Hogville

RB Sports Discussion => Monday Morning Quarterback => Topic started by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 11:24:48 am

Title: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 11:24:48 am
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.









Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Großer Kriegschwein on September 12, 2017, 11:33:10 am
Much truth in that.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hoghearted on September 12, 2017, 11:33:31 am
Bravo.


If Long finds the intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary at the end of the season, I hope he consults someone who is good at spotting coaching talent for a replacement. That is definitely not his strong suit.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: LRHawg on September 12, 2017, 11:35:20 am
Agree and would also add, I don't expect to win every "winnable" game, but we had better be in the game and not laying turds like the last few games have been.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogcard1964 on September 12, 2017, 11:35:25 am
Bravo.


If Long finds the intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary at the end of the season, I hope he consults someone who is good at spotting coaching talent for a replacement. That is definitely not his strong suit.

Mike Bobo should be our next coach.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ATU HOG on September 12, 2017, 11:38:37 am
The win at all cost excuse is just a crutch to sell mediocrity.  It makes it sound better.  There are a handful of schools who have that mentality, and they've been busted for it. 

They account for less than 3% of college football. 
What about the other 97%.... do they do things the "right" way?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hoghearted on September 12, 2017, 11:39:08 am
I notice the Long/Bielema defenders are ignoring this thread.

Telling.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Dirty on September 12, 2017, 11:40:44 am
I do believe we have a winner!
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: buldozer on September 12, 2017, 11:41:27 am
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.

^^^+10!^^^
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Karma on September 12, 2017, 11:42:28 am
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.










Last paragraph says it all.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: jgphillips3 on September 12, 2017, 11:42:54 am
Spot on Wilson.  Spot on.  There is NO reason we can't win 7-9 games a year and, twice a decade, have a shot at a SEC title when the classes align right and do it all without cheating at Ole Miss levels.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 12, 2017, 11:44:48 am
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.











HDN did what he did on the back of two athletic freaks, MJ and Dmac.

Everyone can keep ignoring it, but the one constant as long as I can remember, which is about 1975, is the teams we need to beat to be the best always have better players.  College football is simply a matter of who has the best players and AR does not and will not ever have enough better players to win at a championship level. And that makes Arkansas just like about 40 other teams, good enough to make a run every now and then, but usually going to be 7 or 8 wins a year.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Dirty on September 12, 2017, 11:45:23 am
I would take Lane Kiffin over this buffalo.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 11:47:09 am
That's all well and good Wilson, you know as well as I, that barring a collapse of monumental proportions, it's not happening until after 2018.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 11:48:16 am
Spot on Wilson.  Spot on.  There is NO reason we can't win 7-9 games a year and, twice a decade, have a shot at a SEC title when the classes align right and do it all without cheating at Ole Miss levels.

No doubt, that should be our baseline. I don't think anyone suggests different.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Dirty on September 12, 2017, 11:50:16 am
That's all well and good Wilson, you know as well as I, that barring a collapse of monumental proportions, it's not happening until after 2018.

If it happens then?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: redneckfriend on September 12, 2017, 11:51:55 am
I notice the Long/Bielema defenders are ignoring this thread.

Telling.

What nonsense! Long/Bielema defenders? Who are they? I don't think Bielema has a single defender on this site at this point. Defending Jeff Long is an entirely different matter. He didn't lose to Missouri or TCU. He hired a successful coach from a P-5 program and that coach is not doing very well. The question is what is to be done and I don't think the original poster offered much guidance there so why would anyone reply? The Op basically said: try to win at a reasonable level while not getting into the dirt in order to do it. I'm not sure who would argue with that except the Petrino supporters but it doesn't move the ball very far down the field if the question is how to do that.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 11:53:05 am
If it happens then?

We'll see if the money is there to make a change. Lanny is correct, "we" don't pay $15.4m, which in reality is closer to $20m with the coordinators guaranteed salaries and assistant coaches who have multiple year contracts.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Porkette on September 12, 2017, 11:53:42 am
Exactly right, WilsonHog!

I agree, and I think a majority of reasonable fans do. Our expectations are not crazy unrealistic.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ShadowHawg on September 12, 2017, 11:54:28 am
It is becoming clearer all the time that our expectations as fans are not even close to lining up with those of the people who actually guide the U of A. I am talking about the people above Long.

When he is gone, his replacement will continue on this track.

Can it be changed? How?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Jackrabbit Hog on September 12, 2017, 11:55:47 am
HDN did what he did on the back of two athletic freaks, MJ and Dmac.

Everyone can keep ignoring it, but the one constant as long as I can remember, which is about 1975, is the teams we need to beat to be the best always have better players.  College football is simply a matter of who has the best players and AR does not and will not ever have enough better players to win at a championship level. And that makes Arkansas just like about 40 other teams, good enough to make a run every now and then, but usually going to be 7 or 8 wins a year.

Well, he actually had two decent runs.  The first being on the backs of Stoerner, Burlesworth, Lucas, etc.  But the rest of what you said is accurate.

Under JFB in the '60s and early '70s, we DID have athletes that were as good as anyone else in the country.  I'm sure 99% of the D-1 schools back then would have traded rosters to get our teams from '64-'65 and again from '69-'70.  But for whatever reason (and the recruiting of black players may have something to do with this since we were behind the northern schools in doing it, and perhaps didn't do it as aggressively as the SEC schools after that), we've been operating from behind since then.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 11:56:18 am
We'll see if the money is there to make a change. Lanny is correct, "we" don't pay $15.4m, which in reality is closer to $20m with the coordinators guaranteed salaries and assistant coaches who have multiple year contracts.

Assuming you are correct, how smart is it to put a provision in a contract that the University couldn't afford to exercise if it wanted to?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hoghearted on September 12, 2017, 11:56:35 am
What nonsense! Long/Bielema defenders? Who are they? I don't think Bielema has a single defender on this site at this point. Defending Jeff Long is an entirely different matter. He didn't lose to Missouri or TCU. He hired a successful coach from a P-5 program and that coach is not doing very well. The question is what is to be done and I don't think the original poster offered much guidance there so why would anyone reply? The Op basically said: try to win at a reasonable level while not getting into the dirt in order to do it. I'm not sure who would argue with that except the Petrino supporters but it doesn't move the ball very far down the field if the question is how to do that.

Well, you for one.

Which is in direct opposition to what Long said. He posed it as a binary choice: 'win at all costs', or 'cheat'. He completely deflects his responsibility to hold his coaches accountable for their performance. Instead, he blasts those who are unhappy as willing to cheat, lie, or do whatever to win. There is middle ground there, in spite of you being too blind to see it.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Dirty on September 12, 2017, 11:57:28 am
We'll see if the money is there to make a change. Lanny is correct, "we" don't pay $15.4m, which in reality is closer to $20m with the coordinators guaranteed salaries and assistant coaches who have multiple year contracts.

Maybe Jeff can call 877 Cash Now.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Hogdomer on September 12, 2017, 11:59:37 am
HDN did what he did on the back of two athletic freaks, MJ and Dmac.

Everyone can keep ignoring it, but the one constant as long as I can remember, which is about 1975, is the teams we need to beat to be the best always have better players.  College football is simply a matter of who has the best players and AR does not and will not ever have enough better players to win at a championship level. And that makes Arkansas just like about 40 other teams, good enough to make a run every now and then, but usually going to be 7 or 8 wins a year.

2 out of HDN's 3 best years were without Matt Jones or McFadden.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 12, 2017, 12:00:55 pm
Well, he actually had two decent runs.  The first being on the backs of Stoerner, Burlesworth, Lucas, etc.  But the rest of what you said is accurate.

Under JFB in the '60s and early '70s, we DID have athletes that were as good as anyone else in the country.  I'm sure 99% of the D-1 schools back then would have traded rosters to get our teams from '64-'65 and again from '69-'70.  But for whatever reason (and the recruiting of black players may have something to do with this since we were behind the northern schools in doing it, and perhaps didn't do it as aggressively as the SEC schools after that), we've been operating from behind since then.

Again, just the pattern, 2 years when they had teams full of in state talent with a couple out of state studs. Same type of teams Holtz, Hatfield, Ford, HDN, and BP had their most success with. HS football in Ar has produced precious little elite talent in the last 6 or 7 years. A few very good players, yes, but not enough to build a winner with.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: IronHog on September 12, 2017, 12:02:43 pm
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.











Win at all costs:  bad

Play HARD to win :  good

Play not to lose:  Nutt

Football for the sake of football:  current UA
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 12, 2017, 12:06:54 pm
2 out of HDN's 3 best years were without Matt Jones or McFadden.

the 98 team was Ford's, and was full of quality linemen on both sides, and had several instate players plus a QB from Tx. The 99 team was not that great. And we all know the teams of his most remember were the MJ and Dmac teams.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 12, 2017, 12:07:58 pm


Football for the sake of football:  current UA


That would be for all but about 8 teams in FBS, and what is wrong with that?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hoghearted on September 12, 2017, 12:10:30 pm
That would be for all but about 8 teams in FBS, and what is wrong with that?

Then why are we paying this guy so much money? If we are going to play football for the sake of football, the UA could do it a lot cheaper, with not much difference in the record.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: GuvHog on September 12, 2017, 12:16:14 pm
the 98 team was Ford's, and was full of quality linemen on both sides, and had several instate players plus a QB from Tx. The 99 team was not that great. And we all know the teams of his most remember were the MJ and Dmac teams.

Say what you want but Nutt with all of his warts (and he had more than plenty of them) won at least 8 games in 6 of his 10 years as Hog HC. Bret has yet to win 8 regular season games in a year at Arkansas and this is his 5 season.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 12:17:39 pm
That would be for all but about 8 teams in FBS, and what is wrong with that?

I disagree. Football for the sake of football is what Vanderbilt does, what Boston College does, what Wake Forest does, etc.

Not being one of those eight teams doesn't mean you have the sport just to have it.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: IronHog on September 12, 2017, 12:17:41 pm
That would be for all but about 8 teams in FBS, and what is wrong with that?


5 of them are in the SEC west is the problem 😄
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: bphi11ips on September 12, 2017, 12:27:12 pm
I don't blame Wilson and everyone else for being frustrated.  On the other hand, the massive shift in expectations seems like an overcorrection under the circumstances. 

I agree that we came out flat and so did the crowd.  I agree that we got pushed around by a Big 12 team.  I agree that Austin Allen doesn't look remotely like the QB he was in 2016, particularly the first half of the year.  His mechanics are terrible, and his demeanor is worse.  I agree the offensive line is partly to blame for that, and so are the receivers/tight ends.  I agree that special teams are a problem.

