Basketball vs Football

[Pork Twain]

Here is just a quick list I have thrown together showing why one should avoid comparing these to sports in order to attempt to prove a point

Ways they are the same:
Both are college sports
Both have coaches
Both sell tickets
Both offer scholarships

Ways they are different:
Just looking at 2016-17, here is an example of why the two sports should not be compared, but if they are, truth in numbers is important:

Teams we played
Basketball 32
Football 13

Conference Games/Out-of-Conference games
Basketball 18/14
Football 8/5

Ranked teams played
Basketball 4 (6, 17, 19, 25)
Football 8 (1, 10, 11, 12, 15, 21, 22, 24)

Percentage of teams played that were ranked
Basketball .125
Football .615

Scholarships Available
Basketball 13
Football 85

Players ranked >4*
Basketball 212
Football 477

Number of Div-I Teams
Basketball 351
Football 253 (128 FBS/125 FCS)

Average Annual Recruiting class size
Basketball 3-5
Football 25-30

Total annual scholarships available
Basketball 4563
Football 21505

Teams that can play in the post-season
Basketball 132 (NCAA 68, NIT 32, CIT 32)
Football 82 (41 bowls+ 1 NC bowl)

Teams that can play for the NC
Basketball 68
Football 4

Coaching Salaries
Basketball $2.45 million
Football $4.1 million

Revenue Generated
Basketball $15.9 million
Football $61.6 million

[Letsroll1200]

Teams that can play in the post-season
Basketball 116
Football 82

Protect football at all cost!!

[hogsanity]

Protect football at all cost!!

better to protect a whole sport than 1 man.

[Pork Twain]

My only point here is that there are ways to get your message across with using unrealistic examples.

[Letsroll1200]

better to protect a whole sport than 1 man.

Bret Guys!!

[EastexHawg]

There must be a point in there somewhere, just dying to get out.  I don't see it.

Here's another way of looking at it.  There are 128 FBS college football programs and 82 of them played in bowl games this past year.  That means a program only has to be in the, for lack of a better term, top 64% to qualify.

There are over 300 basketball programs eligible for the NCAA tournament.  68 get in.  If the number is 315 (I'm not sure about that) only the top 21-22% qualify.

In other words, getting into a football bowl game is three times easier than qualifying for the NCAA basketball tournament.  Neither should be considered "good enough" for any big time program, but in football it's much less of an accomplishment.

[Pork Twain]

There must be a point in there somewhere, just dying to get out.  I don't see it.

Here's another way of looking at it.  There are 128 FBS college football programs and 82 of them played in bowl games this past year.  That means a program only has to be in the, for lack of a better term, top 64% to qualify.

There are over 300 basketball programs eligible for the NCAA tournament.  68 get in.  If the number is 315 (I'm not sure about that) only the top 21-22% qualify.

In other words, getting into a football bowl game is three times easier than qualifying for the NCAA basketball tournament.  Neither should be considered "good enough" for any big time program, but in football it's much less of an accomplishment.

My point is stated above.  These two have very little in common and what happens in football should not be used as an excuse to keep a crap coach around in basketball.

Well there are three basketball tournaments and you are only counting one.  I mean if you are going to count every bowl game...  Also is the goal to just play in the post-season or to have a chance to win it all.  In basketball, 68 teams have a chance to win it all once the playoffs begin, in football 4 do.

[CPO Hog]

When CBB lines up a DL as a CB, then we compare. It would be like designing for the Center to guard a PG on the parameter.

[King Kong]

Protect football at all cost!!

We are trying to protect Basketball. By actually getting someone that can get us to the tournament

[The_Iceman]

You just obliterated that Mike-hugger argument in one post. Thank you! Football is much harder, and Mediocre Mike is failing to lead the basketball program.

[Atlhogfan1]

My point is stated above.  These two have very little in common and what happens in football should not be used as an excuse to keep a crap coach around in basketball.

Well there are three basketball tournaments and you are only counting one.  I mean if you are going to count every bowl game...  Also is the goal to just play in the post-season or to have a chance to win it all.  In basketball, 68 teams have a chance to win it all once the playoffs begin, in football 4 do.

Wish you had not have started this. 

Don't get bogged down in trying to compare making a bowl to basketball achievements. 

[The_Iceman]

There must be a point in there somewhere, just dying to get out.  I don't see it.

