Rivals top 100 high schoolers from 1999 to 2003. If a guy was a top 100 JUCO (Pasha Jackson, Lance Mitchell, for example) but not a top 100 high schooler, he's not included. So schools with star JUCO recruits are penalized in this ranking system. It also assumes that all incoming recruits will qualify, and no previous recruits will transfer/fail out between Spring practices and Autumn. (Source: adapted from a posting by CarKev14.)

Also see the ralated item below about Academic All-Americans for an indication of how OU student-athletes are currently fairing under coach Bob Stoops' tenure.

A recent study found OU ranked higher than UT in how well the incoming freshman scored on the SAT test. Results are from 1994-97 (the latest figures available).

Recent graduation rates (published in September 2003) show OU's overall athletic graduation rates at 74% (best in Big 12). UT's overall graduation rate was 56%. For football, OU's graduation rate was 65% (second best in Big 12) and UT's football graduation rate was 19%.

Someone wrote that I should Include the fact that OU's infractions were more severe than UT's infractions.This is true on the whole, but any infraction should be regarded as a very serious matter. While UT fans may dismiss UT's infractions, the NCAA has called them a serious infractions case and placed the football program on probation with penalties (e.g. reduction in grants and reduction in recruiting visits). Perhaps UT fans are willing to dismiss UT's infractions, but OU does not dismiss any infraction (even public reprimands). OU has taken great efforts to abide by every letter of the rules -- no excuses (and as mentioned earlier, 2 of the last 3 infractions have been from UT).

Someone responded to the aboveDarrell Royal was never penalized with limited scholarships, recruiting, TV or postseason play during his tenure. He was not forced into retirement because of NCAA violations. UT has never forfeited a conference title because of cheating (um I mean NCAA infractions either). May I remind you of the 1972 Big Eight championship.Darrell Royal did however coach UT during the span of three NCAA recruiting violations which were cited in the 1965 Infraction Report. I think you're trying to imply that the NCAA fired Barry Switzer over recruiting violations. That's wrong. OU's president at the time, David Swank, pressured Switzer to resign. If you want to believe that the differences between Swank and Switzer were based solely on football then go ahead. However, I doubt if you'll be able to convince anyone that observed the rhetoric from the two that their disputes were founded and based on the 1987 infraction report -- there was clearly a long-standing personality clash.

An OU fan responded to the above comment by a UT fan He needs to be reminded that Barry wasn't the head coach in 1972....and never lost a conference title because of forfeits either.

An OU fan wrote To those who say Switzer has no merit as a coach: Switzer won three national championship's at OU which were voted on by the AP and coaches. I would think that if the voters really had a problem with voting OU #1 given the infractions, then they easily could have voted someone else #1. And I think it's noteworthy to remember that Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl. Regarding the second paragraph: Granted I was only 6 years old in 1987, however, I have read about the history of our football program. Another big reason for the "differences" between Swank and Switzer was because Switzer had a hard time contolling his team.

Someone requested that I provide the source for the All American data. The Academic All American team is awarded by the "College Sports Information Directors of America" (CoSIDA). My information comes from CoSIDA. See http://www.cosida.com/allamerica/default.asp. I have also received emails from CoSIDA staff verifying my information.

Someone wrote Mentioning the Prentice Gautt Academic Center only argues the point for UT. OU athletes don't attend regular coursework, they have a 3+ million dollar facility to do their coursework. Do they even have the same instructors or are these instructors there to make sure athletes qualify to compete? UT athletes receive the same top rated education as every other student on the campus. The athletes certainly don't have access to any more resources than the general population of the campus does. How fair would that be the athletes aren't even paying for their education, the general students are subsidizing that with their tutition and fees. To this point, an OU fan responded That's not true. I attend classes which are also attended by football players. And these are no "underwater basketweaving" type classes. The professors are real professors who treat every student the same (as far as I know). A second Sooner fan wrote I was quite amused about the UT comments regarding The Prentice Gautt Academic Center. Maybe you should ask them about their football teams relationship with Austin Community College. What happens is when their football players can't make the grades at UT, they send them to ACC to accumulate hours so that they can be eligible for the upcoming season. Obviously student athletes at OU can avail themselves to any course and/or instructor they want to. The fact that they have the additional capability of utilizing the Prentice Gautt Academic Center is a benefit, not a detriment to an OU education. According to US News, UT is in a five way tie for 47th place. OU is ranked somewhere between 50 and 100 (where UT would be if it lost one point in it's overall score). If you want to call tied for 47th place "leading edge", okay. Both schools are well respected, UT rates slightly higher, and neither school ranks as high academically as it does in football. I think it is only fair that these student athletes have access to the very best tutors and learning facilities. After all, regular students do not have to spend the tremendous amount of time required for football practices, training, team meetings, and so forth. Moreover, college football athletes add income to the university coffers. At OU, these facts are recognized and appreciated. The additional provisions of the Prentice Gautt facility are an aid to a better education.

