23-12 right on Mike Anderson's career avg

[steveaustin69]

Would you still bitch? Yep.......

Do you have an actual retort?

[GlassofSwine]

Mike has a much bigger role in the irrelevant seasons.  Asst head coach last 5 of Nolan and head coach for 7 seasons.
You believe this is our program's ceiling now.  Like I said in the OP, this is good enough for some.  For others, not much worth the effort to pay attention if this is it.

I don't know what the ceiling is, I just know that we have a  recent 22 year history that says we are a good team that now outweighs a 20 year period where we were a great team. I can tell you what we aren't, we're not a Blue Blood in basketball. We're not entitled to anything and no coach is going to come to Arkansas and find it to be an easy job.

[Busta_Nutt]

Do you realize that Arkansas's successful string of years in Basketball was a 20 year period? (76 to 96) We have been irrelevant in our recent history longer now than we were relevant.

You're missing the point. What we're getting at here is that Arkansas basketball should be a prominent program. From 1976-2001, Arkansas made the NCAA Tournament 22 times. This included ten (10) Sweet Sixteens, six (6) Elite Eights, four (4) Final Fours, one (1) National Championship, one (1) National Runner Up. That is a top-tier program. Should we expect this today? Probably not, but it's fair to expect a Tournament appearance 8/10 seasons with a deep run coming every 4. This state is full of talent and the facilities are among the best in the country. There is no reason for Arkansas basketball to be mediocre.

[99toLife]

Mike Averageson?

This crap is killing me.  It's embarrassing.   

That's pretty good right there! 

[azhog10]

Do you have an actual retort?

Do I need one?

[steveaustin69]

Do I need one?

Guess not. Just makes you look dumb.

[GlassofSwine]

You're missing the point. What we're getting at here is that Arkansas basketball should be a prominent program. From 1976-2001, Arkansas made the NCAA Tournament 22 times. This included ten (10) Sweet Sixteens, six (6) Elite Eights, four (4) Final Fours, one (1) National Championship, one (1) National Runner Up. That is a top-tier program. Should we expect this today? Probably not, but it's fair to expect a Tournament appearance 8/10 seasons with a deep run coming every 4. This state is full of talent and the facilities are among the best in the country. There is no reason for Arkansas basketball to be mediocre.

No I get the point, you think we should be a prominent program because we were once over 20 years ago. We have more recent history that says we shouldn't and it is a longer period than the time frame we were prominent. Arkansas basketball is not entitled to greatness and this is not going to be an easy job no matter who you hire.

[RME]

No I get the point, you think we should be a prominent program because we were once over 20 years ago. We have more recent history that says we shouldn't and it is a longer period than the time frame we were prominent. Arkansas basketball is not entitled to greatness and this is not going to be an easy job no matter who you hire.

Busta's sample size ranged from 1976-2001.

I'm not good at math, but was 2001 over 20 years ago? And is 2002-2018 a larger sample than 1976-2001?

[Mellon Collie]

2.2 million us dollars per year I believe.

god bless america.

[Busta_Nutt]

No I get the point, you think we should be a prominent program because we were once over 20 years ago. We have more recent history that says we shouldn't and it is a longer period than the time frame we were prominent. Arkansas basketball is not entitled to greatness and this is not going to be an easy job no matter who you hire.

No, I think we should be a prominent program because we have a history of success, a state full of talent, excellent facilities, and a pipeline that should allow us to land highly skilled recruits from talented basketball areas nearby (St. Louis, Memphis, Dallas, Oklahoma City). This is why I think we could and should be a prominent program. Also, we have made bad hires thus causing a setback. It's not like Heath and Pelphrey failed here and succeeded elsewhere. They were just bad hires. This state, its location, and money gives the program the intangibles it needs to succeed.

[GlassofSwine]

Busta's sample size ranged from 1976-2001.

I'm not good at math, but was 2001 over 20 years ago? And is 2002-2018 a larger sample than 1976-2001?