However, with the obvious problems on offense and special teams, we were a few plays from beating a senior laden team ranked 23rd in the country.  It was 14-7 with 3:51 left in the game when a pass interference penalty (on a covered receiver and overthrown ball) kept Arkansas from getting the ball back with a chance to tie or win the game.  It was 28-20 TCU last year when we got the ball back with 2:05 left.  AA led the team to a score in 4 plays and caught a pass for the two point conversion.  We won in OT.  There were other chances Saturday.  Had Austin Cantrell had better presence of mind he would have caught Allen's pass in the end zone to tie the game.  Our defense competed hard for four quarters and played well.  They are much improved.  They kept us in the game on an off-day for the offense. 

I get that if TCU were an isolated incident, Wilson and others wouldn't be so frustrated.  Arkansas has been outscored 70-0 in the second half by its last three P5 opponents.  That is not good.  But - I also think Arkansas has players and coaches who have proven they can beat ranked teams.  They did it three times last year alone.  About half the teams Bret Bielema has faced have been ranked at the time we have played them.  We play a very tough schedule year in and year out.  That is not going to change.

Arkansas's players work hard year round.  College football is a full-time and then some job.  The coaching staff works hard year round.  They make a lot of money but it comes at a sacrifice in terms of time they have available for their families.  Everyone wants to win. 

The Razorbacks compete at the highest level of college football. They just lost a game they were in until the end to a ranked opponent full of seniors.  They were the underdog.  We owe it to the players to not give up on them before the conference season starts.  There are half a dozen games left on the schedule that could go either way.  They need to feel like the fanbase is behind them.         
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 12, 2017, 12:27:19 pm

5 of them are in the SEC west is the problem 😄

Well, that is true
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ShadowHawg on September 12, 2017, 12:29:17 pm
That's all well and good Wilson, you know as well as I, that barring a collapse of monumental proportions, it's not happening until after 2018.

As in January 1st, 2018? That's the day the buyout drops to 11 mil.

Letting a lame duck go for another season would equate to the same terms financially. The only difference would be that you allow the poor performance to take the program one year further down which makes the rebuild more expensive.

Not renewing the WMM contract would create another 3 mil  over the course of the buyout period that would bring this well into the realm of feasibility.

If it were truly about fiscal issues, January would be the trigger. Long is letting us know that he is going to continue to do what Broyles did before him and what he is currently being asked though. So don't expect any deviations.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 12:30:53 pm
Assuming you are correct, how smart is it to put a provision in a contract that the University couldn't afford to exercise if it wanted to?

Oh, they can "afford" it, with lots of support from the Foundation, and I know you know what that means. That $20m is the redo for the upper deck of BWA. Who am I kidding, that's probably $80m minimum these days.....
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: IronHog on September 12, 2017, 12:31:54 pm
Say what you want but Nutt with all of his warts (and he had more than plenty of them) won at least 8 games in 6 of his 10 years as Hog HC. Bret has yet to win 8 regular season games in a year at Arkansas and this is his 5 season.


Nutt woulda wore Korless Marshall out on the stretch play instead of running him off like BB.......guy was a goober but he'd ride a mule when he got one.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 12:32:16 pm
As in January 1st, 2018? That's the day the buyout drops to 11 mil.

Letting a lame duck go for another season would equate to the same terms financially. The only difference would be that you allow the poor performance to take the program one year further down which makes the rebuild more expensive.

Not renewing the WMM contract would create another 3 mil  over the course of the buyout period that would bring this well into the realm of feasibility.

If it were truly about fiscal issues, January would be the trigger. Long is letting us know that he is going to continue to do what Broyles did before him and what he is currently being asked though. So don't expect any deviations.

They aren't going to let him sign a class in Dec and fire him Jan 1st, you know Long better than that. I'm talking about the season of 2018.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: elksnort on September 12, 2017, 12:32:47 pm
Then why are we paying this guy so much money? If we are going to play football for the sake of football, the UA could do it a lot cheaper, with not much difference in the record.
Good observation/question.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 12:36:13 pm
I don't blame Wilson and everyone else for being frustrated.  On the other hand, the massive shift in expectations seems like an overcorrection under the circumstances. 

I agree that we came out flat and so did the crowd.  I agree that we got pushed around by a Big 12 team.  I agree that Austin Allen doesn't look remotely like the QB he was in 2016, particularly the first half of the year.  His mechanics are terrible, and his demeanor is worse.  I agree the offensive line is partly to blame for that, and so are the receivers/tight ends.  I agree that special teams are a problem.

However, with the obvious problems on offense and special teams, we were a few plays from beating a senior laden team ranked 23rd in the country.  It was 14-7 with 3:51 left in the game when a pass interference penalty (on a covered receiver and overthrown ball) kept Arkansas from getting the ball back with a chance to tie or win the game.  It was 28-20 TCU last year when we got the ball back with 2:05 left.  AA led the team to a score in 4 plays and caught a pass for the two point conversion.  We won in OT.  There were other chances Saturday.  Had Austin Cantrell had better presence of mind he would have caught Allen's pass in the end zone to tie the game.  Our defense competed hard for four quarters and played well.  They are much improved.  They kept us in the game on an off-day for the offense. 

I get that if TCU were an isolated incident, Wilson and others wouldn't be so frustrated.  Arkansas has been outscored 70-0 in the second half by its last three P5 opponents.  That is not good.  But - I also think Arkansas has players and coaches who have proven they can beat ranked teams.  They did it three times last year alone.  About half the teams Bret Bielema has faced have been ranked at the time we have played them.  We play a very tough schedule year in and year out.  That is not going to change.

Arkansas's players work hard year round.  College football is a full-time and then some job.  The coaching staff works hard year round.  They make a lot of money but it comes at a sacrifice in terms of time they have available for their families.  Everyone wants to win. 

The Razorbacks compete at the highest level of college football. They just lost a game they were in until the end to a ranked opponent full of seniors.  They were the underdog.  We owe it to the players to not give up on them before the conference season starts.  There are half a dozen games left on the schedule that could go either way.  They need to feel like the fanbase is behind them.         

Excellent post, but it will fall on deaf ears here, they want his head on a pike!
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogcard1964 on September 12, 2017, 12:38:52 pm
If Long's gripe or defense of this asinine statement was in line with Arkansas actually being a dirty/"win at all" type of program through the years, then I could understand him saying something like this.  But we've always been pretty clean in relation to a lot of other SEC programs.  I also remember we were always pretty upstanding in our old SWC days as well.

Him coming out with this nonsense when the football program is down is an obvious indicator of him attempting to "polish the turd" that is currently Arkansas football.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: PLHawg on September 12, 2017, 12:39:29 pm
Then why are we paying this guy so much money? If we are going to play football for the sake of football, the UA could do it a lot cheaper, with not much difference in the record.


We have to pay the big $ because we're an SEC team, and to keep up appearances.  Kind of "keeping up with the Joneses" if you will, obviously it's not based on performance.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: bphi11ips on September 12, 2017, 12:39:45 pm
They aren't going to let him sign a class in Dec and fire him Jan 1st, you know Long better than that. I'm talking about the season of 2018.

You mean fire him in January with a class to sign in February?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 12:40:59 pm
They aren't going to let him sign a class in Dec and fire him Jan 1st, you know Long better than that. I'm talking about the season of 2018.

I may be misreading him, but I don't see Bielema being the kind of guy who sticks around for the "win or else" season.

If we win 7 or 8 games this season, things will quieten down. If not, life is going to get very uncomfortable for him and his family. That is something he has never experienced as a head coach.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Gonzo on September 12, 2017, 12:42:43 pm
They aren't going to let him sign a class in Dec and fire him Jan 1st, you know Long better than that. I'm talking about the season of 2018.

Classes aren't signed until February, not that I am advocating at this point or expect at all, any change in the head coach's office in the near future.


Go Hogs!
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 12:43:39 pm
You mean fire him in January with a class to sign in February?

Early signing period is Dec and we expect to sign ever current commit then.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: bphi11ips on September 12, 2017, 12:44:37 pm
I may be misreading him, but I don't see Bielema being the kind of guy who sticks around for the "win or else" season.

If we win 7 or 8 games this season, things will quieten down. If not, life is going to get very uncomfortable for him and his family. That is something he has never experienced as a head coach.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Head coaches need thick skin.  I have to think Bielema's skin is thicker than that.  Jen's?  Maybe not, but she is going to stand by her man, and that's a good thing for a coach's wife.  Briella will never remember it. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 12:45:00 pm
Classes aren't signed until February, not that I am advocating at this point or expect at all, any change in the head coach's office in the near future.


Go Hogs!


Early signing period is in December, try to keep up with recruiting.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/04/14/ncaa-approves-early-signing-period-for-football/100462270/
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Großer Kriegschwein on September 12, 2017, 12:45:37 pm
We should just hire Jack Lengyel and install the veer.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: bphi11ips on September 12, 2017, 12:45:49 pm
Early signing period is Dec and we expect to sign ever current commit then.

Didn't realize that takes effect this year.  Guess I need to understand what that means myself. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 12:46:13 pm
I may be misreading him, but I don't see Bielema being the kind of guy who sticks around for the "win or else" season.

If we win 7 or 8 games this season, things will quieten down. If not, life is going to get very uncomfortable for him and his family. That is something he has never experienced as a head coach.

Yeah, but somebody has to take him off our hands, he didn't negotiate the buyout to walk away from it.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: GuvHog on September 12, 2017, 12:49:04 pm
If Long's gripe or defense of this asinine statement was in line with Arkansas actually being a dirty/"win at all" type of program through the years, then I could understand him saying something like this.  But we've always been pretty clean in relation to a lot of other SEC programs.  I also remember we were always pretty upstanding in our old SWC days as well.

Him coming out with this nonsense when the football program is down is an obvious indicator of him attempting to "polish the turd" that is currently Arkansas football.

Long's and Bielema's statements since the loss to TCU tell me that they are already feeling the pressure and they don't like it.

Long defended Dave Wannstedt to the bitter end at Pittsburgh and he's doing the same thing with CBB.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Seminole Indian on September 12, 2017, 12:49:20 pm

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.


That is what you are right now.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: redneckfriend on September 12, 2017, 12:50:32 pm
Well, you for one.

Which is in direct opposition to what Long said. He posed it as a binary choice: 'win at all costs', or 'cheat'. He completely deflects his responsibility to hold his coaches accountable for their performance. Instead, he blasts those who are unhappy as willing to cheat, lie, or do whatever to win. There is middle ground there, in spite of you being too blind to see it.
[/quot

I think you are misunderstanding the point being made by the quote i.e. if you support one you support the other and, as I pointed out, that is a false conflation. 

