The SEC(ynics)

[Michael_E_Davis]

(Yes it's been brought up before, like everything else) but, I am revisiting it because of a post I saw recently. I thought they were a drying breed.  I thought it was over;  these people that would pop up now and again, on the radio shows, sounding they they just got a phone installed last week,  with a solution to helping the Razorbacks winning percentage sky rocket;  move them to a easier conference. (The Sunbelt? Maybe Arkansas St. Could be the new Rivalry everyone seems to want.)

Unfortunately, It seems some of them are still hanging around, like poop that won't flush,  suggesting that the only way the hogs will ever be relevant is to move to a really easy conference.

Is there anyone out there that 'really' thinks the Razorbacks should run away (tail between legs) from the most challenging, well respected, exciting, and covered conference in football... still?  Is there seriously anyone that thinks this?  If so,  I would like someone to explain to me what respect Arkansas will gain from surrendering, and leaving to an easier conference... I still don't get it.

[RME]

I thought they were a drying breed.  I thought it was over;  these people that would pop up now and again, on the radio shows, sounding they they just got a phone installed last week,  with a solution to helping the Razorbacks winning percentage sky rocket;  move them to a easier conference. (The Sunbelt? Maybe Arkansas St. Could be the new Rivalry everyone seems to want.)

Unfortunately, It seems some of them are still hanging around, like poop that won't flush,  suggesting that the only way the hogs will ever be relevant is to move to a really easy conference.

Is there anyone out there that 'really' thinks the Razorbacks should  run away (tail between legs) from the most challenging, well respected, exciting, and covered conference in football?  Is there seriously anyone that thinks this?  If so,  I would like someone to explain to me what respect Arkansas will gain from surrendering, and leaving to an easier conference.

There are about 600 threads on this topic scattered throughout this place.

[Michael_E_Davis]

There are about 600 threads on this topic scattered throughout this place.

There are about 600 topics on everything scattered through-out the place.  Your point?

[phadedhawg]

It would feel like a surrender if we left before winning an SEC Championship in football. 

Some of suggested we are a better fit culturally to the Big 12.  It doesn't really matter though.  Too much money involved in the SEC to move to an easier pasture. 

[ZERO]

Moving to another conference would without a doubt make life easier on us. No way in hell would I ever want that, though.

[RME]

There are about 600 topics on everything scattered through-out the place.  Your point?

That it's going to be nothing but people saying how that we should stay in the SEC because we get to play the best teams week in and week out but feel really good about going 7-5. And that to beat the best you gotta play the best (do we beat the best though anyway?) I love the SEC and I'm not that dumb (though I'm pretty dumb) to overlook the benefits of being in the SEC (which are absolutely monumental, no question about it).

But if somewhere else gave the Arkansas Razorbacks football team the best shot to get into the CFBP, I'd be pretty happy with that.

Not sure about everyone else, but I'd be more happy to brag to other fans about competing for the playoff year in and year out than to brag about the money the University of Arkansas receives for being in the SEC.

[DoctorSusscrofa]

I don't want to leave the SEC but I don't think a longing for the Big 12 is irrational for those that have it.  I don't think Oklahoma or Texas (or even Oklahoma St.) lack respect just because they're not in the SEC.  And Baylor and TCU have both gotten a little time in the Sun in the Big 12.  And the Big 12, while not an SEC, is also not quite like the conference the OP mentions. So I don't think the OP has scored a single point in the discussion. Most still want to stay where we are and even those who want to leave don't want to join a conference as low on the totem pole as the one he mentions.

[Al Boarland]

Big 12 is a better fit, IMO.

[hobhog]

When is kickoff?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

That it's going to be nothing but people saying how that we should stay in the SEC because we get to play the best teams week in and week out but feel really good about going 7-5. And that to beat the best you gotta play the best (do we beat the best though anyway?) I love the SEC and I'm not that dumb (though I'm pretty dumb) to overlook the benefits of being in the SEC (which are absolutely monumental, no question about it).

