Would Nolans style win a Nat C-ship today??

[RacinRazorback]

Given the way the game is called, all the stops in play the last 2 mins of the game, would his style still be a national c-ship winner in todays game? And NO, CMA does not run a Nolan type game!

[hawgball40]

Not without a roster full of 4 and 5 star talent. This team is not very talented to be quite honest. That's the major problem to me. We don't have elite talent or length at the 3 and 4 position, and even at 2g we just have average sized combo guards.

[BDSCT51]

As long as it had "Nolan athletes" to run it, then yes. Make no mistake, it takes elite highly skilled and athletic personnel to win a natty. Nolan had those at his disposal up and down the bench. Mike does not.

Can MA get there? Remains to be seen. I don't think it's a matter of one or two of those types being available, but four or five. The load just can't be on your best three guys EVERY game. Need the bench to not only contribute but excel for their minutes on the floor.

[oldman1015]

The hand check rule and the TV timeouts would
Make it even harder.  Also many more teams run now.

[razorhead94]

Could it?  Absolutely, but the key was to have dominant big men that could out run their competition which is a misconception to how people perceive full court pressure defense.

[rude1]

IMO the 94 team would still be a NC contender in today's game. That team just had some of everything you need, lock down defenders, multiple 3 point shooters, could battle on the glass, they could play big, they could play small, they could take you apart in the half court game or play fast.

[HawgTrough]

watch WVU play. they run and gun and are a likely 1 seed

[Locutus_of_Boar]

Nolan Richardson was in the right place at exactly the right moment in time.

The introduction of the shot clock and the three point basket combined with Nolan's defense to instill panic into most though not all teams in the late 80's and early 90's playing right into NR's style.  Combine that with a couple of exceptional recruiting classes that were the core of the 88-92 and 93-95 teams and the fact is that no one regardless of talent could recreate that environment today.

That doesn't mean Arkansas couldn't find a successful coach to recruit a nationally competitive team today but fact is there has been no incentive on the part of the UA administration to do more than keep rerunning MA's faint echo of the Richardson era.  Maybe now that Long is gone that might start to change but I will believe it when I see it.  For now what we see this year still looks to be as good as it gets without any commitment toward change..

[hawgball40]

Nolan Richardson was in the right place at exactly the right moment in time.

The introduction of the shot clock and the three point basket combined with Nolan's defense to instill panic into most though not all teams in the late 80's and early 90's playing right into NR's style.  Combine that with a couple of exceptional recruiting classes that were the core of the 88-92 and 93-95 teams and the fact is that no one regardless of talent could recreate that environment today.

That doesn't mean Arkansas couldn't find a successful coach to recruit a nationally competitive team today but fact is there has been no incentive on the part of the UA administration to do more than keep rerunning MA's faint echo of the Richardson era.  Maybe now that Long is gone that might start to change but I will believe it when I see it.  For now what we see this year still looks to be as good as it gets without any commitment toward change..

The last paragraph(bold) is your opinion, and off topic. And to address your concern, Mike Anderson is, contrary to your belief, no a faint echo of the richardson era, but is that coach that can assemble a nationally competitive team at Arkansas. He runs his own system and its constantly changing. Its not a carbon copy of 40moh. Additionally, you've seen it throughout the past two years, we are running set plays on offense and mixing up our defensive looks as necessary.

The only failure thus far is in recruiting, and some late game coaching mistakes that have been corrected as of late(though we are still losing games because we cant get stops on defense and can't move the ball in the half court/score when it counts on offense). Both of our previous two games, he made the correct substitutions late and correct calls on defense and offense. Our team just isn't good enough to get it done.