Someone wrote As I read this, history does not matter in the case of overall won-lost record, or educational stats. But it seems history is all that matters when discussing NFL prospects and championships. Actually, I feel all history matters and recent history matters more than older history. However, it doesn't matter whether you consider recent history more or less important when comparing OU and UT for NFL prospects and championships: for both NFL draftees and championships (conference and national) OU has more success overall and more sucess recently (last 5 years). I would not want to give less credit than is due to UT's overall won-loss record against OU. That is impressive. Of course, OU wins the recent won-loss comparison. I haven't presented a history of the educational stats for UT and OU, so I'm not sure what that comment is in reference to. I have provided a recent link which shows OU's football program currently ranks above UT's football program for graduation rate. I've also acknowledged that there was a dip in OU's football graduation rates while OU went through several head coaches (and offensive philosophies, and defensive philosophies) in a short span during the late 80's and early 90's. I'm not sure what UT's rates looked like during that time or before. I will say that I expect OU's rates to remain very high and UT has some catching up to do.

Someone wrote UT and Miami are the only schoools leading the nation in number of consecutive 9 win seasons. I added that to the Trends section.

MEASURING SCHEDULE STRENGTH BY UN-WEIGHTED OPPONENT WON-LOSS RECORD: When considering schedule strength, a common way to proceed is to derive some metric based on *all* opponents faced throughout the year (also known as top-to-bottom comparisons). The BCS Schedule Strength is an example of an un-weighted comparison; it uses cumulative won/loss records of all opponents. This approach benefits from being easy to calculate, but as you'll see below it suffers from numerous shortcomings.

MEASURING SCHEDULE STRENGTH BY WEIGHTED OPPONENT "STRENGTH" CALCULATION: Many, including me, feel that using Un-weighted Comparisons to rate schedule strength is only marginally effective. Consider this: teams with .500 records from the BCS conferences usually defeat teams from Division 1AA or weaker conferences even if the second team wins most of their games in Division 1AA or their weak conference. So a better metric of schedule strength is to count how many quality opponents that UT and OU have played. This is one facet of finding the maximum difficulty encountered. A list of such facets includes:

• Credit for playing quality opponents
• Credit for playing rivalries
• Credit for playing in championships and bowl games
• Credit for playing top caliber teams on the road
• Credit for playing top caliber teams in consequtive weeks
• Debit for cupcakes. These "rest stops" allow a team to hold out players for later, tougher, games.

To determine if a team is "strong", we simply classify teams by their AP ranking and whether they have a winning record. Playing an opponent that finished the season in the AP top3 is worth more points than playing an opponent that finished in the second tier of rankings (4 to 10). Points are also given for playing a team based on their ranking at game time. This is to account for instances where a team is playing very strong early in the season (and is ranked at game time), but fades before final rankings (which frequently happens due to key injuries or other factors). Because early season rankings are sometimes inflated, the final season ranking is worth more points.

I believe this strength of schedule rating is much more informative than simple un-weighted strength of schedule ratings. However, it does have several significant downsides: the rating is not generally available for teams of interest, it takes a fair amount of work by hand to calculate, and it relies on the AP poll which only exists from 1936 on. I have calculated the following years for OU and UT:

For the 14 years tabulated above, OU had a stronger schedule 9 times and UT had a stronger schedule 5 times. OU's overall average was about 20% tougher.

Actually, I wanted both USC and UT to lose. However I wanted USC to lose more!

I think Mack Brown earned respect for several accomplishments. This was his first BCS win, his first conference championship, and his first national championship. Congratulations to Mack Brown and the 2005 Longhorns; they're a fine team and they put together a fine season.

But before Longhorn fans get too giddy over Brown's recent success, allow me to caution that one career conference championship is far short of the standards that Stoops has already established at Oklahoma. I just don't see Brown passing Stoops anytime soon.

When I first heard about this, my initial response was shock and disbelief. As the facts have come out, it has increased my respect for coach Bob Stoops.

Sometimes the best thing for a player is an act of "tough love". Coach Stoops has once again demonstrated that he is capable of dispensing both grace *and* integrity. By integrity, I mean an unwavering pursuit of what is just or right. I feel this combination is necessary -- grace will always be necessary as long as football players are human, and integrity will always be necessary to hold student-athletes to an equitable standard.

