Quote from: Jayleigh81 on Yesterday at 03:22:31 pmAm I reading this right? He seems to really just be looking to leverage a better payout from Illinois if he can do that, but is willing to go elsewhere if he can't leverage a better deal? I'm not judging him on playing the same game that most everyone else is doing...I just don't know how much sense it makes to be making offers for him unless he's a vital part of the overall plan since it feels like he'd really prefer to stay at Illinois.

I watched an interview Hawkins did a day or two ago and he said that the reason that he wasn't considering Illinois was that it wouldn't be fair to the players that had signed with Illinois believing that he (Hawkins) would be gone from college.
He seemed like an intelligent person and his reasoning "seemed" sincere.
I'd take him without hesitation.

Quote from: Scott7703 on Yesterday at 10:35:21 pmThey are both much better players than most everything left on our roster. I don't need rankings to see that, just my eyes. We don't have 2-3 total sec level players left on the roster. Outside of Lawrence about every ounce of talent has left.

If you are right and you may very well be, our prospects this next year for making the NCAA tournament; let alone .500 record (winning half our games) in the SEC, are less than promising.

King of the Court Karter Knox.

Quote from: Deep Shoat on April 17, 2024, 10:15:14 pmThis ISN'T a regular business.  Some of the greatest coaches in the games history took a decade to build what they needed.  Arkansas will almost certainly have to give someone that kind of time if we ever want to compete again.

You guys are so short sighted.  Changing coaches every few years is how we ended up having to hire a career assistant in the first place.

You and I got into this before but there is no major football school going to give a coach a decade to build.  Not these days and especially when the program starts to come apart . 

Sounds like a dumb move to me.  Not by Mr Harrison.....more power to him.   But is a 6'1" guy who presumably has not played competitive football in 10 years the best WR plan this staff can come up with?   

I realize that, in theory anyway, anyone can try out for the team.....but if we are talking about a preferred walk on spot then it makes no sense to me.   I get that a PWO is not a scholly player....but it's also not just some geek off the streets either.   

I just don't get it. Unless he has (very recently) gone through some serious screening process that I/we don't know about.

I think 11 is a good number. We're at 7 right now with a very good chance of adding Wagner this weekend putting us at 8. I've read that Pryor for USF (6-9 F) is also a good possibility - would give us 9. Add another experienced transfer wing for 10, and whatever fits best then at the 1/2 or 4/5 spots to get us to 11.

Quote from: OkieBack on Yesterday at 09:23:18 amSo far my OU and Texas fans are looking at Drink and Mizzou and scratching their heads.  They are all saying "this is the Missouri team that left the Big 12 crying about Texas privilege and a lack of respect from the league?  They had one fairly good season and think they are going to win the Natty?"

I think Drink is getting ready to be brought back to reality.  Soon.  He's been flapping his gums way too much.  The new kids on the block are looking to punch him in the mouth and make him bleed. 

LOL Most Mizzou fans don't think or believe we are gonna win a Natty LOL. We are hoping we can make the 12 team playoff and even a lot of Mizzou fans think that is a stretch. It's the press that is pumping up Mizzou as a possible Playoff contender.

And sure Tx and OU are gonna be disrespectful to any suggestion of any Non-blue blood becoming relevant that is their schtick. The OU fans I know and one of them is my best bud look down more on Ark. than they do Mizzou.

Quote from: Etowah on Yesterday at 02:56:09 pmI think that is our perception as hog fans, but if you go back the last 25 years...which is ancient history for most young fans.  Missouri has won 198 games and we have won 173 games.

Thank you!!! You summed up my point in such a short and hard hitting post it's stunning.

In the time frame of what matters in todays game Mizzou has been a better program and beaten Ark. on the regular. And thus across CFB is viewed as a better program by many.

Neither Program is a Blue Blood... Mizzou fans understand that and are trying to break into the club desperately.   It appears a lot of Ark. fans Think/Belief/Feel they are a Blue Blood that has just fell on hard times.