Early on, your gripes about Mike were true. He was stubborn and refused to adapt to modern ball. But, as of now, the way i see it he has a winning system now. We run a multiple set full court press with traps and matchup zone and man 2 man defense looks depending on our personnel assignments. On offense, we run a transition, with a motion half court and some set plays, high ball screens, pick and pop, pick and roll, and iso's. it's a pro type of offense that requires talent to execute. sometimes our guys can get it done, sometimes they can't. the better defense we face, the worst they look. Talent problem. Not coaching. Those players are giving it their all, they just are overmatched in alot of instances. In my opinion, we also have one of the best zone busting offenses in the nation, even when we aren't hitting our 3s were good at getting the ball into the middle of the zone for easy jumpers. He's just got to get the right horses. To me his blue print is solid. he's just failing to recruit. And that's a valid complaint. But i still think he deserves more time to pick it up in that area, based on our program history preceding him and the various scandals that have tarnished our national image. But, if he doesn't pick it up within the next 2 to 3 season, i will be right there with you calling for change. But the way i see it, when you account all of the facts of his tenure, he has earned the right to continue being our basketball coach and trying to resurrect our program from the dead. Be honest, he is 10x the coach that heath or pelphrey was, and has a similar or better record than both, and all of it done with arguably less talent. why did those coaches out recruit him? because they are pushover players coaches,, and coincidentally both are out of coaching now. Mike Anderson is neither. What Mike Anderson is, is a hard nose coach who makes you earn your keep. Now he just has to master finding good players and selling them Arkansas.

I don't know if he's turned the corner or if he ever will, but i think he gets atleast 2 or 3 more recruiting cycles and seasons to see what he can do. Each time he elevates our level of play, he earns more time. and regardless of what you think of him, last years season deserves to be lauded. on the heels of his worst season as a coach, and a team ready to fold, the ship is righted and he reaches the dance to come within minutes of knocking off the eventual national champion. SEC championship game and NCAA Tourney appearances in 2 of last 3 seasons.

In conclusion, I think, you're a moron if you're ready to fire Mike Anderson at this point; HOWEVER, your concerns about recruiting are valid, and if he doesn't pick it up eventually, that will become a bigger factor in his job security.

[FineAsSwine]

The last paragraph(bold) is your opinion, and off topic. And to address your concern, Mike Anderson is, contrary to your belief, no a faint echo of the richardson era, but is that coach that can assemble a nationally competitive team at Arkansas. He runs his own system and its constantly changing. Its not a carbon copy of 40moh. Additionally, you've seen it throughout the past two years, we are running set plays on offense and mixing up our defensive looks as necessary.

The only failure thus far is in recruiting, and some late game coaching mistakes that have been corrected as of late(though we are still losing games because we cant get stops on defense and can't move the ball in the half court/score when it counts on offense). Both of our previous two games, he made the correct substitutions late and correct calls on defense and offense. Our team just isn't good enough to get it done.

Early on, your gripes about Mike were true. He was stubborn and refused to adapt to modern ball. But, as of now, the way i see it he has a winning system now. We run a multiple set full court press with traps and matchup zone and man 2 man defense looks depending on our personnel assignments. On offense, we run a transition, with a motion half court and some set plays, high ball screens, pick and pop, pick and roll, and iso's. it's a pro type of offense that requires talent to execute. sometimes our guys can get it done, sometimes they can't. the better defense we face, the worst they look. Talent problem. Not coaching. Those players are giving it their all, they just are overmatched in alot of instances. In my opinion, we also have one of the best zone busting offenses in the nation, even when we aren't hitting our 3s were good at getting the ball into the middle of the zone for easy jumpers. He's just got to get the right horses. To me his blue print is solid. he's just failing to recruit. And that's a valid complaint. But i still think he deserves more time to pick it up in that area, based on our program history preceding him and the various scandals that have tarnished our national image. But, if he doesn't pick it up within the next 2 to 3 season, i will be right there with you calling for change. But the way i see it, when you account all of the facts of his tenure, he has earned the right to continue being our basketball coach and trying to resurrect our program from the dead. Be honest, he is 10x the coach that heath or pelphrey was, and has a similar or better record than both, and all of it done with arguably less talent. why did those coaches out recruit him? because they are pushover players coaches,, and coincidentally both are out of coaching now. Mike Anderson is neither. What Mike Anderson is, is a hard nose coach who makes you earn your keep. Now he just has to master finding good players and selling them Arkansas.

I don't know if he's turned the corner or if he ever will, but i think he gets atleast 2 or 3 more recruiting cycles and seasons to see what he can do. Each time he elevates our level of play, he earns more time. and regardless of what you think of him, last years season deserves to be lauded. on the heels of his worst season as a coach, and a team ready to fold, the ship is righted and he reaches the dance to come within minutes of knocking off the eventual national champion. SEC championship game and NCAA Tourney appearances in 2 of last 3 seasons.