Here's another way of looking at it.  There are 128 FBS college football programs and 82 of them played in bowl games this past year.  That means a program only has to be in the, for lack of a better term, top 64% to qualify.

There are over 300 basketball programs eligible for the NCAA tournament.  68 get in.  If the number is 315 (I'm not sure about that) only the top 21-22% qualify.

In other words, getting into a football bowl game is three times easier than qualifying for the NCAA basketball tournament.  Neither should be considered "good enough" for any big time program, but in football it's much less of an accomplishment.

How many of those 315 basketball teams are in one-bid leagues? So essentially, your percentages are inflated. Plus, the NIT is postseason as well (I won't count that CBI crap).

[Atlhogfan1]

If you are going to head down this path, do so specifically with our programs and the differences.  Not just how the two sports themselves are different. 

[Pork Twain]

Wish you had not have started this. 

Don't get bogged down in trying to compare making a bowl to basketball achievements. 

Not going to, but just another example of people picking and choosing what they bring to the table to skew things in their favor.  If I am going to include all bowls, even the crappiest (The Celebration Bowl between North Carolina Central and Grambling State), I must then also include all post-season basketball tournaments, even the one that takes the scraps from the NIT.

[Pork Twain]

If you are going to head down this path, do so specifically with our programs and the differences.  Not just how the two sports themselves are different. 

That was not my intention.  The sports themselves are completely different on almost every level and should never be compared, across the board, not just at Arkansas.  Limiting my scope would have been just as bad as them limiting their scope to prove their point.

[FrankCourtneyNicodemus]

You just obliterated that Mike-hugger argument in one post. Thank you! Football is much harder, and Mediocre Mike is failing to lead the basketball program.

I'm indifferent, but "obliterated" is a strong word for a rather ineffective compare and contrast that doesn't take into account the parity in CBB in relation to CFB.

[Pork Twain]

I'm indifferent, but "obliterated" is a strong word for a rather ineffective compare and contrast that doesn't take into account the parity in CBB in relation to CFB.

Parity is not something that is easily put into numbers.  If anything it would reinforce that it is easier to turn things around and get to the top in basketball and stay there, than it is in football (compare the final fours in both sports).  Doing this is even more damming to those that try to pretend that turning a basketball team around should take a decade. 

My goal was to show that those two sports are completely different and should not be compared, do you disagree?  If you do not disagree then my point stands that bringing up football or baseball to argue why MA should get more years to continue to try and turn this team around, is inaccurate at best.

[FrankCourtneyNicodemus]

Parity is not something that is easily put into numbers.  If anything it would reinforce that it is easier to turn things around and get to the top in basketball and stay there, than it is in football (compare the final fours in both sports).  Doing this is even more damming to those that try to pretend that turning a basketball team around should take a decade. 

My goal was to show that those two sports are completely different and should not be compared, do you disagree?  If you do not disagree then my point stands that bringing up football or baseball to argue why MA should get more years to continue to try and turn this team around, is inaccurate at best.

I agree that the two can't be compared, outside of that both programs lost to Mizzou. Which, by your own measure (or what you're suggesting at least) is more of a knock on the football program than the basketball. I was more-so commenting on someone else's use of "obliterated."

Re: MA. I do fall back onto a term I read in this board not too long ago: Jimmys/Joes > Xs and Os. This is less so in football IMO. Doesn't mean it's not frustrating, or that I'm right. And I'll still tune in next year if MA is coach, just as I will with Bielema.

[Pork Twain]

I agree that the two can't be compared, outside of that both programs lost to Mizzou. Which, by your own measure (or what you're suggesting at least) is more of a knock on the football program than the basketball. I was more-so commenting on someone else's use of "obliterated."

Re: MA. I do fall back onto a term I read in this board not too long ago: Jimmys/Joes > Xs and Os. This is less so in football IMO. Doesn't mean it's not frustrating, or that I'm right. And I'll still tune in next year if MA is coach, just as I will with Bielema.

Definitely think that term was a little too strong.  I am just hoping to remove one more excuse for why MA should stay for his 7th year.  I know that if CBB is still at this level after year 5, I will want him fired.