I'm really not sure where you are coming from with that to be honest. There are a number of middle grounds since the term "win" is ambiguous. It might mean "win more than you lose" which, with a little hedging about occasional 10 win seasons, is the way the OP seems to be using it, or it can mean win so that you are competing for an SEC championship two years out of three or it can mean win like Alabama and there are a whole bunch of other ways "win" can be interpreted. So the Op was really taking in a strong position about what "win" means without seeming to i.e. at Arkansas "winning" means something different than it does at Alabama and we should get used to it. You seem to imply that Long is using that definition of winning". I don't think so, I think he was using the "all or nothing", "go for broke" definition that so many fans on this site would like to use but perhaps you should ask him.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 12, 2017, 12:51:15 pm
That is what you are right now.

Exactly, and have been as a program for a century+.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Gonzo on September 12, 2017, 12:51:29 pm
Early signing period is in December, try to keep up with recruiting.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/04/14/ncaa-approves-early-signing-period-for-football/100462270/


Fair enough, things change, had not seen that. Try not to be a snippy arse, no need for it.


Go Hogs!
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 12:51:35 pm
That is what you are right now.

We haven't won more than 7 regular season games yet.  I'm assuming Wilson was talking about regular season.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 12:52:21 pm
Exactly, and have been as a program for a century+.

Just too close to the 7 number at the current time, thus the "burn the mother down" mantra.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: PonderinHog on September 12, 2017, 12:52:27 pm
I don't believe in win-at-all-costs either, but couldn't we "lose" at a much lower cost if that's what we've resigned ourselves to do?  A lot of money is being "thrown" at the problem now, and we aren't getting the desired results on the field.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 12:54:18 pm
I don't believe in win-at-all-costs either, but couldn't we "lose" at a much lower cost if that's what we've resigned ourselves to do?  A lot of money is being "thrown" at the problem now, and we aren't getting the desired results on the field.

SEC coaches salaries average over $4M, somebody isn't going to be happy, haha.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 12:56:28 pm
SEC coaches salaries average over $4M, somebody isn't going to be happy, haha.

It's just always going to be us.  :(
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: DLUXHOG on September 12, 2017, 12:57:04 pm
Chill....  be patient as all things are cyclical...  the Hogs will be sniffing the top again, and soon....   with Long - Bielema or not... 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 12:59:04 pm
Yeah, but somebody has to take him off our hands, he didn't negotiate the buyout to walk away from it.

True, and if we go 6-6 or worse there aren't likely to be many options for him.

That would put us in a curious position, no? Making the argument of "who could we get that's better" for a coach who can't get a better job.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 01:04:39 pm
True, and if we go 6-6 or worse there aren't likely to be many options for him.

That would put us in a curious position, no? Making the argument of "who could we get that's better" for a coach who can't get a better job.

Well, I'm not sure every school always gets a new hire that is better, one just needs to be sure and lock up that person when you find him. One thing I've noticed this week in all the "coaching talk", no one is demanding we give it to Enos or Rhoads.......
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: LR_Matt on September 12, 2017, 01:07:48 pm
You either win games or you don't.... period.

No moral victories for "doing it right" and certainly no winning in being on probation.

Just quit talking and win.... or don't and leave.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Redhogs on September 12, 2017, 01:08:21 pm
Assuming you are correct, how smart is it to put a provision in a contract that the University couldn't afford to exercise if it wanted to?
Thank you.  In essence, it gave BB accountability to NO ONE...brilliant move on Long's part.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: PonderinHog on September 12, 2017, 01:13:31 pm
SEC coaches salaries average over $4M, somebody isn't going to be happy, haha.
Bielema's salary is just the tip of the iceberg.  We can lose for a lot less.   ;D
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Cinco de Hogo on September 12, 2017, 01:21:55 pm
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.

I just have one question Wilson and other than that +1.

Do you connect "winning at all cost" with Long finding a way the keep CBP...with serious  stipulations?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 01:24:33 pm
I just have one question Wilson and other than that +1.

Do you connect "winning at all cost" with Long finding a way the keep CBP...with serious  stipulations?

Meh.  CBP deserved his firing. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Hog-Corleone on September 12, 2017, 01:25:00 pm
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.


Co-Sign
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Seminole Indian on September 12, 2017, 01:25:51 pm
Chill....  be patient as all things are cyclical...  the Hogs will be sniffing the top again, and soon....   with Long - Bielema or not...
Well somethings, like your coach having an wreak with the wrong passenger and lying to your boss about it can upset the normal cycle, and that "lighting out of the blue" is hard to take.

When you are by any measure one of the top 20-25 programs in college football, fans don't tend to handle even the normal down cycles very well, no matter how brief the stay.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Cinco de Hogo on September 12, 2017, 01:29:17 pm
Meh.  CBP deserved his firing.

You didn't answer the question, if Long had keep him with serious stipulations, would that have been winning at all cost.  Remember ya'll proclaimed that we would be the  laughingstock of college football.  Well we are and Louisville ain't.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: DLUXHOG on September 12, 2017, 01:34:37 pm
Well somethings, like your coach having an wreak with the wrong passenger and lying to your boss about it can upset the normal cycle, and that "lighting out of the blue" is hard to take.

When you are by any measure one of the top 20-25 programs in college football, fans don't tend to handle even the normal down cycles very well, no matter how brief the stay.

Well, "stuff" happens, even to Alabama after the Bear (an Arkansas born & raised boy) left....  remember?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 01:34:47 pm
Bielema's salary is just the tip of the iceberg.  We can lose for a lot less.   ;D

Or, you can lose for a lot more.......
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 01:35:54 pm
You didn't answer the question, if Long had keep him with serious stipulations, would that have been winning at all cost.  Remember ya'll proclaimed that we would be the  laughingstock of college football.  Well we are and Louisville ain't.

I don't know if it would be or not. 

Regardless, CBP should have been fired.  Where I think we went wrong was getting away from the blueprint that brought us success.  We need an offensive guru to win at Arkansas.  Petrino's not the only one out there.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Locutus_of_Boar on September 12, 2017, 01:45:48 pm
Well, you for one.

Which is in direct opposition to what Long said. He posed it as a binary choice: 'win at all costs', or 'cheat'. He completely deflects his responsibility to hold his coaches accountable for their performance. Instead, he blasts those who are unhappy as willing to cheat, lie, or do whatever to win. There is middle ground there, in spite of you being too blind to see it.

Jeff Long intentionally positions it as a binary choice strictly because that gives him the maximum amount of time and the minimum amount of cost to make a decision he knows he will inevitably make.

Thirty-one very different men have coached at the University of Arkansas over 123 years.  I truly believe only two of those men fully grasped what was necessary to do the job.  The first, John Barnhill was forced from the job by his health but went on to two decades as AD.  The other J. Frank Broyles co-incidentally was the only one of all those coaches who was able to retire on his own terms.

Win-at-all-costs is not only impractical its not what even the most demanding of the fans truly want.  Barnhill and Broyles understood what really drives the fans and with them the entire program.  Orville Henry explained it half a century ago in his and Jim Bailey's "The Razorbacks, A Story of Arkansas Football":

"It is hard to realize there are people past voting age (in the late 1960's) who cannot remember when it is different.  When the hopes of an entire state did not hang achingly on the words of a Wally Ingalls or Bob Cheyne or Bud Campbell.  When there were no monumental traffic snarls around War Memorial Stadium.  When red was just another color.  When tickets could be bought at the gate.  When a University of Arkansas game was regarded as an athletic contest rather than an urgent defense of the state's honor."

Mr. Long has a business to run and Coach Bielema has a team to coach and Arkansas has a program to support.  None should be fretting about winning games at all costs.  This is not about games.  This is about doing all we can to act with honor win or lose.  All of us should be unyielding in doing all that is necessary to defend the honor of this team, this program, this school, and this state.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: OneLardAlmighty on September 12, 2017, 01:46:44 pm
[quote author=WilsonHog link=topic=637315.msg10953531#msg10953531 date= (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.






[/quote]

This has always been the formula for punch-above-our-weight success at Arkansas.  I was hopeful that Bielema might be able to win here by another formula, especially since I kinda like the guy and do think he has done a lot of things right, but doubtful that it could be done.  Time is proving my doubts correct.

Hopefully Long will bear this formula in mind when Bielema is replaced, as he inevitably will be, one way or the other.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 01:52:40 pm
I just have one question Wilson and other than that +1.

Do you connect "winning at all cost" with Long finding a way the keep CBP...with serious  stipulations?

That's a fair question.

No, I do not. I define "winning at all costs" as committing academic fraud to keep players eligible and paying for play in some manner. I do not consider even committing secondary NCAA infractions to be an attempt to "win at all costs."

Of course, there is also the stuff that has gone on at Penn State and Baylor, which certainly fits into the "win at all costs" category.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: DeltaBoy on September 12, 2017, 01:53:13 pm
Wilson said it well! It sad that in year 5 we are not a better set up program.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: riccoar on September 12, 2017, 02:03:51 pm
Personally, I think Long expects academic success to be first priority.  Much like a Vanderbilt West, if you will, with a tad better record.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 02:04:45 pm
This has always been the formula for punch-above-our-weight success at Arkansas.  I was hopeful that Bielema might be able to win here by another formula, especially since I kinda like the guy and do think he has done a lot of things right, but doubtful that it could be done.  Time is proving my doubts correct.

Hopefully Long will bear this formula in mind when Bielema is replaced, as he inevitably will be, one way or the other.

So was I, because I like the more traditional style of football; a pro-style attack with a physical, attacking defense. Other than at schools like Alabama and maybe Ohio State, that's a tall order. Just can't get enough top-flight talent on both sides of the football to make that approach work. Those Razorback fans who expressed reservation about that style working at Arkansas when Bielema was hired appear to have been correct.

With de-emphasis on the physicality of the game and the advent of 7-on-7, those days of football are probably gone forever. It's much easier to sign a few really good skill position players and play pitch-and-catch for four quarters.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 12, 2017, 02:21:02 pm
So was I, because I like the more traditional style of football; a pro-style attack with a physical, attacking defense. Other than at schools like Alabama and maybe Ohio State, that's a tall order. Just can't get enough top-flight talent on both sides of the football to make that approach work.

With de-emphasis on the physicality of the game and the advent of 7-on-7, those days of football are probably gone forever. It's much easier to sign a few really good skill position players and play pitch-and-catch for four quarters.

You still have to play defense. The best teams are always going to have a defense able to stop anyone. Now stop may be holding a team to 28 where it used to mean 7 or 10, but it still starts and stops with the D. And no I am not blaming last Sat on the D, just saying there is always going to be a place for physical players and play.