In conclusion, I think, you're a moron if you're ready to fire Mike Anderson at this point; HOWEVER, your concerns about recruiting are valid, and if he doesn't pick it up eventually, that will become a bigger factor in his job security.

Very solid post. Lots of fiber. For those posters who are full of chit, this ought to help keep 'em regular.

[The_Iceman]

Nolan's players could. Style doesn't matter.

[Paul]

watch WVU play. they run and gun and are a likely 1 seed

yes but they can execute in the half court on both ends too as could out "94 team

[Kevin McPherson]

IMO the 94 team would still be a NC contender in today's game. That team just had some of everything you need, lock down defenders, multiple 3 point shooters, could battle on the glass, they could play big, they could play small, they could take you apart in the half court game or play fast.

[DLUXHOG]

Yes....

[code red]

Not without a roster full of 4 and 5 star talent. This team is not very talented to be quite honest. That's the major problem to me. We don't have elite talent or length at the 3 and 4 position, and even at 2g we just have average sized combo guards.

Agreed Nolans talent would win tho...we had some studs.

[hogsanity]

Even Nolan changed some to make the 94 team what it was. He went out and got some big men, Robinson and Wilson. And that team had a real legit PG in Beck who was a distributor of the ball and he and McDaniel could lock down on D.

[3of5-2]

The answer is NO.

[Hawg414]

IMO the 94 team would still be a NC contender in today's game. That team just had some of everything you need, lock down defenders, multiple 3 point shooters, could battle on the glass, they could play big, they could play small, they could take you apart in the half court game or play fast.

contender??  in the age of one-and-done freshmen being the best players on the court, i don't think there has been a team in 10 years that could stay within 15 points of that 94 team.

[BannerMountainMan]

contender??  in the age of one-and-done freshmen being the best players on the court, i don't think there has been a team in 10 years that could stay within 15 points of that 94 team.

from Arkansas or any team 😂

[Corkscrew Johnson]

Yes.  But you need (1) Nolan's talent, and (2) Nolan's fire on the sideline.  Also, you need a roster that looks like Nolan's 1988-95, and less like 1996-2001, ie when he recruited more position-based players and less athletes. 

[The_Bionic_Pig]

Not without a roster full of 4 and 5 star talent. This team is not very talented to be quite honest. That's the major problem to me. We don't have elite talent or length at the 3 and 4 position, and even at 2g we just have average sized combo guards.

Did you forget that Nolan had McDonald's AA's at his disposal.

[Hogimus Prime]

Nolan's 91-92 team would be deadly.  5 future NBA players on that roster Day, Mayberry, Miller, Butch Morris and a freshman Clint McDaniel.

[hogwood]

watch WVU play. they run and gun and are a likely 1 seed

Love WVU. Just watching them play makes me think back to Nolan's teams. Plus Huggins reminds me of Nolan. Another thing about WVU is that they barely even have any 4* talent on their roster. They literally are Burger King kids. Yet year in and year out they are a top 10 team and doing it at a school in the state of West Virginia no less.

[rude1]

contender??  in the age of one-and-done freshmen being the best players on the court, i don't think there has been a team in 10 years that could stay within 15 points of that 94 team.

Good point, that I actually hadn't thought of.

[hawkhawg]

Any of Nolan's teams from 1989-1995 would absolutely be in the hunt for a national Championship in today's college basketball.

[onebadrubi]

SEC officials are about as bad as they come.  They call way too many anticipated fouls, they can't keep up with the talent and speed of athletes.  They would make a Nolan style game a 3 hour game that the water boys had to play because of foul troubles.  They would not allow for the flow of the game to keep going either, they would call some sort of foul to stop the flow of play. 

[pigture perfect]

Simple answer, No.

[Knot2brite]

If he would be willing to back off the pressure and play his amoeba defense that he ran from time to time to throw people off ...then yes he would win. He had the ability to get the players and offensively they were light years ahead of teams today.

[hogsanity]

Love WVU. Just watching them play makes me think back to Nolan's teams. Plus Huggins reminds me of Nolan. Another thing about WVU is that they barely even have any 4* talent on their roster. They literally are Burger King kids. Yet year in and year out they are a top 10 team and doing it at a school in the state of West Virginia no less.