But if somewhere else gave the Arkansas Razorbacks football team the best shot to get into the CFBP, I'd be pretty happy with that.

Not sure about everyone else, but I'd be more happy to brag to other fans about competing for the playoff year in and year out than to brag about the money the University of Arkansas receives for being in the SEC.

The problem I see with this is that no one (yes, I said that) is probably going to offer Arkansas a chance to join their conference aside from the Big 12. Why? The Big 12 needs Arkansas where no one else really does. But here is the thing as we all know...the Big 12 continues to live on life support and the more recent turn or events (not renegotiating t.v. revenues and more particularly, not extending their GOR's beyond 2025) makes it appear that change for the B12 could be in their future.

Now under what conditions might it be a good deal to move to the B12?

First, revenue sharing would certainly need to increase over current B12 levels so that it at least closely emulated SEC levels.

Second, the B12 would also probably have to move from 10 teams to 14 and among those additional 14 teams would have to not only be Arkansas, but a significantly big enough deal to lure A&M, Missouri and Nebraska back to the fold.

Third, revenue sharing becomes equal and no ones vote is worth more than another, effectively putting a choke-chain on Texas and OU to a lesser extent.

That could be a far more attractive conference with Baylor, TCU, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma and Okla State in the South.

Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Iowa State and W. Virginia would be in the North.

The odds of getting to a CCG would certainly be increased significantly even if SOS would decrease quite a bit.

But what are the odds of any of that happening? Zippo. Nada.

[ZERO]

The problem I see with this is that no one (yes, I said that) is probably going to offer Arkansas a chance to join their conference aside from the Big 12. Why? The Big 12 needs Arkansas where no one else really does. But here is the thing as we all know...the Big 12 continues to live on life support and the more recent turn or events (not renegotiating t.v. revenues and more particularly, not extending their GOR's beyond 2025) makes it appear that change for the B12 could be in their future.

Now under what conditions might it be a good deal to move to the B12?

First, revenue sharing would certainly need to increase over current B12 levels so that it at least closely emulated SEC levels.

Second, the B12 would also probably have to move from 10 teams to 14 and among those additional 14 teams would have to not only be Arkansas, but a significantly big enough deal to lure A&M, Missouri and Nebraska back to the fold.

Third, revenue sharing becomes equal and no ones vote is worth more than another, effectively putting a choke-chain on Texas and OU to a lesser extent.

That could be a far more attractive conference with Baylor, TCU, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma and Okla State in the South.

Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Iowa State and W. Virginia would be in the North.

The odds of getting to a CCG would certainly be increased significantly even if SOS would decrease quite a bit.

But what are the odds of any of that happening? Zippo. Nada.

Or Colorado. None of those five teams have any incentive or desire to return back to that conference. I don't know how any of us could feel good about ourselves leaving this conference just to make it easier. We'd be the laughingstock of college football and that would never change until we won a national championship - which is not even guaranteed. Leaving the money and stability of the SEC for a joke like the Big 12 would be a huge mistake.

[bythelake]

Man, I try to refrain from responding. But, anybody that wants to change conferences is a complete total dum ass.  All that post such, thank you, I will duly note not to ever take anything you post seriously.  Just go, one of those kind.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Or Colorado. None of those five teams have any incentive or desire to return back to that conference. I don't know how any of us could feel good about ourselves leaving this conference just to make it easier. We'd be the laughingstock of college football and that would never change until we won a national championship - which is not even guaranteed. Leaving the money and stability of the SEC for a joke like the Big 12 would be a huge mistake.

Colorado had been trying to get out of the Big Eight, then the Big 12 before. The Liberals in Boulder had viewed themselves as being a better fit as a Pac Ten/Pac 12 school for years.