As far as the Mizzou comment, I see it just the opposite.  Our basketball team is facing very little in the form of top level competition (.125 ranked teams) and should not be so beat up that they cannot take care of that scrap heap.  The football team on the other hand has been facing top competition (.625 ranked teams) all year by the time they get to the game that really did not mean anything to them.  Do I think the coaches should have had them ready and that we should have easily won them both?  Yes

[Biggus Piggus]

There must be a point in there somewhere, just dying to get out.  I don't see it.

Here's another way of looking at it.  There are 128 FBS college football programs and 82 of them played in bowl games this past year.  That means a program only has to be in the, for lack of a better term, top 64% to qualify.

There are over 300 basketball programs eligible for the NCAA tournament.  68 get in.  If the number is 315 (I'm not sure about that) only the top 21-22% qualify.

In other words, getting into a football bowl game is three times easier than qualifying for the NCAA basketball tournament.  Neither should be considered "good enough" for any big time program, but in football it's much less of an accomplishment.

The math here's deceptive once again.

NCAAT bids by conference in 2016:

7 - Big 12
7 - ACC
7 - Pac 12
7 - Big Ten
5 - Big East
4 - AAC
3 - SEC
3 - A10
2 - MVC

1 apiece - MWC, CAA, MAC, BWC, WCC, Summit, Horizon, Ivy, SBC, Southern, CUSA, MAAC, OVC, Big South, WAC, A-Sun, Big Sky, Patriot, A-East, SLC, NEC, SWAC, MEAC.

Nine multibid conferences. Twenty-three single-bid conferences.

For the top nine conferences, 45 out of 105 teams made the Big Dance last year. For everybody else, either win the conference tournament or bust.

So be careful with your math on that one. ROFLMAO.

[Pork Twain]

Every post that brings up another issue, just goes to further validate that the two should not be compared.

[Porcine Coprolite]

A couple of comparisons I did not see were head coach salary and total assistant coach salary.  I might be wrong, but I thought Bielema makes $4 million and Anderson $2 million.  I don't know anything about the assistant coaches' salaries, but I would guess the total AC salaries in FB are two to three times the total in BB.  To whom much is given, much is expected.

[Biggus Piggus]

A couple of comparisons I did not see were head coach salary and total assistant coach salary.  I might be wrong, but I thought Bielema makes $4 million and Anderson $2 million.  I don't know anything about the assistant coaches' salaries, but I would guess the total AC salaries in FB are two to three times the total in BB.  To whom much is given, much is expected.

No, salaries in each sport are directly driven by revenues generated in those sports. PERIOD. When basketball's revenue generation declines, your expenses grow closer and closer to that revenue number. Football throws off cash like crazy. So no. Only naive fans try to draw conclusions based solely off salary numbers.

[FrankCourtneyNicodemus]

Every post that brings up another issue, just goes to further validate that the two should not be compared.

Ha true.

"As far as the Mizzou comment, I see it just the opposite.  Our basketball team is facing very little in the form of top level competition (.125 ranked teams) and should not be so beat up that they cannot take care of that scrap heap.  The football team on the other hand has been facing top competition (.625 ranked teams) all year by the time they get to the game that really did not mean anything to them.  Do I think the coaches should have had them ready and that we should have easily won them both?  Yes"

But since we're here.... where do y'all stand on the idea that SEC football was over rated this year, and that conference basketball is on the rise (perhaps even under rated)? If to some extent this is true, where does it fall into your answer above?

"I am just hoping to remove one more excuse for why MA should stay for his 7th year."

This put your OP into more context for me. I haven't seen the argument you speak of put out there a lot, but I definitely see what you're saying.

[Youngsta71701]

My point is stated above.  These two have very little in common and what happens in football should not be used as an excuse to keep a crap coach around in basketball.

Well there are three basketball tournaments and you are only counting one.  I mean if you are going to count every bowl game...  Also is the goal to just play in the post-season or to have a chance to win it all.  In basketball, 68 teams have a chance to win it all once the playoffs begin, in football 4 do.

But but why do people always try to compare making a bowl to making the NCAA tournament...The difficulty level is so far a part that it's laughable.

[hobhog]

We are a football state in a football conference. If you want basketball to be relevant you have to win early and often.

[Biggus Piggus]

But but why do people always try to compare making a bowl to making the NCAA tournament...The difficulty level is so far a part that it's laughable.

Almost 50% of teams from the top seven basketball conferences make the NCAA Tournament. You Frank.

[Atlhogfan1]

Ha true.

