From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1914 Game

Arkansas lists (in their records) the 1914 game as a forfeit, but Ole Miss lists it (in their records) as a win by a score of 13-7. Source #1 (from 2004, the totals have changed now), relevant part:

The Series
According to Arkansas folks, the Hogs lead the series 27-23-1.
However, Ole Miss disputes the series record, scripting it as a 26-24-1 Arkansas advantage.
The difference is the 1914 matchup in Little Rock, won 13-7 by the Rebels. Arkansas called foul, claiming an ineligible Ole Miss player participated, so the Hogs count it as a forfeit. Ole Miss discounts that and none of the players involved in the game are living.

Source #2 (from 2006), relevant part:

Arkansas claims a 28-23-1 series advantage, counting a forfeit victory in 1914; Ole Miss lists the series record as 27-24-1, choosing to go with the 13-7 on-field score in a game played 92 years ago.

If you Google "1914 ole miss arkansas forfeit", you can see a lot of other sources saying the same thing. So, the question is, what should it be listed as? Cardsplayer4life ( talk) 06:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Rivalry?

This article is interesting considering most Ole Miss fans don't really consider Arkansas a "rivalry" and certainly not in the sense that Ole Miss has pure hatred for Mississippi State and LSU. The only thing in recent memory that makes the Ole Miss/Ark games hightened is the 7 OT game and Nutt being at Ole Miss now. - ALLSTAR echo 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I guess it is the amount of times that the two teams have played (and consecutively since 1981 even when in different conferences) and the recent Houston Nutt stuff that has led most people to consider it a rivalry. Who knows why teams consider each other rivals, haha. I agree with you, though, that it is more of a minor rivalry, not raising to the level of, say Arkansas-Texas, Georgia-Florida, Ole Miss-Miss St, etc. Cardsplayer4life ( talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I imagine the games will of course be much more heated now, and us Ole Miss fans will back up our new coach in so much as wanna beat Ark with force.. but if Nutt don't win many games, we'll be begging for Ark to take him back and showing nothing but love for our SEC brethren across the state line. haha. - ALLSTAR echo 07:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC) reply
I am an Arkansas fan, so while I wish you the best of luck with all your other opponents, I am pulling for my beloved Hogs. I think Nutt is a definite step in the right direction for your program and will win a lot of games for you guys. I was definitely not a Nutt hater as much as a lot of my friends were, but I certainly don't think he would be welcomed back no matter how much begging was done, haha. With just a cursory glance at your schedule, I think you guys have a strong chance of starting the season at 4-0 with Memphis, Wake Forest, Samford, and Vandy, which would get the fanbase energized I am sure for the rest of the schedule. (5th game is against Florida in Gainsville, though, which is tough for anyone) Anyway, good luck in the upcoming season. Cardsplayer4life ( talk) 00:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Image copyright problem with File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png

The image File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png 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. --12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arkansas–Ole Miss football rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC) reply