As I said above, the only way that I think Arkansas would even consider it is if, 1) those other teams I mentioned came with them, 2) the conference revenue sharing was equal and closely mimicked SEC levels, and 3) the big boys (Texas/OU) were muzzled and everyone's vote was equal.

And as I said, none of that is going to happen. So, we aren't going to leave what we have just to go over there, risk a great deal and try to patch holes to try to save a sinking ship.

[RME]

Colorado had been trying to get out of the Big Eight, then the Big 12 before. The Liberals in Boulder had viewed themselves as being a better fit as a Pac Ten/Pac 12 school for years.

As I said above, the only way that I think Arkansas would even consider it is if, 1) those other teams I mentioned came with them, 2) the conference revenue sharing was equal and closely mimicked SEC levels, and 3) the big boys (Texas/OU) were muzzled and everyone's vote was equal.

And as I said, none of that is going to happen. So, we aren't going to leave what we have just to go over there, risk a great deal and try to patch holes to try to save a sinking ship.

Oh definitely not. If, in some alternate universe, it were going to, I think your previous post nailed it.

These threads are always (obviously) completely hypothetical, but still seem to really get under some people's skin (just because I initially quoted you here, this comment isn't directed at you, Muskogee) because they think anything otherwise is some "tuck and run" attitude. Loser mentality. Poor ol' Arky. Bad fans.

That's fine, that's their opinion. If I'm a bad fan or have a loser mentality because I want more wins per season, so be it. Give me more wins in a P5 conference over higher revenue sharing.

As I said earlier, my opinion is that I'd rather have a shot at CCG and CFBP in a conference where I believe we could perform better, rather than go 6-6, 7-5, and 8-4 year in and year out. Would those win totals increase if something were to change? I really believe they would. With those divisions Muskogee put together, I see probably 6-7 wins most seasons BEFORE considering OOC games. Take care of business, and that's 9/10/11 wins per. But, as Muskogee said, never nada no way gonna happen, so there's no way to know either way.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Oh definitely not. If, in some alternate universe, it were going to, I think your previous post nailed it.

These threads are always (obviously) completely hypothetical, but still seem to really get under some people's skin (just because I initially quoted you here, this comment isn't directed at you, Muskogee) because they think anything otherwise is some "tuck and run" attitude. Loser mentality. Poor ol' Arky. Bad fans.

That's fine, that's their opinion. If I'm a bad fan or have a loser mentality because I want more wins per season, so be it. Give me more wins in a P5 conference over higher revenue sharing.

As I said earlier, my opinion is that I'd rather have a shot at CCG and CFBP in a conference where I believe we could perform better, rather than go 6-6, 7-5, and 8-4 year in and year out. Would those win totals increase if something were to change? I really believe they would. But, as Muskogee said, never nada no way gonna happen, so there's no way to know either way.

Well yeah, you give me the conference set up and teams that I suggested and the contract terms under which that move would be made (but all of that would be hitting the trifecta) and I wouldn't mind seeing us move to the new Big 14. But let's face it, Nebraska isn't coming back from the Big Ten and nether are Missouri and A&M from the SEC. Therefore, Arkansas won't be going to the Big 12 either.

[cityhog]

It might be nice to win a conference championship in something other than track and field before I die. I kind of enjoyed thinking we had a chance of at least a chance of competing for a conference championship in football and basketball year in and year out in the SWC.  But hey, those millions of dollars sure do ease the year in and year out expectations of being 4th-8th in football and 2nd -5th in basketball. I'd rather win conference championships and have a chance at competing for national championships than knowing it's NEVER going to happen for us as long as we're in the SEC. Embrace the middle.

[Sivad]

Who voluntarily LEAVES the SEC?
Nobody with any sense.

[HamSammich]

Embrace the middle.

Arkansas will have to catch lightning in a bottle in a Herman or Peterson to ever compete in the SEC. And I'm not even saying it's impossible. I'm just saying.... yeah till that happens embrace the suck.