Quote from: donnie on April 25, 2024, 11:59:41 amShould've gone after his freshman year...can't believe Mike actually made his draft stock worse by failing to use him..

donnie, for somebody who knows so much about the game, you sure do lay a rotten egg from time to time. Gafford went from Eldorado to a draft pick, and he was NEVER a prolific scorer outside 10 feet, and he never will be. His specialties are rim protection, rim running, and he sets a mean pick. He can also make good passes to cutting players. His 71% career free throw average is what makes him effective offensively on the interior (aside from the slams).

Gafford was ALWAYS destined to be as good as some of the best players around him.

Quote from: bennyl08 on Yesterday at 09:44:06 amthe common opponents is one metric out of many. And arguably, it's judging more the physical than the mental and thus providing clues about the mental as a result. If you beat somebody in a race by 2 seconds, and I lose to them by 1 second. Then you beat somebody by 3 seconds and I only beat them by 1 second, without knowing anything else, who would you expect to win in a race b/w just you and me? Obviously you. But, if I come out and beat you in a race, there'd be some sort of questions as to why. Maybe you lack the stamina and I have more. Maybe you pushed yourself harder against the first two guys and I saved my energy to beat you, etc...

Other metrics indicating that Mizzou plays harders/hogs play softer in this game is the recruiting rankings, where the hogs have not merely ranked ahead of Mizzou, but typically far enough ahead that there is a noticeable difference. This has, until this year, borne itself out in the NFL draft picks as well.

So, to sum that up, we've recruited better players to our team, played better against common opponents, and completed that pipeline by producing more NFL draft picks. Yet, we consistently lose.

Also, not sure you come to that last conclusion though. The argument here is that the hogs get softened by the rigors of the SEC-w, not hardened, and that we have LACKED the mental sharpness/toughness, not had the overall advantage.

The draft metric is basically a Push we have went over that the number of players drafted by both is very close it's within the Margin of Error. Mizzou has 13 players in the NFL and Ark. has 16 active. 3 players spread across multiple seasons is basically nothing as a metric as far as over all talent. That points to the fact that recruiting rankings are somewhat flawed after you get Past the Super talented top 15 squads that are blue bloods and rack up most of the elites.

As far as playing in the West wearing down the Hogs I don't doubt that is possible, but playing against that type of talent usually raises the baseline effort and execution of teams as a whole being tested improves athletic output and the top end.

 Once again your belief is that Ark. has superior talent per the recruiting rankings this is your stated belief over and over again plus the 3 extra guys in the NFL. If that is the case then Ark. should still have the advantage over Mizzou going into the final game Mentally and Physically. Because Ark. should have the  Physical and Mental talent to absorb and deal with the rigors of the West. And then have that Advantage of Mental and Physical superiority over Mizzou lesser talent in the last game. 

And if your premise is correct and Mizzou is so physically less talented then the grind against even the East Schedule(UGA/Ten/UF) should take more of a toll on our lesser talent and wear us down even more ,giving Ark. again a Larger edge versus Mizzou in the last game of the season.

Again this is your theory that Ark. is better than Mizzou in every metric that can be analyzed. But for some strange reason you suggest Ark. just mails in the last game, just quits, doesn't show up, is disinterested in performing, has checked out for all intents and purpose just for that one Mizzou game because it means nothing to nobody in the program and fan base.  Even with all that talent advantage and even with having to play at a Very High level just to compete in the West in the Last game on Prime time TV the day after thanksgiving with Millions watching Ark...Just lay's a freaking egg year after year and let's Mizzou win.

I'm not sure you realize how odd and strange this theory sounds and how Nutty it looks when you try to skew & twist the analytics to fit your narrative that Ark. is a better team and program while your performance on the field Screams just the opposite fact.

I know that you will not or cannot admit that Ark. and Mizzou are on the same plane of existence Program wise. The mere idea that the Mizzou Program is on par or in reality better than Ark. is unthinkable to your core existence.

So to rationalize the reality of the situation you twist and spin a lot of data that in truth is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Draft picks that are a push. Wining Percentage that is a push, revenue that is meaningless, recruiting rankings that are not that far apart etc.