Last time we made a Sweet Sixteen was 96. If we were good from 97 to 2001 than you guys should be loving MA. Since he  is avg. more wins a season and has a far better record in conference than Nolan did in that time period.

[steveaustin69]

Last time we made a Sweet Sixteen was 96. If we were good from 97 to 2001 than you guys should be loving MA. Since he  is avg. more wins a season and has a far better record in conference than Nolan did in that time period.

I'll take a non answer as you agreeing to reply #48. That is not unreasonable.

[RME]

Last time we made a Sweet Sixteen was 96. If we were good from 97 to 2001 than you guys should be loving MA. Since he  is avg. more wins a season and has a far better record in conference than Nolan did in that time period.

Still made it to the tournament 4 (97, 98, 99, 2000) of those 5 years, with a couple first round wins and an SEC Championship. Did as much or more in those 5 years than Mike has done in his 7.

[GlassofSwine]

I'll take a non answer as you agreeing to reply #48. That is not unreasonable.

It's reasonable. Defense was terrible, are starting guards couldn't guard anyone quick on the perimeter. Rebounding was terrible, partly because our best rebounder spent most of his time trying to  block/alter shots or close out on open shooters. You can't get in to position to rebound when your feet aren't on the ground. Gafford also struggled to move even smaller players on the block. All of those are talent limitations, not coaching.

Offense was lazy as well, despite having Gafford we had no inside game and frankly Gafford doesn't have a postgame on the block. He is great at cleaning up misses, terrible with the ball in his hands on the block. We lived and died by Barford and Macon being able to hit shots and when they ran into good defensive teams and couldn't shoot from outside, we had no offense.

So we move on to recruiting, terrible in his first 4 years, bad player retention as well. Improvement over the past 3. What do you expect, we were a mess. Top players were not going to come to Arkansas when MA took over, when he took over those kids were babies last time Arkansas was nationally relevant. It also would reason that for everyone saying we have hit our ceiling that as our recruiting has improved so should our record.

Game-planning is over-rated in basketball. Saban well even tell you in almost every interview that they have to "focus on what they are doing". That's just truth even in a sport like football where game planning is more important. Anderson making these statements doesn't mean he is ignorant of what the other team is doing.

[GlassofSwine]

Still made it to the tournament 4 (97, 98, 99, 2000) of those 5 years, with a couple first round wins and an SEC Championship. Did as much or more in those 5 years than Mike has done in his 7.

0

Nolans last 7 years are worse than Mike's  first 7 outside of that SEC championship, and that team was terrible outside of the SEC tourney run. BTW... I've been told first round wins are meaningless in the tourney.

[Razor1997]

my bad. The suck that is Razorback basketball over the last 25 years tends to all blend together.

Perhaps you meant to say 20 years?

25 years ago the basketball team was incredibly good.

[RME]

0

Nolans last 7 years are worse than Mike's  first 7 outside of that SEC championship, and that team was terrible outside of the SEC tourney run. BTW... I've been told first round wins are meaningless in the tourney.

Keep it in the timeframe we're discussing here. You personally mentioned 1997-2001, so that's what we're going with.

If someone were to offer you the following for the future of Arkansas basketball, pick which one of these you want:

Scenario A: 5-year span. 4 tournament appearances. 2 tournament wins. 1 SEC championship.
Scenario B: 7-year span. 3 tournament appearances. 2 tournament wins. 0 SEC championships.

I think an 80% tournament appearance rate with 2 tournament wins + 1 conference title all in 5 years is better than a 43% tournament appearance rate with 2 tournament wins + 0 conference titles all in 7 years.

But what the hell do I know.

[steveaustin69]

0

Nolans last 7 years are worse than Mike's  first 7 outside of that SEC championship, and that team was terrible outside of the SEC tourney run. BTW... I've been told first round wins are meaningless in the tourney.

A: Five tourneys, 2 first round exits, 2 second round exits, 1 sweet sixteen, 1 tournament champion

B: Three tourneys, 1 first round exit, 2 second round exits

Which one is better?