[oldhawg]

Who voluntarily LEAVES the SEC?
Nobody with any sense.

Tulane, Georgia Tech, and Sewanee.

How often have they competed for national honors since leaving the SEC?

[go hogues]

We'd be middling in any conference. Recruiting would fall off even more if we left the sec. That's really the best recruiting tool we currently have and we still place around 10th in the league in recruiting.

Imagine if we could no longer sell that?

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

That it's going to be nothing but people saying how that we should stay in the SEC because we get to play the best teams week in and week out but feel really good about going 7-5. And that to beat the best you gotta play the best (do we beat the best though anyway?) I love the SEC and I'm not that dumb (though I'm pretty dumb) to overlook the benefits of being in the SEC (which are absolutely monumental, no question about it).

But if somewhere else gave the Arkansas Razorbacks football team the best shot to get into the CFBP, I'd be pretty happy with that.

Not sure about everyone else, but I'd be more happy to brag to other fans about competing for the playoff year in and year out than to brag about the money the University of Arkansas receives for being in the SEC.

Would you feel that way if the Hogs lost by 32+ points every time the played in the first round of the playoffs due to a talent and toughness gap that's insurmountable?

[RME]

Would you feel that way if the Hogs lost by 32+ points every time the played in the first round of the playoffs due to a talent and toughness gap that's insurmountable?

In short, yes. Because, ya know, playoffs.

I'd take an ass-kicking first round of the playoffs 10 years in a row rather than not even making it or coming close to making it. Why? Because it still means we're one of the best four teams in the country.

Would you rather win the Liberty and Texas Bowls in back to back years to give us 8 wins, or 10-11 wins with probably a conference championship, though we might lose to Clemson by 20 points in the first round of the playoffs in back to back years? I'll take the latter, thanks, because making the playoffs would at least give us a shot. Winning the Liberty Bowl means darn.

When you have that long to prepare for games, things can happen. Hell look at Boise State all those years ago.

[Michael D Huff AIA]

What I could find on conference revenue disbursements from FY2016:

SEC    - $41.9-$39.1m per school
BIG10 - $34.8 per school
BIG12 - $28.9-$28.0m per school
PAC12 - $28.7m per school

So, if we had moved to the BIG12 last year we would have missed out on about $13 million.  As soon as the BIG12's revenue ascends to the SEC's (not going to happen) I'll consider a move to be smart.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Some people obviously don't knows why you play sports.  Some think who they are is wrapped up in the reputation of other teams.  You wonder why Baylor and TCU get more national recognition than Arkansas lately despite residing in that horrible conference?  It's because they are relevant in their conference and we are not.  It doesn't matter what P5 conference you play in if you win a lot of games fairly you are respected. 

There is only two reasons not to run back to the SWC/B whatever, stability.   As Musk pointed out if the right setup occurred Arkansas would be a better fit in the B10-12-14.  I've alway figured that as soon as Arkansas bolted the SEC would offer Texas and OU and that would marginalize the B-12 to much.

No win either way we go.

Oh...the other reason is Texas which affects the first reason.

[PorkSoda]

Moving to another conference would without a doubt make life easier on us. No way in hell would I ever want that, though.

no it wouldn't  an easier conference also = less money, which equals higher ticket prices and less TV and making it harder to recruit.

Broyles made a great move getting us into the SEC.  there is absolutely zero reason to squander that.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Arkansas will have to catch lightning in a bottle in a Herman or Peterson to ever compete in the SEC. And I'm not even saying it's impossible. I'm just saying.... yeah till that happens embrace the suck.

While I understand that you are not a Bielema fan, I will agree that given our recruiting disadvantages compared to other teams that usually wind up near the top of the SEC, that going the route of fast paced, throwing it all over the field, may be the easier and quicker path to winning more games.