But yes, on offense, it does seem that it is inevitable that football will be a bubble screen/rpo/read option game at the college level and lower.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Piggfoot on September 12, 2017, 02:57:00 pm
I agree with everything Wilsonhog said. What causes so much angst in the hearts of Razorback fans is the propaganda delivered by those who make their living selling the hogs and those who buy into their reports. When their "promises go undelivered fans go ballistic. Why people believe what is reported each year is unbelievable to me.
We barely beat TCU last year. They returned most of their team intact with a butt load of seniors.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Cinco de Hogo on September 12, 2017, 03:12:31 pm
That's a fair question.

No, I do not. I define "winning at all costs" as committing academic fraud to keep players eligible and paying for play in some manner. I do not consider even committing secondary NCAA infractions to be an attempt to "win at all costs."

Of course, there is also the stuff that has gone on at Penn State and Baylor, which certainly fits into the "win at all costs" category.

And a good answer,

I define winning the right way as meeting or exceeding all NCAA rules, regulations and standards.  Not turning a blind eye to personal conduct both on and off the field by all coaches, players and others connected to the program.  I believe in letting justice be served and reacting in a positive way towards offenses.  I also believe that at any time a persons deserves a hearing(unless they are incarcerated )and I believe all athletes get that even if the offense is bad enough that you know they will not be back.  I believe in second chances but not for all offenses.  This is the way I would want my child treated if he made a mistake.  I think the U of A has always done these things except for a few times and I know of one in particular.  I am far from a "win at all cost" person. 

Personally I don't know where this "win at all cost" conclusion is coming from since Arkansas has never been that.  Overall we are probably one of the cleaner of the top 50 programs in America.  I say 50 because to compare apples to apples you would want to compare yourself with teams that have a high expectancy of winning or fan pressure to win.  The reason I ask the question and the reason I believe we keep seeing it can be traced back to Petrino and just like now I believe it's nothing more than Long positioning himself in a place it's hard to question actual results on the field.



Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 12, 2017, 03:27:56 pm
And a good answer,

I define winning the right way as meeting or exceeding all NCAA rules, regulations and standards.  Not turning a blind eye to personal conduct both on and off the field by all coaches, players and others connected to the program.  I believe in letting justice be served and reacting in a positive way towards offenses.  I also believe that at any time a persons deserves a hearing(unless they are incarcerated )and I believe all athletes get that even if the offense is bad enough that you know they will not be back.  I believe in second chances but not for all offenses.  This is the way I would want my child treated if he made a mistake.  I think the U of A has always done these things except for a few times and I know of one in particular.  I am far from a "win at all cost" person. 

Personally I don't know where this "win at all cost" conclusion is coming from since Arkansas has never been that.  Overall we are probably one of the cleaner of the top 50 programs in America.  I say 50 because to compare apples to apples you would want to compare yourself with teams that have a high expectancy of winning or fan pressure to win.  The reason I ask the question and the reason I believe we keep seeing it can be traced back to Petrino and just like now I believe it's nothing more than Long positioning himself in a place it's hard to question actual results on the field.





That line of thought is coming from the fact that people are finally realizing the Hogs are a 7-8 win a year program, and they see the only way up is to cheat because they assume anyone winning more is cheating.

There are some so desperate for the hogs to win, because they somehow derive their self worth from what the hogs do, that they would sell their own kids to satan for a nc.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Cinco de Hogo on September 12, 2017, 03:39:40 pm
That line of thought is coming from the fact that people are finally realizing the Hogs are a 7-8 win a year program, and they see the only way up is to cheat because they assume anyone winning more is cheating.

There are some so desperate for the hogs to win, because they somehow derive their self worth from what the hogs do, that they would sell their own kids to satan for a nc.

BS!

It certainly couldn't be that we believe we can get a better coach that is more suited to what Arkansas is and can do.  It has to be that we are bad people that want to cheat.  There is not one fan that has manufactured BB's record.  Did you see the support at the stadium Saturday?  I did, I was there and it was awesome...until the product on the field took all the air out. 

Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 03:40:42 pm
We are a 7-8 win (regular season) football program on average.  The problem is that 8 wins seems to be CBB's ceiling, and that is unacceptable.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Hogdomer on September 12, 2017, 04:06:46 pm
I agree with everything Wilsonhog said. What causes so much angst in the hearts of Razorback fans is the propaganda delivered by those who make their living selling the hogs and those who buy into their reports. When their "promises go undelivered fans go ballistic. Why people believe what is reported each year is unbelievable to me.
We barely beat TCU last year. They returned most of their team intact with a butt load of seniors.

The angst is that we regularly beat TCU, Texas Tech and Texas A&M when we used to play them every year.  We moved to a better conference, upgraded the facilities, make money hand over fist and have a fifth year coach with all his recruits.  Sounds like we are ready to roll, right?  Instead, not only do TCU, Tech, Toledo and A&M beat us, most do so on our home field and in humiliating fashion.  There is the "angst." 

Very few except us to beat Alabama or even LSU often, but we should be better than Mizzou and Mississippi State and the current coach has losing records to both of those teams.  The expectations are not unreasonable and are not being met.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Cinco de Hogo on September 12, 2017, 04:23:44 pm
"Winning at all cost" = SABAN (example) Then I take Saban everyday and Sunday regardless how our GPA looks.

Well your GPA has to stay above 930.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: gchamblee on September 12, 2017, 04:27:08 pm
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/10/a-toast.gif)
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 04:32:23 pm
Well your GPA has to stay above 930.

Bama has a good GPA, also the best recruits, the best coaches money can buy, a Dodge Charger in every locker, and an agent on speed dial.....
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: bphi11ips on September 12, 2017, 04:35:40 pm
That line of thought is coming from the fact that people are finally realizing the Hogs are a 7-8 win a year program, and they see the only way up is to cheat because they assume anyone winning more is cheating.

There are some so desperate for the hogs to win, because they somehow derive their self worth from what the hogs do, that they would sell their own kids to satan for a nc.

This is a load of manure.  Why do you have over 41,000 posts?

Remove the plank in your own eye.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: niels_boar on September 12, 2017, 04:38:13 pm
CBB has earned criticism and doubt.  However, in fairness comparing his first four years to Nutt's is not a Nascar evaluation.  I think we have seen enough of Nutt's career to know that he didn't miraculously turn the program around in his first year with his genius.  Clearly Ford had gotten the talent level to a point that Nutt could benefit from a team that was ready to turn the corner against one of our weaker schedules in decades.  Nutt didn't face a a top-40 SOS in his first three years according to Sagarin. 

By contrast, CBB inherited a program plunging into a valley, rather than climbing out. CBB has never faced a non-top-25 SOS by any measure and two consensus top-5 SOS's.  I'm pretty confident that he's a better (certainly no worse) coach than Nutt.  The difference in their records at this point says more about the challenge that they inherited than the quality of their coaching.

To be honest, I don't understand wasting so much energy debating his job status after two games.  If posters want to analyze how unprepared we were for TCU, fine.  When a fifth-year senior QB is next-to-last in all of college FB in QBR after two games, you have some 'splaining to do at CBB's salary.  However, a lot can happen in 10 games.  If the team course corrects and rallies, getting out the pitchforks now will look petulant and pointless.  If the team collapses, his job will be in plenty jeopardy by December without massing at the borders now for the final offensive.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Al Boarland on September 12, 2017, 04:39:12 pm
Spot on Wilson.  Spot on.  There is NO reason we can't win 7-9 games a year and, twice a decade, have a shot at a SEC title when the classes align right and do it all without cheating at Ole Miss levels.

You have to ask who you are going to move ahead of and how are you going to do it?There are 3 teams in the west that will always have more talent. That leaves 0 margin for error with tossup type programs.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: DLUXHOG on September 12, 2017, 04:39:30 pm
Shame on you for introducing perspective into this discussion....
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Al Boarland on September 12, 2017, 04:42:45 pm
What nonsense! Long/Bielema defenders? Who are they? I don't think Bielema has a single defender on this site at this point. Defending Jeff Long is an entirely different matter. He didn't lose to Missouri or TCU. He hired a successful coach from a P-5 program and that coach is not doing very well. The question is what is to be done and I don't think the original poster offered much guidance there so why would anyone reply? The Op basically said: try to win at a reasonable level while not getting into the dirt in order to do it. I'm not sure who would argue with that except the Petrino supporters but it doesn't move the ball very far down the field if the question is how to do that.

The only thing you can question from Long is the buyout. He brings in the best coaches he can. I’ll tell you his job is going to be a lot harder after CBB collect his buyout because everyone is going to know the uphill battle to be middle of the pack in the SEC.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 04:47:56 pm
The only thing you can question from Long is the buyout. He brings in the best coaches he can. I’ll tell you his job is going to be a lot harder after CBB collect his buyout because everyone is going to know the uphill battle to be middle of the pack in the SEC.

I'm not sure Dykes was the best hire he could have brought in, Neighbors would have been then, as now. I think he thought Jimmy would fill the stands more and win some games. It turned out no one wanted to play for him, or coach with him.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Jek Tono Porkins on September 12, 2017, 04:57:39 pm
I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

I don't expect us to be Alabama; we do not begin to have their resources in any measure.

I do, however, believe it is not unreasonable to expect that we will average 7-9 wins every year with an occasional 10-win season. That really should be possible at Arkansas without handing over sackfuls of money to recruits.

In four years and two games, Bret Bielema is 26-27 (.491). Throw out the two games this year, and his teams have averaged 6.25 wins a season. In the exact same time frame, Houston Nutt's teams went 30-18 (.625) - and I don't think that man could coach his way out of a damn sack. "Yeah, but you HAVE to throw out Bret's first year!" Well, okay, let's do that (notwithstanding the fact that the Rabid Weasel inherited teams from Danny Ford that had suffered through consecutive 4-7 seasons, yet found a way to go 9-3 and finish in the Top 20...something Bielema has yet to accomplish). Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season.

Why so upset after just two games? Maybe because of the narrative that we heard since the end of last season. "Oh, we had some seniors who were cancers in the locker room." "Oh, we had some issues that we couldn't fix during the season, but we've addressed those." Just as occurred during his time at Wisconsin, Bielema supposedly lost focus last year but was re-energized and re-focused on the task at hand. Y'all see that last week, in our home opener on national television and in front of 70,000 fans? I didn't. Then post-game, his approach was to throw players under the bus and claim ignorance - didn't know why we didn't play Hayden more, no idea why the tight ends weren't more involved. Oh, and now we have to re-assess everything. Really? After our first true game? What kind of foundation do we have for that to be necessary?

