Nolan's Early Years vs. Stan's Early Years

[Hogtropolis™]

NOLAN RICHARDSON AT ARKANSAS

Year 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90

Overall Record 12-16 19-14 21-9 25-7 30-5

Postseason No Tournament NIT #11 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #6 seed Nova #5 seed in NCAAT, beat #12 seed Loyola in 1st round, lost to #4 seed Louisville in 2nd round #4 seed in NCAAT, went to the Final Four and lost to #3 seed Duke

STAN HEATH AT ARKANSAS

Year 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Overall Record 9-19 12-16 18-12 22-10 21-14 ??-??

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament (had the 8th youngest team in the nation this year) Turned down NIT bid #8 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #9 seed Bucknell #12 seed in NCAAT, lost to #5 seed USC in 1st round ?? ?? ??

We all know what Nolan did following these first 5 years.  If you give SH a pass on his first year here (which most are willing to do), then he is right on pace with what Nolan did in his first 5 years here.  If Stan is able to keep this pace, then we are looking at a very good year next year and possibly for many years to come.

I've been back and forth many times on whether or not we should keep Stan or cut our losses and move on.  I even started a thread the night that we lost the game to USC that said we need a new HC and Stan just wasn't getting it done (which I believe was emotion talking more than logic).  The fact is, that he did what the PTB asked of him (made the NCAAT) and should be retained because of that.  I think we should stick with Stan and show him that we believe in him and in the end I believe we will be pleasantly surprised with the results. :razorback: GO HOGS! :razorback:

[ICEman]

Nolan's percentage of capacity of the old Barnhill was 100%; Stan's percentage of capacity of Bud Walton is about 75% and dropping.

[jamie72921]

Why does Stan get a first year pass and not Nolan.

Do you not remember Scott Rose?

[The Marmot]

Right on pace?? Nolan made the Final Four his 5th year... Stan didn't even sniff the FF this year... I will say they both started out slow, but Nolan ramped it much quicker and went on to win it all. I don't see that with Stan.

[ehogfan08]

Yeah... not even comparable man. Nolan made improvement every year. Improving in seed and depth into the tournament. Stan hasn't done that...at all.

[Hogtropolis™]

Nolan's percentage of capacity of the old Barnhill was 100%; Stan's percentage of capacity of Bud Walton is about 75% and dropping.

good point, but if we start winning like we are capable of then that will take care of itself.

[Hogtropolis™]

Right on pace?? Nolan made the Final Four his 5th year... Stan didn't even sniff the FF this year... I will say they both started out slow, but Nolan ramped it much quicker and went on to win it all. I don't see that with Stan.

If you give Stan a pass on his first year (which most are willing to do), then this past year would be considered his 4th year if you are comparing him to Nolan.

[jamie72921]

Stan took a step BACKWARD this season.

How is that in line with steady improvement that Nolan accomplished?

[jamie72921]

Right on pace?? Nolan made the Final Four his 5th year... Stan didn't even sniff the FF this year... I will say they both started out slow, but Nolan ramped it much quicker and went on to win it all. I don't see that with Stan.

If you give Stan a pass on his first year (which most are willing to do), then this past year would be considered his 4th year if you are comparing him to Nolan.

You have to give Nolan a break on the first year if you believe that Heath deserved a break.

In spite of the belief that things were good here when Eddie left, nothing could have been further from the truth.

[spudhog]

i give stan his first 2 years but here's the deal. the bud is empty, what style we do have is boring and we are not making any progress in the big dance. basketball is a sport where one or two really good recruits can put you on the map in a heartbeat. it is not like football where you have to develop depth and evolving systems. tough call for our u, to cut stan or not.

[The Marmot]

Stan took a step BACKWARD this season.

How is that in line with steady improvement that Nolan accomplished?

Bingo...

[Hogtropolis™]

Stan took a step BACKWARD this season.

How is that in line with steady improvement that Nolan accomplished?

I wouldn't say that we took a step backward this year, we just didn't take a step forward which is a real concern.  But as far as comparing Stan with Nolan goes, he still made it to the NCAAT for the 2nd straight year and I believe that our team has a very good chance at making it to the Final Four next year.  We lost more than 80% of our scoring last year and 3 of our 5 starters were playing together for the first time this year.  If you ask me, next year we will be MUCH better.

[jamie72921]

Stan took a step BACKWARD this season.

How is that in line with steady improvement that Nolan accomplished?