Bielema's way requires far more time to build and we are entering that time period where he is either going to prove that he is capable of getting that done or not. If he is capable of doing it, it will be sustainable for the longer term because it builds a more solid foundation. It can't be put on auto-pilot, but it is easier to sustain (my opinion) than always having to go out and land big offensive playmakers every year in order to re-fill your losses and try to sustain the faster paced offenses.

The clock is running and Bielema has this year and next to prove that he can get it done. Personally, I hope that he can.

[hogfanny]

While I understand that you are not a Bielema fan, I will agree that given our recruiting disadvantages compared to other teams that usually wind up near the top of the SEC, that going the route of fast paced, throwing it all over the field, may be the easier and quicker path to winning more games.

Bielema's way requires far more time to build and we are entering that time period where he is either going to prove that he is capable of getting that done or not. If he is capable of doing it, it will be sustainable for the longer term because it builds a more solid foundation. It can't be put on auto-pilot, but it is easier to sustain (my opinion) than always having to go out and land big offensive playmakers every year in order to re-fill your losses and try to sustain the faster paced offenses.

I am curious as to what would be considered getting it done..... 7-4, 8-3, ?
The clock is running and Bielema has this year and next to prove that he can get it done. Personally, I hope that he can.

[hogfanny]

I apologize for the above screw up Musky.

[Cinco de Hogo]

While I understand that you are not a Bielema fan, I will agree that given our recruiting disadvantages compared to other teams that usually wind up near the top of the SEC, that going the route of fast paced, throwing it all over the field, may be the easier and quicker path to winning more games.

Bielema's way requires far more time to build and we are entering that time period where he is either going to prove that he is capable of getting that done or not. If he is capable of doing it, it will be sustainable for the longer term because it builds a more solid foundation. It can't be put on auto-pilot, but it is easier to sustain (my opinion) than always having to go out and land big offensive playmakers every year in order to re-fill your losses and try to sustain the faster paced offenses.

The clock is running and Bielema has this year and next to prove that he can get it done. Personally, I hope that he can.

Really not that much difference in Petrino's offense and Enos except with CBB we get more and better RB's while with Petrino you get a better tuned machine.  The results as for yardage isn't much different, we still have trouble getting one yard or punching it in at times although at one time Petrino had a really good red zone avg.  Petrino is not a HUNH offense he's just as much Pro-Style as CBB is.  The difference is simply tuning the machine.

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

In short, yes. Because, ya know, playoffs.

I'd take an ass-kicking first round of the playoffs 10 years in a row rather than not even making it or coming close to making it. Why? Because it still means we're one of the best four teams in the country.

Would you rather win the Liberty and Texas Bowls in back to back years to give us 8 wins, or 10-11 wins with probably a conference championship, though we might lose to Clemson by 20 points in the first round of the playoffs in back to back years? I'll take the latter, thanks, because making the playoffs would at least give us a shot. Winning the Liberty Bowl means darn.

When you have that long to prepare for games, things can happen. Hell look at Boise State all those years ago.

First off, Boise frequently was good enough to belong there.

Secondly, to the bolded part of your statement, you'd NOT be a top four team and after about three trips to the playoffs, getting there due to a berth due to power 5 bias and being in a weak conference, you'd become a media groan and rightfully so.

Why not hire the right coach, win in the toughest or near toughest conference and have a realistic shot once in the finals?

[RME]

First off, Boise frequently was good enough to belong there.

Secondly, to the bolded part of your statement, you'd NOT be a top four team and after about three trips to the playoffs, getting there due to a berth due to power 5 bias and being in a weak conference, you'd become a media groan and rightfully so.

Why not hire the right coach, win in the toughest or near toughest conference and have a realistic shot once in the finals?

Why wouldn't we be good enough to belong there?

Why are you so convinced that our recruiting would drop off THAT drastically? Do you really think we'd fall out of the top 35 or so in recruiting rankings each year? I don't.

If it isn't Bielema, what coach could Arkansas realistically hire to get us there? I ask this question a lot and rarely get an answer.