Yeah, I want our players to be good citizens and graduate. I want our coach to be a fine representative of our university. I also want to win, at what I consider fairly modest levels. The evidence is stacking that Bielema isn't the man for the job.

Who is? Well, if history is any indication (and it usually is), better go find (a) an average coach who can motivate the hell out of our players a couple of times a year and hope he lucks into some home-grown generational talent; or (b) find a coach who is considered one of the best play-callers in college football. Bielema is neither.
Yep, that's the way I feel. On paper, Bielema was a great hire. So were many, many other coaches that for whatever reason didn't get it done. But the results just aren't there.

I don't even mind the contract extension. On paper, that was a great decision. It was a risk, but the general feeling after the 2014 season was that although the record wasn't all that great, the team was fiercely competitive against top competition and closed out the season looking like world beaters shutting out Ole Miss and LSU and humiliating Texas in the bowl game. At that point it looked like Bielema was ahead of schedule considering the situation he inherited. But since then it's been the same mixed bag of results, except the team has been less competitive against top competition and the excuses have run out. I hope the team turns it around this season but I don't think that's going to happen. We're stuck with CBB until we can afford to get rid of him. It is what it is.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: lakecityhog on September 12, 2017, 05:04:49 pm
I guess the thing that bothers me most are the people that act like there are only 2 choices, win-at-all-cost or be mediocre. I don't believe that is true at all.

BB has had kids arrested for PI and other such nonsense that nearly ALL college kids do, Nutt had it, Ford had it, just pick up a newspaper and it pops up all over the country.

Does every team in the top 25 cheat? Do none of them care about graduation rates? APR? Sorry I just can't buy that at all.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 05:08:07 pm
I guess the thing that bothers me most are the people that act like there are only 2 choices, win-at-all-cost or be mediocre. I don't believe that is true at all.

BB has had kids arrested for PI and other such nonsense that nearly ALL college kids do, Nutt had it, Ford had it, just pick up a newspaper and it pops up all over the country.

Does every team in the top 25 cheat? Do none of them care about graduation rates? APR? Sorry I just can't buy that at all.


I don't think people think there are only two choices, most want to win without cheating, that's all.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Tyro3 on September 12, 2017, 05:09:35 pm
Did I miss something? is the season over?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: swineology on September 12, 2017, 05:10:39 pm
We are a 7-8 win (regular season) football program on average.  The problem is that 8 wins seems to be CBB's ceiling, and that is unacceptable.

Bert had us set up for 9 last year until they blew it.
I'd still like to hear the real locker room story
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: niels_boar on September 12, 2017, 05:10:45 pm
So was I, because I like the more traditional style of football; a pro-style attack with a physical, attacking defense. Other than at schools like Alabama and maybe Ohio State, that's a tall order. Just can't get enough top-flight talent on both sides of the football to make that approach work. Those Razorback fans who expressed reservation about that style working at Arkansas when Bielema was hired appear to have been correct.

With de-emphasis on the physicality of the game and the advent of 7-on-7, those days of football are probably gone forever. It's much easier to sign a few really good skill position players and play pitch-and-catch for four quarters.

Personally I'd rather watch a more wide-open offense.  However, the counter-point is that the offense wasn't the problem the last two years.  It was quite good.  CBB is, of course, responsible for the defense as well.  His TOP-style ought to make it easier for Arkansas to put a credible defense on the field.  Give-the-ball-back every three minutes will not make recruiting for defense less challenging.  You need even more quality depth.  That makes the failures on D even more frustrating.  If CBB had been able to stitch together a top-flight Arkansas D, his job wouldn't be in question.

The caveat is that, if you can outscore opponents, who cares about the D?  That's what Petrino did.  However,  his two losses in his final season were by a combined score of 79 - 31 against Bama and LSU.  We weren't any closer to challenging the heavy weights, but we could reign supreme within our weight class.  That's typically been our ceiling, except for the odd year when everything breaks our way.  See abysmal record against Texas.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Jek Tono Porkins on September 12, 2017, 05:12:23 pm
Long failed to recognize the dynamic at UW Bert was operating in... a framework not of his own design, or Long did recognize this and trusted the naive Arkansas fanbase to look no further than OMGRoseBowl! and sing his praises for such a catch.

The contract extension - Wilson typed it out for all to see:  "Even discounting his first season, Bielema's teams have gone 23-18 (.561). The only coach since 1958 to have that poor a winning percentage over his first four years was Danny Ford, and he was fired at the end of his fifth season."

An inexcusable contract extension. 
It carried massive amounts of risk when it was given, and it has been an absolute boat anchor tying us to this failure of a coach.
The contract extension was signed at the end of his second season when things were looking pretty good. It was a good decision at the time. I'm not mad about it. It just didn't work out.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: wildturkey8 on September 12, 2017, 05:14:54 pm
The contract extension was signed at the end of his second season when things were looking pretty good. It was a good decision at the time. I'm not mad about it. It just didn't work out.
It was a poor business decision, doesn't matter how good things were looking. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Boarcephus on September 12, 2017, 05:15:51 pm
Long failed to recognize the dynamic at UW Bert was operating in... a framework not of his own design, or Long did recognize this and trusted the naive Arkansas fanbase to look no further than OMGRoseBowl! and sing his praises for such a catch.

Wisconsin hasn't missed a beat since he left. 

Long may not believe in winning at all costs but he's certainly spending huge sums of money of a great number  of people who want to win more than we have. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Cinco de Hogo on September 12, 2017, 05:18:24 pm
Bama has a good GPA, also the best recruits, the best coaches money can buy, a Dodge Charger in every locker, and an agent on speed dial.....

And conventional wisdom probably says their APR is a load of crap.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 05:20:16 pm
Bert had us set up for 9 last year until they blew it.
I'd still like to hear the real locker room story

We could/should have won 9 in '14 and '15, too.

That's the problem.  He ALWAYS underachieves.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: niels_boar on September 12, 2017, 05:23:27 pm
Bert has never built anything. 

To frame the discussion in terms of only the first two games of this season is short-sighted.  The broader body of work is historical, the ineptitude only matched by the idiocy of the undeserved buyout not attached to him.

If he has the job in October, he's not going to be fired after game 2 for a 28-7 loss to a ranked team. Whether he keeps his job or not will depend on how many games he wins in the remaining 83% of the season.  You can't frame his record at all until this season in the books.  His past record just determines how many W's he needs from here out.  His job depends on the future as a function of his past.  The future isn't set yet.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: bphi11ips on September 12, 2017, 05:24:03 pm
CBB has earned criticism and doubt.  However, in fairness comparing his first four years to Nutt's is not a Nascar evaluation.  I think we have seen enough of Nutt's career to know that he didn't miraculously turn the program around in his first year with his genius.  Clearly Ford had gotten the talent level to a point that Nutt could benefit from a team that was ready to turn the corner against one of our weaker schedules in decades.  Nutt didn't face a a top-40 SOS in his first three years according to Sagarin. 

By contrast, CBB inherited a program plunging into a valley, rather than climbing out. CBB has never faced a non-top-25 SOS by any measure and two consensus top-5 SOS's.  I'm pretty confident that he's a better (certainly no worse) coach than Nutt.  The difference in their records at this point says more about the challenge that they inherited than the quality of their coaching.

To be honest, I don't understand wasting so much energy debating his job status after two games.  If posters want to analyze how unprepared we were for TCU, fine.  When a fifth-year senior QB is next-to-last in all of college FB in QBR after two games, you have some 'splaining to do at CBB's salary.  However, a lot can happen in 10 games.  If the team course corrects and rallies, getting out the pitchforks now will look petulant and pointless.  If the team collapses, his job will be in plenty jeopardy by December without massing at the borders now for the final offensive.

Excellent post.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Iwastherein1969 on September 12, 2017, 05:27:03 pm
Assuming you are correct, how smart is it to put a provision in a contract that the University couldn't afford to exercise if it wanted to?
its obviously not very smart, in fact its quite stupid, I think I can safely say is your point....so who pulled that stunt ?   Jeff Long...that hand written letter JL written by CBB and received after Long turned on the faucet of tears when firing CBP, has to be near and dear to Jeff Long's heart strings because it seems from an admitted outsider that our AD has no intentions of letting Bret go....we have the money to get it done, getting rid of Bielema, and admittedly it will hurt our purse strings, but sometimes it's best to cut losses and set forth in a different direction no matter what... Bielema must go if after this season we have taken a step back, which seems likely right now...but Long has to go also, so he can fulfill his lifelong dream of being an AD for an academic school...if memory serves, JL allowed his skirt to fly up when Stanford winked at him immediately following Petrino's dismissal and IMO the only reason JL didn't interview for the Stanford job was because the firing of Petrino was too fresh
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: DLUXHOG on September 12, 2017, 05:28:48 pm
You all will be kissing on Jeff and Bert when they end the season 11-1...(I'm not drunk, but wish I was) count on it!   You'll all be saying what a brilliant AD Jeff is for having a significant buyout for Bret...
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: niels_boar on September 12, 2017, 05:36:18 pm
We could/should have won 9 in '14 and '15, too.

That's the problem.  He ALWAYS underachieves.

He did not underachieve in 2015.  He could have won 9 or 10 against a top-5 SOS, two years removed from a 3-9 team.  That would have been extraordinary.  It looks like underachievement because of the loss to Toledo, a game we should have won.  However, that ignores that the 8 wins included 3 SEC road wins against teams that won 9,10, and 9 games.  Those were not games that we should have won.  In fact, winning all three was overachievement.  Our 5 losses included a 1-point loss to 9-win MSU and a good showing at 14-win Bama.  If Allen doesn't overthrow an open TE in the endzone against Toledo and we get 1 more bounce against MSU, that would have been one of the great seasons in Arkansas history.  It's not fair to thrash him with a wet noodle for not winning 9 games that season, not many Arkansas teams would have.  He got to a quite successful 8 in a very unconventional manner, though.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: niels_boar on September 12, 2017, 05:40:28 pm

Further - in regards to determining how many W's he needs going forward, I will wager any unbiased party who troubled themselves to watch both the FAM and TCU games would say there's nothing to point to whatsoever as a basis for improvement going forward.

Yeah, I said the same thing in 2015 when we were 1-3 and felt like an whiny arse by November.  I'm not making that mistake again.  I'll wait until the games have been played. Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 12, 2017, 05:43:27 pm
Which by the strict definition of the NCAA doesn't happen in the SEC or any P5 conference. 

Unless you're naive enough to believe otherwise.