"As far as the Mizzou comment, I see it just the opposite.  Our basketball team is facing very little in the form of top level competition (.125 ranked teams) and should not be so beat up that they cannot take care of that scrap heap.  The football team on the other hand has been facing top competition (.625 ranked teams) all year by the time they get to the game that really did not mean anything to them.  Do I think the coaches should have had them ready and that we should have easily won them both?  Yes"

But since we're here.... where do y'all stand on the idea that SEC football was over rated this year, and that conference basketball is on the rise (perhaps even under rated)? If to some extent this is true, where does it fall into your answer above?

"I am just hoping to remove one more excuse for why MA should stay for his 7th year."

This put your OP into more context for me. I haven't seen the argument you speak of put out there a lot, but I definitely see what you're saying.

Overrated based on what?  The conference had a down season especially with teams collapsing down the stretch except LSU.  Injuries took its toll to say the least on several teams especially the qb position.  A&M, AU, OM were all much different teams at the end than they were at other points in the season.  Tenn had a crapload of injuries.   But yes it was down relative to what it has been.  Check out some of the NFL mock drafts and the first round.  Loaded with SEC.  The talent in the conference faced each week is still high.

SEC basketball won 18% of its OOC games vs the RPI Top 50.  1 win vs the Top 25 - UK over UNC.  The worst of any major conference.  Not buying it is getting dramatically better.  Coaching upgrades has made the bottom less crowded with completely darn teams.  Mediocrity goes deeper.  So sure, it has improved. 

[hogsanity]

But but why do people always try to compare making a bowl to making the NCAA tournament...The difficulty level is so far a part that it's laughable.

A better comparison would be making it to the group that plays for the NC. In basketball it is 68 out of approx 350 teams, in football it is 4 out of 128. In football 3% of fbs teams get a chance to play for the nc, in basketball it is 19%.

To me, the bowls outside of the nc playoff and maybe the next 4 biggest bowls, are like the NIT.

But the comparisons are just to hard. In football you have 22 starters, in basketball it is 5. In football you have 85 players on scholarships, in basketball it is 13. Football plays 12 regular season games, bball over 30.

And, like it or not, in football making a bowl is seen as success and not making it is failure. Basketball making the ncaat is seen as success and not is failure. Football is king, and college basketball is pretty much seen as something to do between football and spring football at most of the p5 schools.

[Biggus Piggus]

A better comparison would be making it to the group that plays for the NC. In basketball it is 68 out of approx 350 teams, in football it is 4 out of 128. In football 3% of fbs teams get a chance to play for the nc, in basketball it is 19%. 

The real comparison is to look at perennial multibid conferences only in basketball. The vast majority of leagues don't have a prayer of getting an at-large bid.

There's 68 teams in the NCAAT field.

Thirty-two bids are automatic. And 68 - 32 = 36.

This year, the top seven conferences might get all but one at-large bid. Or all of them.

The top seven conferences will get 35-36 + 7 = 42-43 bids.

The top seven conferences = 85 teams. About 50% will go to the Big Dance.

What was that stupid point about football and bowl games that the MA apologists were making?

[Pork Twain]

A couple of comparisons I did not see were head coach salary and total assistant coach salary.  I might be wrong, but I thought Bielema makes $4 million and Anderson $2 million.  I don't know anything about the assistant coaches' salaries, but I would guess the total AC salaries in FB are two to three times the total in BB.  To whom much is given, much is expected.

I did not include salaries because I would have then had to determine which sport brought in how much money on ticket sales, viewership and apparel.  Salaries are based on supply and demand and that is based on who brings in the money and cannot be directly correlated to number of wins.

Coaching Salaries
Basketball $2.45 million
Football $4.1 million

Revenue Generated
Basketball $15.9 million
Football $61.6 million

http://www.businessinsider.com/schools-most-revenue-college-sports-2016-10/#17-south-carolina--1132-million-9

Interestingly enough, I found this while looking for salaries.
http://my.xfinity.com/slideshow/sports-overpaidcollegebasketballcoaches/9/

[Biggus Piggus]

Loving the stunned silence as the "it's so much harder in basketball" crowd realizes they've made fools of themselves.

[Letsroll1200]

The real comparison is to look at perennial multibid conferences only in basketball. The vast majority of leagues don't have a prayer of getting an at-large bid.

There's 68 teams in the NCAAT field.