[TNRazorbacker]

(Yes it's been brought up before, like everything else) but, I am revisiting it because of a post I saw recently. I thought they were a drying breed.  I thought it was over;  these people that would pop up now and again, on the radio shows, sounding they they just got a phone installed last week,  with a solution to helping the Razorbacks winning percentage sky rocket;  move them to a easier conference. (The Sunbelt? Maybe Arkansas St. Could be the new Rivalry everyone seems to want.)

Unfortunately, It seems some of them are still hanging around, like poop that won't flush,  suggesting that the only way the hogs will ever be relevant is to move to a really easy conference.

Is there anyone out there that 'really' thinks the Razorbacks should run away (tail between legs) from the most challenging, well respected, exciting, and covered conference in football... still?  Is there seriously anyone that thinks this?  If so,  I would like someone to explain to me what respect Arkansas will gain from surrendering, and leaving to an easier conference... I still don't get it.

I do think playing in another conference would be better for us fans. We'd win more games and have a better shot at winning championships. We'd likely be considered more relevant year in and out.

Moving to the SEC was never about winning though. It was about money and we make lots more in the SEC.

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

Why wouldn't we be good enough to belong there?

Why are you so convinced that our recruiting would drop off THAT drastically? Do you really think we'd fall out of the top 35 or so in recruiting rankings each year? I don't.

If it isn't Bielema, what coach could Arkansas realistically hire to get us there? I ask this question a lot and rarely get an answer.

The premise was losing by 30 points or so after getting there.
Remember?

[SooiecidetillNuttgone]

I do think playing in another conference would be better for us fans. We'd win more games and have a better shot at winning championships. We'd likely be considered more relevant year in and out.

Moving to the SEC was never about winning though. It was about money and we make lots more in the SEC.

Petrino made us relevant in two years.
It can be done.
Will BB do it?
I hope so.  In two more years I think we'll have the definitive ainswer.

[jkstock04]

(Yes it's been brought up before, like everything else) but, I am revisiting it because of a post I saw recently. I thought they were a drying breed.  I thought it was over;  these people that would pop up now and again, on the radio shows, sounding they they just got a phone installed last week,  with a solution to helping the Razorbacks winning percentage sky rocket;  move them to a easier conference. (The Sunbelt? Maybe Arkansas St. Could be the new Rivalry everyone seems to want.)

Unfortunately, It seems some of them are still hanging around, like poop that won't flush,  suggesting that the only way the hogs will ever be relevant is to move to a really easy conference.

Is there anyone out there that 'really' thinks the Razorbacks should run away (tail between legs) from the most challenging, well respected, exciting, and covered conference in football... still?  Is there seriously anyone that thinks this?  If so,  I would like someone to explain to me what respect Arkansas will gain from surrendering, and leaving to an easier conference... I still don't get it.

It's pretty simple, look at how we have performed in the SEC compared to how we performed in the SWC. In the SWC seems to me there were serious winning expectations. Now it's simply about $$$  and "the game day experience."

I still harp on Oklahoma state...a cow town 2ish hours from campus, consistently in the top 20, winning 10 games or more isn't foreign, and a well respected program. We can't touch that.

[Peter Porker]

Petrino made us relevant in two years.
It can be done.
Will BB do it?
I hope so.  In two more years I think we'll have the definitive ainswer.

Those 2 years were lightning in a bottle. He wasn't going to sustain that.

[RME]

The premise was losing by 30 points or so after getting there.
Remember?

Again, my answer doesn't change. I would rather lose by 30 points in the playoffs every year than win the Liberty and Texas Bowls every year.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

No problem, I've done that too.