I think you fancy yourself smart enough to understand what I meant, maybe not. I fully realize no program is without $100 handshakes or Level 3 technical violations.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 05:48:28 pm
He did not underachieve in 2015.  He could have won 9 or 10 against a top-5 SOS, two years removed from a 3-9 team.  That would have been extraordinary.  It looks like underachievement because of the loss to Toledo, a game we should have won.  However, that ignores that the 8 wins included 3 SEC road wins against teams that won 9,10, and 9 games.  Those were not games that we should have won.  In fact, winning all three was overachievement.  Our 5 losses included a 1-point loss to 9-win MSU and a good showing at 14-win Bama.  If Allen doesn't overthrow an open TE in the endzone against Toledo and we get 1 more bounce against MSU, that would have been one of the great seasons in Arkansas history.  It's not fair to thrash him with a wet noodle for not winning 9 games that season, not many Arkansas teams would have.  He got to a quite successful 8 in a very unconventional manner, though.

They were good enough to go 5-3 in the SEC, but not good enough to beat Toledo and a 7-6 Texas Tech team at home?

Yeah, not buying that.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: bphi11ips on September 12, 2017, 06:31:12 pm
They were good enough to go 5-3 in the SEC, but not good enough to beat Toledo and a 7-6 Texas Tech team at home?

Yeah, not buying that.

Tech had Patrick Mahomes, who threw for three scores that day.  Mahomes was the 10th pick in this year's NFL draft.  Tech finished 7-6 in 2015.

Toledo was the preseason pick to win the MAC in 2015.  Their senior QB, Phillip Ely, was an Alabama transfer.  Arkansas outgained Toledo 515 to 318 yards and had 30 first downs to Toledo's 15.  We also had a blocked punt and the games only turnover and 85 yards in penalties.  It was a game we should have won, but Toledo was a good team.  They finished 10-2.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 06:31:53 pm
Tech had Patrick Mahomes, who threw for three scores that day.  Mahomes was the 10th pick in this year's NFL draft.  Tech finished 7-6 in 2015.

Toledo was the preseason pick to win the MAC in 2015.  Their senior QB, Phillip Ely, was an Alabama transfer.  Arkansas outgained Toledo 515 to 318 yards and had 30 first downs to Toledo's 15.  We also had a blocked punt and the games only turnover and 85 yards in penalties.  It was a game we should have won, but Toledo was a good team.  They finished 10-2.

So... I was correct?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hawgon on September 12, 2017, 06:51:44 pm
We could/should have won 9 in '14 and '15, too.

That's the problem.  He ALWAYS underachieves.

We've got a seven win team this year.  In Bert world, that means we're winning four.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogcard1964 on September 12, 2017, 06:59:12 pm
Tech had Patrick Mahomes, who threw for three scores that day.  Mahomes was the 10th pick in this year's NFL draft.  Tech finished 7-6 in 2015.

Toledo was the preseason pick to win the MAC in 2015.  Their senior QB, Phillip Ely, was an Alabama transfer.  Arkansas outgained Toledo 515 to 318 yards and had 30 first downs to Toledo's 15.  We also had a blocked punt and the games only turnover and 85 yards in penalties.  It was a game we should have won, but Toledo was a good team.  They finished 10-2.

So you're saying we lost to a pretty bad Texas Tech team and also a MAC team?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: bphi11ips on September 12, 2017, 07:07:18 pm
So you're saying we lost to a pretty bad Texas Tech team and also a MAC team?

No.  I'm pointing out how asinine Wildhog's facetious reply to niels_boar's post was.  Lot's of asinine posts here lately.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: JaketheSnake on September 12, 2017, 07:25:19 pm
I notice the Long/Bielema defenders are ignoring this thread.

Telling.
You posted this 10 minutes into a thread.  Really calling people out!
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Wildhog on September 12, 2017, 07:36:46 pm
No.  I'm pointing out how asinine Wildhog's facetious reply to niels_boar's post was.  Lot's of asinine posts here lately.

Haha you're too much
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: oldbooniehog on September 12, 2017, 08:00:46 pm
I am NOT defending Long or Bielema.

I am citing facts.

In the 25 years Arkansas has been in the SEC, the Hogs have had 8 different head coaches.

Now, this number includes Reggie Herring, "head coach" for one bowl game, and Jack Crowe, fired one game into the first SEC season without actually coaching against an SEC opponent.

So make it 6 guys who've held the reins for at least one full season.

25 years. 6 head coaches.

Zero SEC titles.

Exactly three seasons of 10 wins or more. (2006 was 10 wins. 2010 was 10 wins. 2011 was 11 wins).

In contrast, there have been 9 seasons below .500 in the same time period.

That means three times as many losing seasons as seasons with double-digit wins since joining the SEC. 

Arkansas is Oklahoma State is Iowa is Cal is Indiana is North Carolina is Oregon State is any other similar football program that will not win any titles, will not make the 4-team playoff, and will be somewhere between really awful and second-rate any given year.

Point to the glorious past all you want. But Arkansas has demonstrated, for a quarter of a century and counting, its place in the college football landscape.

As a reminder, even Bobby Petrino couldn't beat Alabama, and his 11-win team finished 3rd in the SEC West.

Fire and hire all the coaches and athletic directors you want. I just don't see Arkansas' place changing all that much.

25 years is enough to convince me to not get too worked up about it.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: JaketheSnake on September 12, 2017, 08:03:53 pm
I am NOT defending Long or Bielema.

I am citing facts.

In the 25 years Arkansas has been in the SEC, the Hogs have had 8 different head coaches.

Now, this number includes Reggie Herring, "head coach" for one bowl game, and Jack Crowe, fired one game into the first SEC season without actually coaching against an SEC opponent.

So make it 6 guys who've held the reins for at least one full season.

25 years. 6 head coaches.

Zero SEC titles.

Exactly three seasons of 10 wins or more. (2006 was 10 wins. 2010 was 10 wins. 2011 was 11 wins).

In contrast, there have been 9 seasons below .500 in the same time period.

That means three times as many losing seasons as seasons with double-digit wins since joining the SEC. 

Arkansas is Oklahoma State is Iowa is Cal is Indiana is North Carolina is Oregon State is any other similar football program that will not win any titles, will not make the 4-team playoff, and will be somewhere between really awful and second-rate any given year.

Point to the glorious past all you want. But Arkansas has demonstrated, for a quarter of a century and counting, its place in the college football landscape.

As a reminder, even Bobby Petrino couldn't beat Alabama, and his 11-win team finished 3rd in the SEC West.

Fire and hire all the coaches and athletic directors you want. I just don't see Arkansas' place changing all that much.

25 years is enough to convince me to not get too worked up about it.
Prepare your web-anus... the haters are coming
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: oldbooniehog on September 12, 2017, 08:05:14 pm
Let the haters hate all they want.

Math is math.

Win-loss record is win-loss record.

25 years in the SEC is 25 years.

Not all the hate in the world changes any of those numbers.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 08:08:09 pm
Prepare your web-anus... the haters are coming

Do you would prefer to just lay back and accept what we have now?

Sure, our history speaks for itself. We can't control that. Doesn't mean we just give up. That is the worst kind of attitude.

"Ah, well. He's only averaging a little over six wins a year, and none of his teams have finished even in the Top 25, but that's cool. That's about all we can expect."

Not the kind of attitude to be proud of.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Mo_Better_Hogs on September 12, 2017, 08:15:27 pm
Yep, that's the way I feel. On paper, Bielema was a great hire. So were many, many other coaches that for whatever reason didn't get it done. But the results just aren't there.

I don't even mind the contract extension. On paper, that was a great decision. It was a risk, but the general feeling after the 2014 season was that although the record wasn't all that great, the team was fiercely competitive against top competition and closed out the season looking like world beaters shutting out Ole Miss and LSU and humiliating Texas in the bowl game. At that point it looked like Bielema was ahead of schedule considering the situation he inherited. But since then it's been the same mixed bag of results, except the team has been less competitive against top competition and the excuses have run out. I hope the team turns it around this season but I don't think that's going to happen. We're stuck with CBB until we can afford to get rid of him. It is what it is.

Good post, all of it. And I remember how I felt at the end of the 2014 season. Sky high. I was ready to campaign for a statue of some of those seniors that year. Like they were here AT the turning point.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: redneckfriend on September 12, 2017, 08:21:51 pm
Do you would prefer to just lay back and accept what we have now?

Sure, our history speaks for itself. We can't control that. Doesn't mean we just give up. That is the worst kind of attitude.

 No never accept reality. Hire Hugh Freeze immediately because that is the only way out of the 7-8 win box at Arkansas. Face it, the program can't keep cycling honest coaches every few years because the fan base is unrealistic. We hired a tested P-5 coach and he fanned. Now we hire an "up-and-comer" and he will fan. Then a hot DC and he will fan. They can't, without "freezing", get recruits to Arkansas who can compete in the SEC. The ways out of the box are to hire a known cheater or get out of the SEC. The fan base represented on this site are probably, in majority, quite okay with a cheater who doesn't get caught. That is how much winning means. Nothing changes with human nature and Goethe summed it all up a long time ago.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: JaketheSnake on September 12, 2017, 08:21:53 pm
Do you would prefer to just lay back and accept what we have now?

Sure, our history speaks for itself. We can't control that. Doesn't mean we just give up. That is the worst kind of attitude.
No I dont.  I also dont think we fire a coach after the second game of the season as many around here have stated. 

We can not afford to get rid of CBB right now.   Maybe Long did that on purpose understanding the length CBB needed to build his team.  Maybe it was an idiotic thing that JL dreamed up.  Either way, it's a tough position we are in. 

I'm still on the fence on CBB.  I like what he does outside of his W/L record, but I sure with that was better.  If Kelly is a decent QB next year we could have a really good year.  If he can finish this season above .500, that will be pretty good IMO (for this team.)  Someone will fall on the axe at some point in the next few months.  Maybe Anderson?  Seems the most smoke is under his tail as far as assistants.  CBB would need to make dynamite hire to replace. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ChicoHog on September 12, 2017, 08:25:11 pm
"Winning at all cost" = SABAN (example) Then I take Saban everyday and Sunday regardless how our GPA looks. 
Saban is not "win at all costs".  They have not been on probation since he has been there.  Baylor, USC with Reggie Bush, Mississippi recently, etc.,  That is win at all costs.  Even Urban Liar at Florida had 31 players arrested during his tenure.  Pretty close to winning at all costs also.  Saban not even close to that. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hawgmasta on September 12, 2017, 08:27:17 pm
I am NOT defending Long or Bielema.

I am citing facts.

In the 25 years Arkansas has been in the SEC, the Hogs have had 8 different head coaches.