[GlassofSwine]

Keep it in the timeframe we're discussing here. You personally mentioned 1997-2001, so that's what we're going with.

If someone were to offer you the following for the future of Arkansas basketball, pick which one of these you want:

Scenario A: 5-year span. 4 tournament appearances. 2 tournament wins. 1 SEC championship.
Scenario B: 7-year span. 3 tournament appearances. 2 tournament wins. 0 SEC championships.

I think an 80% tournament appearance rate with 2 tournament wins + 1 conference title all in 5 years is better than a 43% tournament appearance rate with 2 tournament wins + 0 conference titles all in 7 years.

But what the hell do I know.

I did not bring up that timeframe I simply refuted the other poster who included it as part of our great history. In fact if you go back you will see that before that I cut off at 1996. Why? That's the last time we made the Sweet Sixteen. I have no need to cherrypick stats. If making the Sweet Sixteen is a marker of what we should aspire to than I am starting after that year, because since then we have not been great.

[RME]

I did not bring up that timeframe I simply refuted the other poster who included it as part of our great history. In fact if you go back you will see that before that I cut off at 1996. Why? That's the last time we made the Sweet Sixteen. I have no need to cherrypick stats. If making the Sweet Sixteen is a marker of what we should aspire to than after that year we have a 7 year comparison at the end of Nolan and start of MA's time-frame. A nice equal sampling which favors MA in almost every metric except for that lucky SEC tourney run. .

Uhhhhhhhhh

Last time we made a Sweet Sixteen was 96. If we were good from 97 to 2001 than you guys should be loving MA. Since he  is avg. more wins a season and has a far better record in conference than Nolan did in that time period.

Anyway.

Timeframes aside, I don't understand how anyone can think 3 tournament appearances, 2 tournament wins, and 0 conference titles in 7 years is "good."

[GlassofSwine]

A: Five tourneys, 2 first round exits, 2 second round exits, 1 sweet sixteen, 1 tournament champion

B: Three tourneys, 1 first round exit, 2 second round exits

Which one is better?

Your right, I made a mistake in my math but not my start year. Should have been Nolan's last 6 seasons not 7. Like I said, if anything less than a Sweet Sixteen is mediocrity which is what you guys keep saying. Than Nolan was mediocre his last 6 years and in fact worse than MA.

[steveaustin69]

I did not bring up that timeframe I simply refuted the other poster who included it as part of our great history. In fact if you go back you will see that before that I cut off at 1996. Why? That's the last time we made the Sweet Sixteen. I have no need to cherrypick stats. If making the Sweet Sixteen is a marker of what we should aspire to than I am starting after that year, because since then we have not been great.

Um. You said seven years. The results for seven years is below; if we reduce it to 6 one is still clearly better than the other. I mean. Good Lord.

A: Five tourneys, 2 first round exits, 2 second round exits, 1 sweet sixteen, 1 tournament champion

B: Three tourneys, 1 first round exit, 2 second round exits

Which one is better?

[steveaustin69]

Your right, I made a mistake in my math but not my start year. Should have been Nolan's last 6 seasons not 7. Like I said, if anything less than a Sweet Sixteen is mediocrity which is what you guys keep saying. Than Nolan was mediocre his last 6 years and in fact worse than MA.

No. No he wasn't.

4>3 (Tourneys)
2=2 (Tourney Wins)
1>0 (Conference Championships)

Was Nolan as good as he once was? Of course not. To say he was worse than Anderson is a bold faced lie.

[GlassofSwine]

Uhhhhhhhhh


Anyway.

Timeframes aside, I don't understand how anyone can think 3 tournament appearances, 2 tournament wins, and 0 conference titles in 7 years is "good."

UHHHHHHHH, I was refuting this, look at my post below. That is the timeframe I brought up initially way back on page 1.

Busta's sample size ranged from 1976-2001.

I'm not good at math, but was 2001 over 20 years ago? And is 2002-2018 a larger sample than 1976-2001?