Thirty-two bids are automatic. And 68 - 32 = 36.

This year, the top seven conferences might get all but one at-large bid. Or all of them.

The top seven conferences will get 35-36 + 7 = 42-43 bids.

The top seven conferences = 85 teams. About 50% will go to the Big Dance.

What was that stupid point about football and bowl games that the MA apologists were making?

How many 5-7 teams made a bowl game in football last season?

[EastexHawg]

What percentage of SEC teams played in football bowl games vs. how many will make it to this year's NCAA basketball tournament?

I agree it is hard to compare, but I don't think the premise that it is considerably easier for a program in a major conference to make a bowl game than the NCAAT can be argued.

[EastexHawg]

By the way, I am not arguing that Mike Anderson's job and predicament are so difficult that he should be retained.  He shouldn't, he should be sent packing at season's end.  But, if the conversation is about the relative difficulty of attaining "success" in football vs. basketball the facts are the facts.  Beat four relatively weak teams in non-conference games in football, then go 2-6 in conference and you're in a bowl game.  Is that a successful season?  I don't think so.

[Atlhogfan1]

By the way, I am not arguing that Mike Anderson's job and predicament are so difficult that he should be retained.  He shouldn't, he should be sent packing at season's end.  But, if the conversation is about the relative difficulty of attaining "success" in football vs. basketball the facts are the facts.  Beat four relatively weak teams in non-conference games in football, then go 2-6 in conference and you're in a bowl game.  Is that a successful season?  I don't think so.

Not for Arkansas football unless it is an anomaly and not shown to be the norm for a coach. 

[Youngsta71701]

The real comparison is to look at perennial multibid conferences only in basketball. The vast majority of leagues don't have a prayer of getting an at-large bid.

There's 68 teams in the NCAAT field.

Thirty-two bids are automatic. And 68 - 32 = 36.

This year, the top seven conferences might get all but one at-large bid. Or all of them.

The top seven conferences will get 35-36 + 7 = 42-43 bids.

The top seven conferences = 85 teams. About 50% will go to the Big Dance.

What was that stupid point about football and bowl games that the MA apologists were making?

Some were trying to say that it was easier to make the NCAA basketball tournament than is was to make a bowl game in football?

[Pork Twain]

But but why do people always try to compare making a bowl to making the NCAA tournament...The difficulty level is so far a part that it's laughable.

They compare them, because they are both postseason achievements.  I included all of that data in my op.  You would just have to actually do the calculations on you own.  Was that too much to ask?  # of teams that get to play for NC/total # of teams  That would be 68/351 and 4/128.  What is laughable is how wrong you are and that you do not even know it.  More than a few times, an 8 seed has made it to the final four.  That is not even a possibility in football.  In basketball, you usually need to finish top 4-5 in a good conference to be able to play for it all.  In football, you usually need to finish #1 in your conference, unless there is a freak scenario like there was this year.

Just more ways they are different and should not be compared

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/02/ncaa-tournament-final-four-teams-most-shocking/2047219/

http://www.mensfitness.com/sports/basketball/march-madness-10-best-ncaa-tournament-upsets-history

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/03/is_syracuse_the_lowest_seed_ev.html

[Youngsta71701]

Loving the stunned silence as the "it's so much harder in basketball" crowd realizes they've made fools of themselves.

Are you seriously trying to say it's harder to make a bowl game than it is to make the NCAA tournament? If so you are ridiculous.

[The_Iceman]

Loving the stunned silence as the "it's so much harder in basketball" crowd realizes they've made fools of themselves.

Another Mike Anderson defense obliterated. What will the Mike huggers come up with next? They are running out of arguments to keep Mediocre Mike.

[The_Iceman]

Are you seriously trying to say it's harder to make a bowl game than it is to make the NCAA tournament? If so you are ridiculous.

The facts he presented show that it is closer than you think. And id consider just making a bowl game (6+ wins) being equal to the NCAAT or NIT.

So in Mike's six season, he will have 1 NCAA tournament appearance and 2 NIT bids. Be like having 3 losing football seasons in 6 years.

[Pork Twain]

By the way, I am not arguing that Mike Anderson's job and predicament are so difficult that he should be retained.  He shouldn't, he should be sent packing at season's end.  But, if the conversation is about the relative difficulty of attaining "success" in football vs. basketball the facts are the facts.  Beat four relatively weak teams in non-conference games in football, then go 2-6 in conference and you're in a bowl game.  Is that a successful season?  I don't think so.