Now, this number includes Reggie Herring, "head coach" for one bowl game, and Jack Crowe, fired one game into the first SEC season without actually coaching against an SEC opponent.

So make it 6 guys who've held the reins for at least one full season.

25 years. 6 head coaches.

Zero SEC titles.

Exactly three seasons of 10 wins or more. (2006 was 10 wins. 2010 was 10 wins. 2011 was 11 wins).

In contrast, there have been 9 seasons below .500 in the same time period.

That means three times as many losing seasons as seasons with double-digit wins since joining the SEC. 

Arkansas is Oklahoma State is Iowa is Cal is Indiana is North Carolina is Oregon State is any other similar football program that will not win any titles, will not make the 4-team playoff, and will be somewhere between really awful and second-rate any given year.

Point to the glorious past all you want. But Arkansas has demonstrated, for a quarter of a century and counting, its place in the college football landscape.

As a reminder, even Bobby Petrino couldn't beat Alabama, and his 11-win team finished 3rd in the SEC West.

Fire and hire all the coaches and athletic directors you want. I just don't see Arkansas' place changing all that much.

25 years is enough to convince me to not get too worked up about it.

So your saying it IS possible to be on the cusp of going to the SEC championship and win 10-11 games a year with the right coach? That's what I got out of that.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: JaketheSnake on September 12, 2017, 08:27:57 pm
Saban is not "win at all costs".  They have not been on probation since he has been there.  Baylor, USC with Reggie Bush, Mississippi recently, etc.,  That is win at all costs.  Even Urban Liar at Florida had 31 players arrested during his tenure.  Pretty close to winning at all costs also.  Saban not even close to that. 
Agreed.  If we thought we could get Saban, pay the buyout and pay Saban anything he wants.  Make him Governor, Chancellor, and CEO of Wal-mart.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hawgmasta on September 12, 2017, 08:28:12 pm
And I know we've been to the SEC championship multiple times. .
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 08:29:02 pm
No never accept reality. Hire Hugh Freeze immediately because that is the only way out of the 7-8 win box at Arkansas. Face it, the program can't keep cycling honest coaches every few years because the fan base is unrealistic. We hired a tested P-5 coach and he fanned. Now we hire an "up-and-comer" and he will fan. Then a hot DC and he will fan. They can't, without "freezing", get recruits to Arkansas who can compete in the SEC. The ways out of the box are to hire a known cheater or get out of the SEC. The fan base represented on this site are probably, in majority, quite okay with a cheater who doesn't get caught. That is how much winning means. Nothing changes with human nature and Goethe summed it all up a long time ago.

Bielema has yet to fit within the "7-8 win box" at Arkansas. In fact, split the difference and look at it this way. To average 7.5 wins over his first six years here, Bielema will have to win 10 games this year AND next year. Extend that out to eight years just to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he still would have to average 8.75 wins each of the next four years.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: oldbooniehog on September 12, 2017, 08:29:24 pm
WilsonHog.

It doesn't matter what kind of "attitude" Hog fans have.

Arkansas football is limited by money, access to top recruits, and whole host of factors due to history and geography.

You could dump cash in by the truckload, and hire the biggest, flashiest name for a coach.

Arkansas might have a few good seasons, but simply couldn't sustain it. (Petrino got fired before his next lean season happened).

At absolute best, Arkansas can hope to be a roller coaster. Hitting some okay highs, followed by way down in the bottom of the loop. Only Hog fans usually holler for Coach X's head during the down cycle in those cases.

Citizens of Portugal can have all the pride in their country they want. They can believe Portugal to be the best place in the world. Portugal will never ever be a world power, due to a whole host of factors. Even if they were one of the superpowers back in the 1500s.

I think the same applies to Arkansas football. Arkansas just isn't a program that will be among the greats. Even on the occasional seasons they are good, they won't be great, and will not be able to sustain it.

 And it's been proven over and over and over.

Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: oldbooniehog on September 12, 2017, 08:33:27 pm
Hawgmasta, you wrote "So your saying it IS possible to be on the cusp of going to the SEC championship and win 10-11 games a year with the right coach? That's what I got out of that."

I know Hog fans well enough to know THAT will NOT satisfy them.

Houston Nutt won 10 games one season, and came within a fumbled punt of beating Florida and Tim Tebow for the SEC title.

Didn't satisfy Hog fans.

Ken Hatfield was run off after back-to-back 10-win seasons, and a pair of SWC Conference titles because fans were not satisfied he didn't win "the big game" and couldn't get it done when it counted against Miami, UCLA and Tennessee.

Sometimes winning 10 or 11 games and getting on the edge of an SEC title will only enrage Hog fans, who are so desperate to be seen as "the elite" of college football.

Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hawgmasta on September 12, 2017, 08:39:46 pm
Hawgmasta, you wrote "So your saying it IS possible to be on the cusp of going to the SEC championship and win 10-11 games a year with the right coach? That's what I got out of that."

I know Hog fans well enough to know THAT will NOT satisfy them.

Houston Nutt won 10 games one season, and came within a fumbled punt of beating Florida and Tim Tebow for the SEC title.

Didn't satisfy Hog fans.

Ken Hatfield was run off after back-to-back 10-win seasons, and a pair of SWC Conference titles because fans were not satisfied he didn't win "the big game" and couldn't get it done when it counted against Miami, UCLA and Tennessee.

Sometimes winning 10 or 11 games and getting on the edge of an SEC title will only enrage Hog fans, who are so desperate to be seen as "the elite" of college football.

I think it would be enough to have hope that the next few years it would be possible.

Nutts decline was a lot more complicated than that. Ken Hatfield coached thirty years ago; a lot has changed including our conference in which it's even harder to get 10-11 wins.

Right now I have no hope we'll ever get ten wins with CBB. Maybe 9 every 5 years or so, with a lot of 6 and 7 win seasons in between.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: oldbooniehog on September 12, 2017, 08:39:51 pm
Oh yeah, Hawgmasta, about those "multiple" trips to the SEC Title game.

Three trips.

1995. Florida clobbered the Hogs 34-3

2002. Georgia stomped Arkansas 30-3.

2007. Florida beat Hogs 38-28.

Been outscored 102-34 in the SEC Championship Game.

Failed to score an actual touchdown the first 2 trips to that game.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hawgmasta on September 12, 2017, 08:43:27 pm

Citizens of Portugal can have all the pride in their country they want. They can believe Portugal to be the best place in the world. Portugal will never ever be a world power, due to a whole host of factors. Even if they were one of the superpowers back in the 1500s.

I think the same applies to Arkansas football. Arkansas just isn't a program that will be among the greats. Even on the occasional seasons they are good, they won't be great, and will not be able to sustain it.

 And it's been proven over and over and over.

I think that's a very interesting example because in the worlds most popular sport, soccer, Portugal is a very dangerous and highly rated team that includes probably the best player in the world. They take great pride in their national team despite having limited resources as their larger competitors do.

Arkansas doesn't have the best player in the world but with a well coached and an above average talented team they could be tapping on the door.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: oldbooniehog on September 12, 2017, 08:45:11 pm
And to clarify, I am not defending Bielema.

Fire him all you want to. Run him out of the state.

Hire the coach of your dreams. It won't matter.

Well, it will matter exactly this much.

It will make the difference between finishing 2nd or 3rd in the SEC West vs finishing 6th or 7th.

And that's about as good as it gets for Arkansas since 1992. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hawgmasta on September 12, 2017, 08:48:05 pm
Oh yeah, Hawgmasta, about those "multiple" trips to the SEC Title game.

Three trips.

1995. Florida clobbered the Hogs 34-3

2002. Georgia stomped Arkansas 30-3.

2007. Florida beat Hogs 38-28.

Been outscored 102-34 in the SEC Championship Game.

Failed to score an actual touchdown the first 2 trips to that game.

Hey but at least we have made it, as Lloyd in dumb in dumber once said, "So your saying there's a chance!"
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: redneckfriend on September 12, 2017, 08:53:13 pm
Bielema has yet to fit within the "7-8 win box" at Arkansas. In fact, split the difference and look at it this way. To average 7.5 wins over his first six years here, Bielema will have to win 10 games this year AND next year. Extend that out to eight years just to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he still would have to average 8.75 wins each of the next four years.

And I'm not saying Bielema will be a 7 win box coach but I would guess that is where he will end up if he stays (not counting the first couple of years). But that isn't going to be good enough for the fan base. The point was- if you want that "old time feeling" that fans got with Bobby P. you will either have to tolerate a cheater or get out of the SEC. Now Bobby P. wasn't a cheater (we all unfortunately know what he was), but as I said in another thread, probably the best offensive head coach active today. Not likely that happens again at Arkansas so the alternative, if we stay in the SEC,  is a cheater who can bring in recruits. And we can all turn a blind eye and be happy that we are winning 9-10 games a year (until the NCAA steps in).

Otherwise it is just an endless succession of failed 7 win (or less) coaches passing through and an increasingly disgruntled and cynical fan base. I mean look at what has been happening here today. Jeff Long, for God's sake, who did nothing but fire a married coach who was using athletic dept. money to hire his girlfriend (and who lied but I sort of forgive that because who wouldn't) and the hire Brett Bielema is being treated as the coming of the anti-Christ. If that isn't an example of fan psychopathology I don't know what is.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: TNRazorbacker on September 12, 2017, 08:57:19 pm
If Long's gripe or defense of this asinine statement was in line with Arkansas actually being a dirty/"win at all" type of program through the years, then I could understand him saying something like this.  But we've always been pretty clean in relation to a lot of other SEC programs.  I also remember we were always pretty upstanding in our old SWC days as well.

Him coming out with this nonsense when the football program is down is an obvious indicator of him attempting to "polish the turd" that is currently Arkansas football.

This.

Its fine to say we aren't a "win at all costs" university. Nobody assumes nor expects that. Its not ok to make this your excuse for losing though and thats exactly what it sounds like.

When or how you say something is often much more telling than what you say.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Arkansas Traveler on September 12, 2017, 09:13:56 pm

It will make the difference between finishing 2nd or 3rd in the SEC West vs finishing 6th or 7th.

That would be a significant improvement.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Hogdomer on September 12, 2017, 09:24:53 pm
I am NOT defending Long or Bielema.

I am citing facts.

In the 25 years Arkansas has been in the SEC, the Hogs have had 8 different head coaches.

Now, this number includes Reggie Herring, "head coach" for one bowl game, and Jack Crowe, fired one game into the first SEC season without actually coaching against an SEC opponent.

So make it 6 guys who've held the reins for at least one full season.

25 years. 6 head coaches.

Zero SEC titles.

Exactly three seasons of 10 wins or more. (2006 was 10 wins. 2010 was 10 wins. 2011 was 11 wins).