Do you realize that Arkansas's successful string of years in Basketball was a 20 year period? (76 to 96) We have been irrelevant in our recent history longer now than we were relevant.

[GlassofSwine]

No. No he wasn't.

4>3 (Tourneys)
2=2 (Tourney Wins)
1>0 (Conference Championships)

Was Nolan as good as he once was? Of course not. To say he was better than Anderson is a bold faced lie.

In MA's favor.

Avg wins season 21.5> 19.7
Conf winning pct. .57 > .52
Equal number of tourney wins with one less appearance.
That Sec title and 4th tourney appearance while better, came as a result of a good run by a bad team at the right time.

[steveaustin69]

In MA's favor.

Avg wins season 21.5> 19.7
Conf winning pct. .57 > .52
Equal number of tourney wins with one less appearance.
That Sec title and 4th tourney appearance while better, came as a result of a good run by a bad team at the right time.

Whoever is paying you that good salary sure as hell isn't getting their money's worth. Good lord you're dense.

[RME]

In MA's favor.

Avg wins season 21.5> 19.7
Conf winning pct. .57 > .52
Equal number of tourney wins with one less appearance.
That Sec title and 4th tourney appearance while better, came as a result of a good run by a bad team at the right time.

Now you're saying, "Sure, we won an SEC title BUT..."

This place never fails.

[GlassofSwine]

Whoever is paying you that good salary sure as hell isn't getting their money's worth. Good lord you're dense.

The first 3 are statistical facts, the last is conjecture and admit makes Nolan's last 6 years look better, but you and I both know that 19-15 team wouldn't have been in the tourney without that run and the fact that they had a losing conference record made that improbable. That team was worse than this years team accept for that run in the SEC tourney.

[GlassofSwine]

Now you're saying, "Sure, we won an SEC title BUT..."

This place never fails.

No I admit it looks better, but that team was 19-15(7-9) and outside of that SEC tourney run was worse than this years team and wouldn't have sniffed the NCAA tourney. So yeah that banner looks nice but that was still a bad team.

[steveaustin69]

The first 3 are statistical facts, the last is conjecture and admit makes Nolan's last 6 years look better, but you and I both know that 19-15 team wouldn't have been in the tourney without that run and the fact that they had a losing conference record made that improbable. That team was worse than this years team accept for that run in the SEC tourney.

It's a statistical fact Nolan had more results that mattered. Who cares? They did make that run and make the tourney. Did that 16-16 team a few years back make a run and win the tourney? No. I honestly cannot believe you are arguing with me on this. You're either stupid or love to argue; my money is on both.

[GlassofSwine]

It's a statistical fact Nolan had more results that mattered. Who cares? They did make that run and make the tourney. Did that 16-16 team a few years back make a run and win the tourney? No. I honestly cannot believe you are arguing with me on this. You're either stupid or love to argue; my money is on both.

I never claimed Nolan didn't, I love Nolan as a coach. I claimed that Arkansas has a history of mediocrity going back to Nolan's last 6 seasons. Guess what, we do. That period of history is also a longer time frame than the 20 years we were a great team. So the question is in 10 years will you still be pointing back to the mid 90's claiming Arkansas should be a top program? What about in 30 years, will you be like to football fans pointing back to 1964?

[steveaustin69]

I never claimed Nolan didn't, I love Nolan as a coach. I claimed that Arkansas has a history of mediocrity going back to Nolan's last 6 seasons. Guess what, we do. That period of history is also a longer time frame than the 20 years we were a great team. So the question is in 10 years will you still be pointing back to the mid 90's claiming Arkansas should be a top program? What about in 30 years, will you be like to football fans pointing back to 1964?

0

Nolans last 7 years are worse than Mike's  first 7 outside of that SEC championship, and that team was terrible outside of the SEC tourney run. BTW... I've been told first round wins are meaningless in the tourney.

Your right, I made a mistake in my math but not my start year. Should have been Nolan's last 6 seasons not 7. Like I said, if anything less than a Sweet Sixteen is mediocrity which is what you guys keep saying. Than Nolan was mediocre his last 6 years and in fact worse than MA.