I wouldn't say that we took a step backward this year, we just didn't take a step forward which is a real concern.  But as far as comparing Stan with Nolan goes, he still made it to the NCAAT for the 2nd straight year and I believe that our team has a very good chance at making it to the Final Four next year.  We lost more than 80% of our scoring last year and 3 of our 5 starters were playing together for the first time this year.  If you ask me, next year we will be MUCH better.

We went backward. 7-9 in conference is backward.

I agree that we will be much better next season, but probably not for the same reasons that you are believing for.

[jry04]

NOLAN RICHARDSON AT ARKANSAS

Year 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90

Overall Record 12-16 19-14 21-9 25-7 30-5

Postseason No Tournament NIT #11 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #6 seed Nova #5 seed in NCAAT, beat #12 seed Loyola in 1st round, lost to #4 seed Louisville in 2nd round #4 seed in NCAAT, went to the Final Four and lost to #3 seed Duke

STAN HEATH AT ARKANSAS

Year 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Overall Record 9-19 12-16 18-12 22-10 21-14 ??-??

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament (had the 8th youngest team in the nation this year) Turned down NIT bid #8 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #9 seed Bucknell #12 seed in NCAAT, lost to #5 seed USC in 1st round ?? ?? ??

We all know what Nolan did following these first 5 years.  If you give SH a pass on his first year here (which most are willing to do), then he is right on pace with what Nolan did in his first 5 years here.  If Stan is able to keep this pace, then we are looking at a very good year next year and possibly for many years to come.

I've been back and forth many times on whether or not we should keep Stan or cut our losses and move on.  I even started a thread the night that we lost the game to USC that said we need a new HC and Stan just wasn't getting it done (which I believe was emotion talking more than logic).  The fact is, that he did what the PTB asked of him (made the NCAAT) and should be retained because of that.  I think we should stick with Stan and show him that we believe in him and in the end I believe we will be pleasantly surprised with the results. :razorback: GO HOGS! :razorback:

I would say the first 2 years weren't full of spectacular recruits and he was still lacking a lot of talent. I agree we shouldn't fire him after this year.

Nolan's percentage of capacity of the old Barnhill was 100%; Stan's percentage of capacity of Bud Walton is about 75% and dropping.

I don't think it is as bad as 75%. Regardless, Arkansas was ranked the 6th most richest men's basketball programs in the nation by ESPN. Two years ago we didn't even make the tournament and our attendance was ranked 13th in the nation. Last year our attendance was ranked 9th in the nation. Heath must be doing something right if he is able to bring in the 6th most amount of income and have the 9th highest attendance in college basketball. Just think how much income and attendance we would have if we were ranked like we will more than likely be next year considering we are returning every playing plus adding a few guys.

[The Marmot]

Nolan's percentage of capacity of the old Barnhill was 100%; Stan's percentage of capacity of Bud Walton is about 75% and dropping.

BTW... Stan would be filling up Barnhill right now... bad comparison.

[BigHog396]

NOLAN RICHARDSON AT ARKANSAS

Year 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90

Overall Record 12-16 19-14 21-9 25-7 30-5

Postseason No Tournament NIT #11 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #6 seed Nova #5 seed in NCAAT, beat #12 seed Loyola in 1st round, lost to #4 seed Louisville in 2nd round #4 seed in NCAAT, went to the Final Four and lost to #3 seed Duke

STAN HEATH AT ARKANSAS

Year 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Overall Record 9-19 12-16 18-12 22-10 21-14 ??-??

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament (had the 8th youngest team in the nation this year) Turned down NIT bid #8 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #9 seed Bucknell #12 seed in NCAAT, lost to #5 seed USC in 1st round ?? ?? ??

We all know what Nolan did following these first 5 years.  If you give SH a pass on his first year here (which most are willing to do), then he is right on pace with what Nolan did in his first 5 years here.  If Stan is able to keep this pace, then we are looking at a very good year next year and possibly for many years to come.

I've been back and forth many times on whether or not we should keep Stan or cut our losses and move on.  I even started a thread the night that we lost the game to USC that said we need a new HC and Stan just wasn't getting it done (which I believe was emotion talking more than logic).  The fact is, that he did what the PTB asked of him (made the NCAAT) and should be retained because of that.  I think we should stick with Stan and show him that we believe in him and in the end I believe we will be pleasantly surprised with the results. :razorback: GO HOGS! :razorback:

Did you really look at the numbers you posted, or are you just that bad at math.  If you are going to give Stan a pass for the 1st year, the same has to be done for Nolan.  The group Nolan had his first two years, couldn't play his style of ball.  The yearly records through year 5 should be compared head-to-head, and when that is done, there is NO comparison.