In contrast, there have been 9 seasons below .500 in the same time period.

That means three times as many losing seasons as seasons with double-digit wins since joining the SEC. 

Arkansas is Oklahoma State is Iowa is Cal is Indiana is North Carolina is Oregon State is any other similar football program that will not win any titles, will not make the 4-team playoff, and will be somewhere between really awful and second-rate any given year.

Point to the glorious past all you want. But Arkansas has demonstrated, for a quarter of a century and counting, its place in the college football landscape.

As a reminder, even Bobby Petrino couldn't beat Alabama, and his 11-win team finished 3rd in the SEC West.

Fire and hire all the coaches and athletic directors you want. I just don't see Arkansas' place changing all that much.

25 years is enough to convince me to not get too worked up about it.

  Who cares about winning the SEC!  That isn't the point.  We can't beat TCU, Texas Tech, Toledo, Mizzou or Texas A&M under this guy.  This isn't about beating the heavywieghts.  It's about being unprepared and playing lackluster over and over against teams with equal or lesser talent, many times at home.  We are to the point we were when HDN took over and the main goal was to beat SMU.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Boston RedHogs on September 12, 2017, 09:42:19 pm
I haven't posted on this board in YEARS....but here goes...

I feel like I'm in a similar camp as WilsonHog....I'm born and raised in Hot Springs, this is my home State's flagship institution of higher learning and my Alma Mater. I take great pride in knowing that, relatively speaking, we strive to compete on the level. I'm proud of the academic accomplishments Bielema and team have achieved and feel there is general stability in the program for the first time in a while

But when we reach the point where we are consistently mediocre on the field, I have no choice but to believe a coaching change is necessary.

It's 2017, and supporting Bielema and his style of play is akin to stubbornly sticking with Blockbuster in a world that has already transitioned to Netflix; we're outdated and the game has passed us by......
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: HawgLife on September 12, 2017, 11:12:30 pm
I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs." I do, however, believe in winning. That's why they keep score; it kind of matters.

Good. That's what Jeff Long believes too.

It seems that many have based their understanding of his beliefs on this topic on sensationalized headlines and misleading thread titles. Here's a few quotes from Jeff Long's appearances at the TD Clubs the past two weeks.

“Obviously, winning is very important. We all know that. It doesn’t have to be said. An AD doesn’t have to go out and make a statement that winning is important. We all know that’s part of what we do. Every coach on our staff knows that winning is part of their job. It’s an important part of their job.”

“We just need to win some more games. And Bret knows that.”

“We truly are working harder to win more games. Winning is important. There’s no question.”

"Yes, we want to win. Yes, it’s a priority. Yes, it eats us up from the inside that we don’t win more.”

“Nobody wants to win more games than Bret Bielema, so we all want to win games. That’s what we’re here for and that’s what competition is all about.”

“We know we’re here to win football games.”

“We’re working extremely hard to win more games. Winning is important.”

“He’ll be the first to admit, and so will I, we need to win more games. And we’re working really hard to do that.”

“….we’re going out every game to win it.”
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: redneckfriend on September 12, 2017, 11:41:41 pm
I haven't posted on this board in YEARS....but here goes...

I feel like I'm in a similar camp as WilsonHog....I'm born and raised in Hot Springs, this is my home State's flagship institution of higher learning and my Alma Mater. I take great pride in knowing that, relatively speaking, we strive to compete on the level. I'm proud of the academic accomplishments Bielema and team have achieved and feel there is general stability in the program for the first time in a while

But when we reach the point where we are consistently mediocre on the field, I have no choice but to believe a coaching change is necessary.

It's 2017, and supporting Bielema and his style of play is akin to stubbornly sticking with Blockbuster in a world that has already transitioned to Netflix; we're outdated and the game has passed us by......

I don't think you will find many Bielema defenders at this point. What it has come down to is those who worshipped Bobby P making that argument by the back door of abusing Jeff Long, suggesting in essence he had no reason to fire Bobby. In other words if you think Petrino was the second coming then Jeff Long must be the devil.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Kevin on September 13, 2017, 08:00:39 am
why can't a coach run basically a clean program, graduate kids, and try to win championships. why does winning championships have to mean win at all cost.

I think are baseball & track teams have chances to win titles, are they win at all cost programs.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hawgmasta on September 13, 2017, 08:03:51 am
why can't a coach run basically a clean program, graduate kids, and try to win championships. why does winning championships have to mean win at all cost.

I think are baseball & track teams have chances to win titles, are they win at all cost programs.

That's a good question but I think it has to do with the amount of money being made and spent. Whenever any sort of business is throwing around this kind of moolah there will be some that do anything to get ahead.

And let's not kid ourselves SEC football is big business.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Kevin on September 13, 2017, 08:12:01 am
That's a good question but I think it has to do with the amount of money being made and spent. Whenever any sort of business is throwing around this kind of moolah there will be some that do anything to get ahead.

And let's not kid ourselves SEC football is big business.

I ask the question based on it seems our ad thinks you either are a win at all cost or mediocre.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: HotlantaHog on September 13, 2017, 08:16:09 am
To those who say we are having this discussion a little early, I kind of agree .... but I also think it's reasonable for folks to look at the TCU game (and end of last year) and extrapolate into the future.

Texas A&M is a bad team, has played pretty badly all year. I think Arkansas will win that game -- Arkansas has every reason to be motivated having lost to the Aggies year after year, and it wouldn't seem to be that difficult. South Carolina is a middling team -- likely to finish in the middle to lower part of the SEC East. They would be near the bottom of the SEC West. Muschamp isn't that great of a head coach, as he has proven in the SEC.

If Arkansas can somehow win those two games, a lot of the Fire Bielema and Fire JL talk will calm down a bit, and a winning season (7-5 or 8-4) would seem plausible. Lose ONE of those two games, and it gets difficult to see the season getting better. Who really thinks this team can compete with Alabama or LSU or Auburn for that matter?
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: HotlantaHog on September 13, 2017, 08:18:21 am
I don't think you will find many Bielema defenders at this point. What it has come down to is those who worshipped Bobby P making that argument by the back door of abusing Jeff Long, suggesting in essence he had no reason to fire Bobby. In other words if you think Petrino was the second coming then Jeff Long must be the devil.
You can believe Bobby Petrino is a very bad guy and think there would be some way to keep him on with a suspension, and negotiate the penalties over time. ...
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: GuvHog on September 13, 2017, 08:31:39 am
You can believe Bobby Petrino is a very bad guy and think there would be some way to keep him on with a suspension, and negotiate the penalties over time. ...

Exactly. What Bobby did was wrong but his transgressions did not merit termination.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 13, 2017, 08:46:43 am
I ask the question based on it seems our ad thinks you either are a win at all cost or mediocre.


No, some who are win at all cost read and hear his comments AND INFER or IMPLY that he thinks that, even though NOTHING he said really means that at all.

But it goes deeper. It goes to the point that some fans believe the only way teams are winning is cheating, and therefore the Hogs should sell their souls and do the same. Here is the problem with that though, even if everyone is cheating, doing so yourself won't guarantee winning because everyone else may just start cheating more.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: JIMMY BOARFFETT on September 13, 2017, 08:49:47 am
We need someone in charge of this program who has that "fire in their belly."  A fire that hasn't been quenched by a 15 million dollar buyout.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: JaketheSnake on September 13, 2017, 08:59:51 am
Exactly. What Bobby did was wrong but his transgressions did not merit termination.
He had the opp to stay and chose something else.  There's another entire thread on it in the first page here.  But go ahead and blame Jeff Long and me and anyone else that was embarrassed by that April Fools junk. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 13, 2017, 10:40:15 am
We need someone in charge of this program who has that "fire in their belly."  A fire that hasn't been quenched by a 15 million dollar buyout.

Yea, cause " want to " has to be the problem. Actually "want to" is the problem, as in elite players do not have the "want to" come play here when they can go anywhere they "want to" and play all they "want To" usually closer to those who " want to " see them play " and " want to " do so in person. Also, the state of Ar does not " want to " do the things that would help make more in state talent because they do not " want to " upset a bunch of people who do not " want to " see their hole in the road school consolidated.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ricepig on September 13, 2017, 10:54:17 am
why can't a coach run basically a clean program, graduate kids, and try to win championships. why does winning championships have to mean win at all cost.

I think are baseball & track teams have chances to win titles, are they win at all cost programs.

Facilities and history, while we marvel at our football facilities, they are just average in the SEC. As to history of winning, well you know our history in football.....
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogsanity on September 13, 2017, 10:56:39 am
Facilities and history, while we marvel at our football facilities, they are just average in the SEC. As to history of winning, well you know our history in football.....

IMO, alot of people are in the anger stage over this as they are finally realizing 7-8 program is exactly what the Hogs program is. They are having trouble accepting that.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Hogdomer on September 13, 2017, 10:57:22 am
Facilities and history, while we marvel at our football facilities, they are just average in the SEC. As to history of winning, well you know our history in football.....

Our history in football and our current place both indicate we should be able to beat TCU, Texas Tech, Toledo, Texas A&M and Missouri.  This isn't about hogsanity's obsession with making sure the rubes know how stupid they are if they think we can compete with Bama, LSU and Auburn. 
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: Oklahawg on September 13, 2017, 01:31:04 pm
And to clarify, I am not defending Bielema.

Fire him all you want to. Run him out of the state.

Hire the coach of your dreams. It won't matter.

Well, it will matter exactly this much.

It will make the difference between finishing 2nd or 3rd in the SEC West vs finishing 6th or 7th.

And that's about as good as it gets for Arkansas since 1992. 

And, how the old coach exits and the new coach arrives can sure add some years between the 6th/7th and the 2nd/3rd.

I really enjoy your posts in this thread.
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: hogman64 on September 13, 2017, 01:45:56 pm
probably not accurate to judge by appearance , but actually sometimes a change in appearance  is an indication of how someone is   functioning
in other ways......

Look at the BB the day we hired him and look at the BB now.....

At times I  feel like maybe  Wisconsin had that coach we hired on that day  and we have the one you see now....
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: ImHogginIt on September 13, 2017, 08:57:58 pm
You all will be kissing on Jeff and Bert when they end the season 11-1...(I'm not drunk, but wish I was) count on it!   You'll all be saying what a brilliant AD Jeff is for having a significant buyout for Bret...

 :) :D ;D

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2011/07/19/business/Drug/Drug-popup.jpg)
Title: Re: I do not Believe in "Win-at-all-Costs."
Post by: HatfieldHog on September 13, 2017, 09:32:21 pm
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing"

See ya