Umm, they scored 57 points last night. They won, but they are not tied to playing one way. They can slug it out in a half court slow paced game if necessary.

[King Kong]

If he has the same caliber talent as the 94 team did.

Louisville won just a few years back playing something similar

[Bigfoot]

The 94 national championship team could win a national championship today.

Absolutely.

[PonderinHog]

Did you forget that Nolan had McDonald's AA's at his disposal.

Wait, I thought they were Burger King AA's!


I think any style will work, if you have the players.

[redneckfriend]

The last paragraph(bold) is your opinion, and off topic. And to address your concern, Mike Anderson is, contrary to your belief, no a faint echo of the richardson era, but is that coach that can assemble a nationally competitive team at Arkansas. He runs his own system and its constantly changing. Its not a carbon copy of 40moh. Additionally, you've seen it throughout the past two years, we are running set plays on offense and mixing up our defensive looks as necessary.

The only failure thus far is in recruiting, and some late game coaching mistakes that have been corrected as of late(though we are still losing games because we cant get stops on defense and can't move the ball in the half court/score when it counts on offense). Both of our previous two games, he made the correct substitutions late and correct calls on defense and offense. Our team just isn't good enough to get it done.

Early on, your gripes about Mike were true. He was stubborn and refused to adapt to modern ball. But, as of now, the way i see it he has a winning system now. We run a multiple set full court press with traps and matchup zone and man 2 man defense looks depending on our personnel assignments. On offense, we run a transition, with a motion half court and some set plays, high ball screens, pick and pop, pick and roll, and iso's. it's a pro type of offense that requires talent to execute. sometimes our guys can get it done, sometimes they can't. the better defense we face, the worst they look. Talent problem. Not coaching. Those players are giving it their all, they just are overmatched in alot of instances. In my opinion, we also have one of the best zone busting offenses in the nation, even when we aren't hitting our 3s were good at getting the ball into the middle of the zone for easy jumpers. He's just got to get the right horses. To me his blue print is solid. he's just failing to recruit. And that's a valid complaint. But i still think he deserves more time to pick it up in that area, based on our program history preceding him and the various scandals that have tarnished our national image. But, if he doesn't pick it up within the next 2 to 3 season, i will be right there with you calling for change. But the way i see it, when you account all of the facts of his tenure, he has earned the right to continue being our basketball coach and trying to resurrect our program from the dead. Be honest, he is 10x the coach that heath or pelphrey was, and has a similar or better record than both, and all of it done with arguably less talent. why did those coaches out recruit him? because they are pushover players coaches,, and coincidentally both are out of coaching now. Mike Anderson is neither. What Mike Anderson is, is a hard nose coach who makes you earn your keep. Now he just has to master finding good players and selling them Arkansas.

I don't know if he's turned the corner or if he ever will, but i think he gets atleast 2 or 3 more recruiting cycles and seasons to see what he can do. Each time he elevates our level of play, he earns more time. and regardless of what you think of him, last years season deserves to be lauded. on the heels of his worst season as a coach, and a team ready to fold, the ship is righted and he reaches the dance to come within minutes of knocking off the eventual national champion. SEC championship game and NCAA Tourney appearances in 2 of last 3 seasons.

In conclusion, I think, you're a moron if you're ready to fire Mike Anderson at this point; HOWEVER, your concerns about recruiting are valid, and if he doesn't pick it up eventually, that will become a bigger factor in his job security.

Good analysis. I think especially in the realistic assessment of Anderson's "problem" (talent). He is coach enough I believe to deliver if he can ever assemble a cast that has the skill and confidence to play on the road when the refs and the cards are stacked against him. Unfortunately it doesn't seem likely in today's environment with the one-and-done rule which directs the vast majority of players with NBA talent to a handful of schools. I don't see how that cycle can be broken but perhaps things will change and top 20 players will consider a broader range of destinations. But make no mistake- 2017's class was ranked 35th, 2018's 24th by 247. That won't do it when the best are always clustered at the top. It has gotten more like football and a chance of a 1994 repeat has fallen further away. I can't see that it is Mike Anderson's fault but in the end he will have to accept the blame and the consequences.

[HawgsPolo]

Nolan could win in any era. Ark probably will never get a coach of his caliber again.