That was not my intention.  My intention was that these two sports are so much different in almost every aspect, to include post season play, that they should not be compared and definitely should not be used to attempt to justify MA sticking around.

The most obvious thing they all seem to be missing is that SEC football is King and SEC basketball is some sort of ugly princess.  In which one of those scenarios should it feasibly be considered easier to win in?  As good as SEC football has been and as bad as SEC basketball has been, why do they ever stoop down to trying to use a comparison that will so obviously fail?

[Pork Twain]

Are you seriously trying to say it's harder to make a bowl game than it is to make the NCAA tournament? If so you are ridiculous.

People have even done the work for you. Do the math, it is simple division

Number of Div-I Teams
Basketball 351
Football 253 (128 FBS/125 FCS)

Teams that can play in the post-season
Basketball 132 (NCAA 68, NIT 32, CIT 32)
Football 82 (41 bowls+ 1 NC bowl)

Teams that can play for the NC
Basketball 68
Football 4

[Youngsta71701]

They compare them, because they are both postseason achievements.  I included all of that data in my op.  You would just have to actually do the calculations on you own.  Was that too much to ask?  # of teams that get to play for NC/total # of teams  That would be 68/351 and 4/128.  What is laughable is how wrong you are and that you do not even know it.  More than a few times, an 8 seed has made it to the final four.  That is not even a possibility in football.  In basketball, you usually need to finish top 4-5 in a good conference to be able to play for it all.  In football, you usually need to finish #1 in your conference, unless there is a freak scenario like there was this year.

Just more ways they are different and should not be compared

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/04/02/ncaa-tournament-final-four-teams-most-shocking/2047219/

http://www.mensfitness.com/sports/basketball/march-madness-10-best-ncaa-tournament-upsets-history

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/03/is_syracuse_the_lowest_seed_ev.html

You are good I'll give you that. At no point did you hear anybody comparing how hard it is to win a championship. What you did hear was some saying it's easier to make NCAA tournament (not win the championship) than it is to make a BOWL game (once again not win the championship). Let's see how good you are at mixing those words. Go...

[Biggus Piggus]

What percentage of SEC teams played in football bowl games vs. how many will make it to this year's NCAA basketball tournament?

I agree it is hard to compare, but I don't think the premise that it is considerably easier for a program in a major conference to make a bowl game than the NCAAT can be argued.

And that's not even a reasonable basis for comparison. "A bowl game" vs. the NCAAT -- it would be equally unfair if I compared "NCAAT + NIT" vs. the old BCS bowls.

Not all bowl games are equal, and simply making a bowl game isn't the same as making a good one. Fans aren't happy going to the NIT. Fans aren't happy going to the Motel 6 Cactus Bowl.

Also, just like a bunch of NCAAT bids go solely to scads of one-bid conferences, here's the list of bowl games that were not occupied by any team from a power conference last season:

Gildan New Mexico Bowl
Las Vegas Bowl
Camellia Bowl
AutoNation Cure Bowl
R + L Carriers New Orleans Bowl
Miami Beach Bowl
Boca Raton Bowl
Poinsettia Bowl
Famous Idaho Potato Bowl
Popeye's Bahamas Bowl
Lockheed Martin Armed Forces Bowl
Dollar General Bowl
Hawaii Bowl
Zaxby's Heart of Dallas Bowl
NOVA Home Loans Arizona Bowl

That's 15 bowl games unavailable to power conference teams. Only 25 bowl games had at least one power conference team in them (excluding the national title game to avoid double-counting participants). And not all of those participants were power-conference teams.

You're talking about 75% of power conference teams making bowl games -- but a lower percentage making desirable bowl games. "NCAAT-caliber" bowl games. I'd say only the teams with 8 or 9+ regular-season wins are on that level, but that's just my taste.

In other words - about half of power-conference teams make it into the NCAAT. About half of power-conference teams make upper-tier bowl games.

[Atlhogfan1]

That was not my intention.  My intention was that these two sports are so much different in almost every aspect, to include post season play, that they should not be compared and definitely should not be used to attempt to justify MA sticking around.