[GlassofSwine]

Yeah, I claimed his last 6 seasons were mediocre and in line with what MA is now producing(which they are). I  never claimed he wasn't a better coach or
didn't win more important games, etc. Why don't you answer my question. In 10 years are you still going to be pointing back to 1994?

[steveaustin69]

Yeah, I claimed his last 6 seasons were mediocre and in line with what MA is now producing(which they are). I  never claimed he wasn't a better coach or
didn't win more important games, etc. Why don't you answer my question. In 10 years are you still going to be pointing back to 1994?

You always spin things; you said Mike's tenure has been better than a part of Nolan's. It hasn't in any way shape or form in any time period.

By the way, if what Nolan was producing is mediocre and equivalent to what Anderson is producing. Guess what? Mike is mediocre.

No. I would have found a coach who can meet the expectation I laid out two years ago. You agreed that expectation is not unreasonable. In ten years if people are still talking about '94 incessantly then we have not hired a coach to meet those expectations.

[cityhog]

Perhaps you meant to say 20 years?

25 years ago the basketball team was incredibly good.

yup. you know how it is when you get old (or maybe you're not old). 2 years seems like 40 years ago and 25 years ago seems like last week.

[GlassofSwine]

You always spin things; you said Mike's tenure has been better than a part of Nolan's. It hasn't in any way shape or form in any time period.

By the way, if what Nolan was producing is mediocre and equivalent to what Anderson is producing. Guess what? Mike is mediocre.

No. I would have found a coach who can meet the expectation I laid out two years ago. You agreed that expectation is not unreasonable. In ten years if people are still talking about '94 incessantly then we have not hired a coach to meet those expectations.

I've never said MA was great. Statistics prove that Nolan's last 6 years is in line with Mike's first 7. I think there are better coaches than MA. The big difference between people like you and me is that I love the Razorbacks regardless of record. They could have losing seasons in every sport for the next 20 years and I would still be a fan. Now, I  know you'll say that means I don't care about winning, but that's not true. I was just raised to love them, I started going to games with my dad in 1980 when I was 5. My grandmother is still the biggest Razorback fan I've ever known. I have a basketball she gave me that has signatures from Lee Mayberry, Todd Day, Corliss Willamson, etc, etc. I'll support the team even if I don't like the coaches because I want to see Arkansas do well. I've lived as a Razorback fan and I'll die as one and I'll take all the ups and downs that come with being a fan.

[CiriusPorker]

he's passing the class...I'd like to keep Mike, but perhaps the AD should have a heart-to-heart about recruiting...

[steveaustin69]

I've never said MA was great. Statistics prove that Nolan's last 6 years is in line with Mike's first 7. I think there are better coaches than MA. The big difference between people like you and me is that I love the Razorbacks regardless of record. They could have losing seasons in every sport for the next 20 years and I would still be a fan. Now, I  know you'll say that means I don't care about winning, but that's not true. I was just raised to love them, I started going to games with my dad in 1980 when I was 5. My grandmother is still the biggest Razorback fan I've ever known. I have a basketball she gave me that has signatures from Lee Mayberry, Todd Day, Corliss Willamson, etc, etc. I'll support the team even if I don't like the coaches because I want to see Arkansas do well. I've lived as a Razorback fan and I'll die as one and I'll take all the ups and downs that come with being a fan.

Ah. The good fan argument.

Didn't Nolan's last 6 years get him fired? I'm not sure why you keep bringing those up; you yourself said it was mediocre. That means Mike's performance has been mediocre. Apathy towards mediocrity does not make one a good fan.

[GlassofSwine]

Ah. The good fan argument.

Didn't Nolan's last 6 years get him fired? I'm not sure why you keep bringing those up; you yourself said it was mediocre. That means Mike's performance has been mediocre. Apathy towards mediocrity does not make one a good fan.