"Getting it done" to me, as it relates to Arkansas, means hitting 10, 11, 12 wins every 4 and 5 years or so and then hovering between 7 to 9 wins the other 3 years. At Arkansas, I believe that is a reasonable expectation. And I think that is very possible at Arkansas. Reality is that there isn't any reason that we shouldn't have won 6 in 2013 and then 9 or 10 in each of 2014, 2015 and 2016. I suspect that had that happened everyone's opinion of Bielema on this board would be different. We just have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot each year losing games that we should have won. In all fairness we have won a few that we probably should have lost but we have lost far more that we should have won.

[Michael_E_Davis]

No problem, I've done that too.

"Getting it done" to me, as it relates to Arkansas, means hitting 10, 11, 12 wins every 4 and 5 years or so and then hovering between 7 to 9 wins the other 3 years. At Arkansas, I believe that is a reasonable expectation. And I think that is very possible at Arkansas. Reality is that there isn't any reason that we shouldn't have won 6 in 2013 and then 9 or 10 in each of 2014, 2015 and 2016. I suspect that had that happened everyone's opinion of Bielema on this board would be different. We just have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot each year losing games that we should have won. In all fairness we have won a few that we probably should have lost but we have lost far more that we should have won.

I doubt that.  There are a lot of people around here that just hate Bielema,  no matter what he does.  We could win a NC, and they wouldn't give him credit.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I doubt that.  There are a lot of people around here that just hate Bielema,  no matter what he does.  We could win a NC, and they wouldn't give him credit.

I don't, because had that happened, those that like Bielema would be ecstatic and those who are the constant naysayers and BP fans wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Start out with 6 wins, go 10 wins, 9 wins, 9 wins? That would make him 34-17 (.667) over the last 4 years. 28-11 (.718) over the last 3. So no, I don't doubt that everyone's opinion would be different about him had that happened. Sad thing is, it probably should have.

[Hogwild]

No problem, I've done that too.

"Getting it done" to me, as it relates to Arkansas, means hitting 10, 11, 12 wins every 4 and 5 years or so and then hovering between 7 to 9 wins the other 3 years. At Arkansas, I believe that is a reasonable expectation. And I think that is very possible at Arkansas.

I agree 100%, in fact I would satisfied with the former being every 6-7 years with the latter comprising the other 5-6 seasons.

[Peter Porker]

Which recent history would you take?

1998
Team A                                            vs                                      Team B
6-5 no bowl                                                    9-3 w/ loss in major (not BCS) bowl and #11 ranking
1999
10-3 w/minor bowl win                                     8-4 w/ win in major (not BCS) bowl and #24 ranking
2000
10-2 w/minor bowl win                                     6-6 w/ minor bowl loss
2001
8-4 no bowl game                                            7-5 w/ loss major (not BCS) bowl
2002
12-1 w/ minor bowl win and #15 ranking          9-5 w/ conference game appearance and minor bowl loss
2003
13-1  w/ minor bowl win and #17 ranking         9-4 w/ minor bowl win
2004
11-1 w/ minor bowl loss and #11 ranking         5-6 w/ no bowl game
2005
9-4 w/ minor bowl loss                                    4-7 w/ no bowl game
2006
13-0 w/ BCS bowl win and #8 ranking              10-4 w/ conference game appearance and major (not BCS) bowl loss and #12 ranking
2007
10-3 w/ minor bowl loss and #22 ranking          8-5 w/ major (not BCS) bowl loss and #24 ranking
2008
12-1 w/ major bowl loss and #9 ranking            5-7 w/ no bowl game
2009
14-0 w/ BCS bowl win and #6 ranking               8-5 w/ minor bowl win
2010
12-1 3/ minor bowl win and #10 ranking            10-3 w. BCS bowl loss and #8 ranking
2011
12-1 w/ minor bowl win and #8 ranking             11-2 w/ major (not BCS) bowl win and #7 ranking
2012
11-2 w/ minor bowl win and #15 ranking            4-8 w/ no bowl game
2013
8-5 w/ minor bowl game loss                              3-9 w/ no bowl game
2014
12-2 w/ BCS bowl win and #22 ranking              7-6 w/ minor bowl win
2015
9-4 w/ minor bowl win                                       8-5 w/ minor bowl win
2016
10-3 w/ minor bowl loss                                    7-6 w/ minor bowl loss



Rankings are before bowl game played and do not reflect final rankings.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Which recent history would you take?