The most obvious thing they all seem to be missing is that SEC football is King and SEC basketball is some sort of ugly princess.  In which one of those scenarios should it feasibly be considered easier to win in?  As good as SEC football has been and as bad as SEC basketball has been, why do they ever stoop down to trying to use a comparison that will so obviously fail?

Second paragraph is on its way to getting to the crux of the matter.

[jkstock04]

Here is just a quick list I have thrown together showing why one should avoid comparing these to sports in order to attempt to prove a point

Ways they are the same:
Both are college sports
Both have coaches
Both sell tickets
Both offer scholarships

Ways they are different:
Just looking at 2016-17, here is an example of why the two sports should not be compared, but if they are, truth in numbers is important:

Teams we played
Basketball 32
Football 13

Conference Games/Out-of-Conference games
Basketball 18/14
Football 8/5

Ranked teams played
Basketball 4 (6, 17, 19, 25)
Football 8 (1, 10, 11, 12, 15, 21, 22, 24)

Percentage of teams played that were ranked
Basketball .125
Football .615

Scholarships Available
Basketball 13
Football 85

Players ranked >4*
Basketball 212
Football 477

Number of Div-I Teams
Basketball 351
Football 253 (128 FBS/125 FCS)

Average Annual Recruiting class size
Basketball 3-5
Football 25-30

Total annual scholarships available
Basketball 4563
Football 21505

Teams that can play in the post-season
Basketball 116
Football 82

Teams that can play for the NC
Basketball 68
Football 4

What you have put forth is a comparison of NCAA bball vs NCAA football. Not a comparison of Hog football vs Hog basketball...which is where the argument can sometimes be found. What people argue about isn't an overall NCAA football vs NCAA basketball debate. What people argue about, is that expectations of Hog bball vs Hog football can be seen as a contradiction.

The overall theme and narrative with all razorback athletics these days: Academics/integrity/student athlete/uncommon/game day experience, etc. take precedence over winning games. This is a strong crutch for the football program but never really seen as such for basketball.

In basketball the nice, fun, head coach who turns boys into men for post college, and "I would gladly send my son to play for that man" doesn't seem to cut the mustard. People want to see wins and a permanent return to the top 25.

Regardless of all that, simply put, in the SEC...football is a gauntlet of quality teams and competition. In basketball not so much. Awful basketball conference. Therefore perhaps winning expectations for basketball should be higher than football. I can maybe see that argument if we are going to talk strictly about winning/losing and why fans should expect more winning success in basketball vs football.

[Knot2brite]

Football is the top money maker...it is the sport that stirs the athletic departments drink. The 40 million they got the other day just proves that...even when the team isn't doing as well as we want I still see very few empty sections

[hogsanity]

By the way, I am not arguing that Mike Anderson's job and predicament are so difficult that he should be retained.  He shouldn't, he should be sent packing at season's end.  But, if the conversation is about the relative difficulty of attaining "success" in football vs. basketball the facts are the facts.  Beat four relatively weak teams in non-conference games in football, then go 2-6 in conference and you're in a bowl game.  Is that a successful season?  I don't think so.

Again, you may not like it, I may not like it, but the majority of people look at a football program, and if they made a bowl, they think that team had a good year. If not, it was bad. Same for basketball, you make the ncaat and most people say that was a good season, you do not make it and it was a bust.

The "reward" of a bowl game in football has been set up for $$$$$. Is it the fault of a school in the SEC that the conf has 10 bowl tie in's and that you can make it at 6-6 ( or on occasion 5-7 )? That is how the system is set up.

But ok, lets be generous for a moment and include the NIT, now it is 100 teams make the post season, and Mike has still only managed that 2 out of 5 seasons, and even if he makes it this year to one of them, that's still only doing it 50% of the time. Is it unrealistic to expect this program to be in the 100 making the ncaat/nit every season?

[Youngsta71701]

The facts he presented show that it is closer than you think. And id consider just making a bowl game (6+ wins) being equal to the NCAAT or NIT.

So in Mike's six season, he will have 1 NCAA tournament appearance and 2 NIT bids. Be like having 3 losing football seasons in 6 years.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that there are 315 basketball teams competing for 36 spots (85 if you just want to count the top 7 conferences)compared to 128 football schools competing for 82 spots. Not to mention that 5-7 teams are making bowl games these days.

64% of the football teams make a bowl game compared to 11% of the basketball teams making the NCAA tournament 42% if you just want to count the top 7 conferences. I digress...