The gauntlet each coach dreads was thrown down -- are key players above the law? History is filled with gifted athletes who mistook their athletic abilities for license to break the rules. These players knew they were breaking the rules as OU has a significant compliance effort (see this story regarding star running back Adrian Peterson). I believe the thing most needed by young Bomar and Quinn (and let's remember these are young adults) is to learn that there is a consequence for breaking the rules for even the most gifted athlete. If Bomar and Quinn can take this lesson to heart, there's no limit to what these two talented young men can accomplish throughout the years and decades to come. Stoops was able to take the appropriate actions, and told everyone associated with the Sooners to look forward not backward.

First, let me recount the background: With time running out and trailing by six points, the Ducks tried an onsides kick. An Oregon player tried to secure the ball before it travelled the necessary 10 yards (an infraction that automatically gives possession to the receiving team), then an Oklahoma player (Allen Patrick) recovered the ball. However, the on-field ruling was inexplicably "Oregon's ball". A review of the play held the on-field ruling. With that botched call and a few other botched calls (including an incorrect ruling on pass interference), Oregon was able to score a touchdown and win the game. Shortly after the game, the Replay Official said he had insufficient video to make any determination. Within a few days, the Pac-10 released an official statement that the Replay Official did have ample video to make the correct call, that he made the incorrect call, and that the officiating team would be suspended for one game. The Replay Official later admitted that he did have ample video, and that he made the wrong call. Had the correct call been made, OU would have had the ball near mid-field with a first down and presumably would have been able to run out the clock with a few "take a knee" downs. The incorrect call turned a win into a loss.

I don't think referees should have ties with either team (e.g. school buddies as in the case with the replay official and the Oregon coach) But more importantly, I think the NCAA must ensure that penalties are egalitarian without respect to whether the offense comes from a student, a university, or a representative from a conference (as in this case with the Pac-10 official). If student-atheletes are removed from Division-1A sports for $7000 willful mistakes (and they are), then referees should be removed from Division-1A football under the extreme situation when they knowingly and willfully choose to decide the outcome of an NCAA sporting event (obviously a loss in college football can cost a team much more than $7000). How does the NCAA know that referees are not wagering on games and deciding sporting events? I'm not sure based on the Oregon-OU game given the paultry penalty imposed.

Of course people are human and will make mistakes. However, when someone has all the necessary time and video to make a correct call and deliberately alters who wins a game, the officiating team must be held accountable if there is any integrity in the sport. I hope this never happens again. For me, it has reduced NCAA Football.

In 2008, OU and UT and Texas Tech all ended the season with identical league records. Furthermore, the tie could not be resolved by head-to-head results because UT beat OU, Texas Tech beat UT, and OU beat Texas Tech. In such a scenario, the Big12 rules for resolving the tie utilized the tied teams rankings -- the BCS ranking to be specific. This Big12 rule was agreed to beforehand and approved by the league's member schools. In a narrowly won vote, OU beat out UT and Texas Tech in the pertinent BCS ballot to proceed to the Big12 championship as representative from the Big12 South leaving the Longhorn faithful and RedRaider faithful on the sidelines.

Many UT sympathetic articles I've seen leave Texas Tech out of the discussion. I think such an approach is wrong-headed and unfair to Texas Tech (who had the same win-loss record and a victory over UT).

Some have offered that the correct approach given a three-way-tie is to remove one team from consideration, then resolve the remaining two with head-to-head. I feel that this two-step process is less fair than a standard metric applied to all -- if there is a criteria that can distinguish the teams, then order all three by that criteria (which is what the Big12 did, using the BCS as their critieria). Here's the result of applying a consistent measure to all three squads as of the Big12's decision date:

• Recency of Loss: OU
• November 30th AP ranking: UT
• November 30th BCS ranking: OU
• Strenght of victory (first applicable NFL tiebreaker): OU
• Strength of schedule (second applicable NFL tiebreaker): OU
• Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed (third applicable NFL tiebreaker): OU
• Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed (fourth applicable NFL tiebreaker): OU
• Best net points in common games (fifth applicable NFL tiebreaker): OU
• Best net points in all games (sixth applicable NFL tiebreaker): OU
• Best net touchdowns in all games (seventh applicable NFL tiebreaker): OU
• Coin toss (eighth applicable NFL tiebreaker): ?

I'm proud of the way Stoops acted during the defining moments of the season. You did not see Stoops lobby for his team at every possible opportunity; rather, he prepared his teams for winning games down the stretch. And shouldn't winning games down the stretch carry a lot of weight?