What's your point?

[Peter Porker]

What's your point?

Team A played in more BCS bowl games and were ranked more often than Team B.

Team A plays in the WAC/Mountain West and Team B plays in the SEC.

I'd rather have Team A's recent history. Would you?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Team A played in more BCS bowl games and were ranked more often than Team B.

Team A plays in the WAC/Mountain West and Team B plays in the SEC.

I'd rather have Team A's recent history. Would you?

To be able to have that by exiting a P-5 conference and losing the conference revenue sharing that we receive that not only helps continue to fund improvements in the football program but other programs as well? No. This isn't track and field.

[Peter Porker]

To be able to have that by exiting a P-5 conference and losing the conference revenue sharing that we receive that not only helps continue to fund improvements in the football program but other programs as well? No. This isn't track and field.

You'd rather go 6-6, 7-5, 8-4, 9-3 (if it's a real good season and those are few and far between), than move to a conference that we can compete in and where 9-3 is the norm and a really good year is 11-1 or 12-2?

Basically, we are rent-a-win in our own conference. "Yea, we will lose 3-6 conference games a year, but at least we make money off of it." how's that any different from ULM, A-State, etc playing SEC teams.

Edit: I'm saying join the Big 12, not the Mountain West.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

You'd rather go 6-6, 7-5, 8-4, 9-3 (if it's a real good season and those are few and far between), than move to a conference that we can compete in and where 9-3 is the norm and a really good year is 11-1 or 12-2?

Basically, we are rent-a-win in our own conference. "Yea, we will lose 3-6 conference games a year, but at least we make money off of it." how's that any different from ULM, A-State, etc playing SEC teams.

No point in even discussing it because you and I both know that we aren't moving to a G-5 conference and the very thought of it is preposterous.

[Peter Porker]

No point in even discussing it because you and I both know that we aren't moving to a G-5 conference and the very thought of it is preposterous.

I wrote an edit to my original. i am not proposing moving to a G-5. That isn't necessary for us to be a top team. Moving to the Big 12 would. Look at Ok State. what advantage do they have over us? Yet, they are having more recent success than us and they a better team in their own state!

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The problem I see with this is that no one (yes, I said that) is probably going to offer Arkansas a chance to join their conference aside from the Big 12. Why? The Big 12 needs Arkansas where no one else really does. But here is the thing as we all know...the Big 12 continues to live on life support and the more recent turn or events (not renegotiating t.v. revenues and more particularly, not extending their GOR's beyond 2025) makes it appear that change for the B12 could be in their future.

Now under what conditions might it be a good deal to move to the B12?

First, revenue sharing would certainly need to increase over current B12 levels so that it at least closely emulated SEC levels.

Second, the B12 would also probably have to move from 10 teams to 14 and among those additional 14 teams would have to not only be Arkansas, but a significantly big enough deal to lure A&M, Missouri and Nebraska back to the fold.

Third, revenue sharing becomes equal and no ones vote is worth more than another, effectively putting a choke-chain on Texas and OU to a lesser extent.

That could be a far more attractive conference with Baylor, TCU, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas, Oklahoma and Okla State in the South.

Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, K-State, Nebraska, Iowa State and W. Virginia would be in the North.

The odds of getting to a CCG would certainly be increased significantly even if SOS would decrease quite a bit.

But what are the odds of any of that happening? Zippo. Nada.

I wrote an edit to my original. i am not proposing moving to a G-5. That isn't necessary for us to be a top team. Moving to the Big 12 would. Look at Ok State. what advantage do they have over us? Yet, they are having more recent success than us and they a better team in their own state!

As I said above...and that is also why it will never happen.