That is not why Nolan was fired.
Apathy doesn't make one a good fan but nor am I apathetic.
Incessant complaining and whining also doesn't make you a good fan, it just makes you annoying.

[steveaustin69]

That is not why Nolan was fired.
Apathy doesn't make one a good fan but nor am I apathetic.
Incessant complaining and whining also doesn't make you a good fan, it just makes you annoying.

It sure as hell didn't help.

You seem pretty apathetic. You acknowledged Mike's results have been  mediocre and your argument has been we should expect to be mediocre because the good Nolan years were so long ago. That's apathy.

I don't care that pointing out Anderson's flaws and shortcomings annoy you. Go read bleacher report if you want some sugarcoating.

[Atlhogfan1]

That is not why Nolan was fired.
Apathy doesn't make one a good fan but nor am I apathetic.
Incessant complaining and whining also doesn't make you a good fan, it just makes you annoying.

You think the press conference outburst was why he was fired? 

[GlassofSwine]

It sure as hell didn't help.

You seem pretty apathetic. You acknowledged Mike's results have been  mediocre and your argument has been we should expect to be mediocre because the good Nolan years were so long ago.

I don't care that pointing out Anderson's flaws and shortcomings annoy you. Go read bleacher report if you want some sugarcoating.

By definition a fan can't be apathetic.
I didn't say you annoy me, more like amuse me. Still If I actually had to be around you, yeah you would be annoying, sortof like a 5 year old complaining that it's bedtime every night.

[GlassofSwine]

You think the press conference outburst was why he was fired?

Didn't you say that Heath was hired because he was black? Don't be obtuse.

[steveaustin69]

By definition a fan can't be apathetic.
I didn't say you annoy me, more like amuse me. Still If I actually had to be around you, yeah you would be annoying, sortof like a 5 year old complaining that it's bedtime every night.

Then you're not a fan and just apathetic. Congrats.

[hogsanity]

Didn't you say that Heath was hired because he was black? Don't be obtuse.

He most definitely was. When I saw them win their 2nd round game I told my wife he would be the next hog coach. We had just fired Nolan and the racial crap was already flying. Heath was young, a hot commodity, had coached under Izzo, and black.

[GlassofSwine]

He most definitely was. When I saw them win their 2nd round game I told my wife he would be the next hog coach. We had just fired Nolan and the racial crap was already flying. Heath was young, a hot commodity, had coached under Izzo, and black.

I agree and stated all these points in another thread yesterday. You have to be pretty obtuse to believe that Richardson was fired because of his last 6 seasons. Tension was growing between him and Broyles and the press conference blew it open. Convenient that the University claims the day before the press conference they were  discussing firing Nolan, also with all the racial tension and the lawsuit you would have to be crazy to think that Heath's race had nothing to do with why Broyles hired him. The UA was trying to cover their tracks and protect themselves legally.

[Atlhogfan1]

I agree and stated all these points in another thread yesterday. You have to be pretty obtuse to believe that Richardson was fired because of his last 6 seasons. Tension was growing between him and Broyles and the press conference blew it open. Convenient that the University claims the day before the press conference they were  discussing firing Nolan, also with all the racial tension and the lawsuit you would have to be crazy to think that Heath's race had nothing to do with why Broyles hired him. The UA was trying to cover their tracks and protect themselves legally.

[ShadowHawg]

Heath was helped by two things, his race and he was cheap.

Heath was not the first person offered the job, so there is that.

[99toLife]

Heath was helped by two things, his race and he was cheap.Heath was not the first person offered the job, so there is that.

And that if true worked out awesome for the UofA and the PTB-BOT.  They can be brilliant!

[golfinpig]

Do you realize that Arkansas's successful string of years in Basketball was a 20 year period? (76 to 96) We have been irrelevant in our recent history longer now than we were relevant.

If the hogs are so damn irrelevant to you then why the hell do you try so hard to defend the status quo. You have a dozen post on every thread defending MA's results and yet according to you hog basketball has been irrelevant for 20 years. I guess you just like to stir up chit.