While we are at it, why don't we throw Sutton's first 5 in as well...
EDDIE SUTTON AT ARKANSAS

Year 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79

Overall Record 17-9 19-9 26-2 32-4 25-5

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament NCAA First Round NCAA Final Four, #3 overall NCAA Regional Final, which I believe was Elite 8.

It's as simple as this.  Each of the 3 coaches mentioned had to build/rebuild our program.  Basketball in Fayetteville had been a joke for many years prior to Sutton's arrival.  He quickly turned us into a National Power.  Nolan walked into a situation that simply didn't have the athletes needed to run his style of ball.  He got his players here, and quickly took us back to National prominence.  Stan has had 5 years, and still doesn't seem to have a basketball identity.  His coaching shows no consistency, and is as stoic as I have ever seen.  That translates through his players in their on-court performance.

Take up for your boy Stan all you want, but the simple fact is... He isn't getting the job done.  He may do well in the Big10 (that is his style of basketball), but the man just doesn't have the style of play that will be a winner in the SEC.  If 5 years isn't enough for you to figure that out, you may never figure it out.

[YIKES]

    Nolan also had Day, Mayberry and Miller returning after that fourth season. Whereas Stan had to replace his top three scorers between the fourth and fifth seasons.

     I am not trying to justify a "step backwards", but Nolan had a lot more to work with between his fourth and fifth seasons. If Stan returns and has no significant progess, then there should be no debate on his future at Arkansas.

[Karma]

    Nolan also had Day, Mayberry and Miller returning after that fourth season. Whereas Stan had to replace his top three scorers between the fourth and fifth seasons.

     I am not trying to justify a "step backwards", but Nolan had a lot more to work with between his fourth and fifth seasons. If Stan returns and has no significant progess, then there should be no debate on his future at Arkansas.

You know Day, Mayberry and Miller didn't magically appear on campus. Richardson got them here.

[YIKES]

    Neither did Satchell, Gomez, Darnell Robinson, Phillip McKellar or Cannon Whitby. What is your point?

    I guess Beverly, Weems and Brewer did?

[HogSophist]

Stan took a step BACKWARD this season.

How is that in line with steady improvement that Nolan accomplished?

I wouldn't say that we took a step backward this year, we just didn't take a step forward which is a real concern.  But as far as comparing Stan with Nolan goes, he still made it to the NCAAT for the 2nd straight year and I believe that our team has a very good chance at making it to the Final Four next year.  We lost more than 80% of our scoring last year and 3 of our 5 starters were playing together for the first time this year.  If you ask me, next year we will be MUCH better.

We went backward. 7-9 in conference is backward.

I agree that we will be much better next season, but probably not for the same reasons that you are believing for.

I understand the arguments on Stan and getting rid of him, and heck he probably should go, but the conference argument is a bit out of whack. If i was not lazy i could probably pull up teams that are still alive in the dance that had a worse conference record as compared to last year, BUT then you will say "they are still alive in the dance". It seems a lot like the moving goals that were leaked a few weeks back.

[hawgsav1]

I really don't know if it's a style of basketball issue. I think conference styles apply more to football (e.g. SEC speed and defense oriented, Big 10 size strength and smashmouth, Pac-10 west coast offensively oriented).  For example, when Bama had all those big men, Erwin Dudley, Chuck Davis, Jemareo Davidson, Kennedy Winston etc. they played a style of ball that was similar to the big  men oriented offense that Heath has. I think for basketball it is getting your team to play hard and consistently and Stan can't do that.  Look at Townes and the other players, they just sit around and get fat.  Because of this inconsistently, they can't win on the road.  Yeah, this year was a step backward.  Granted the talent wasn't as great as it was last year, but this team was still talented to at least have comfortably made the NCAA this year.  Instead, they had to scratch and barely make their way in.  Everyone loses players but Heath hasn't made enough progress to allow for a step backward.  Essentially Heath's made 3 steps forward and 1 step backward in his 5 years, which is unacceptable. Even if you give Heath another year, he would have to make the Final Four next year to equal what Nolan did, and do you honestly think he could do that? Nolan's fourth year they made the second round and Nolan never got blown out in the tourney unlike Heath.

[hawgsav1]

Also, Heath has never lost less than 11 games in a season.  Think about that for a second

[H-O-double g]

Why does Stan get a first year pass and not Nolan.

Do you not remember Scott Rose?

I'll take a team with Andrew Lang as my center over Satchell and Gomez any day of the week.

[Pigonometry]

I even give Nolan a pass on his second year.  I was a freshman that year as he struggled with the sickness and ultimate death of his daughter.  That was a tough time..........

[Hogtropolis™]

Also, Heath has never lost less than 11 games in a season.  Think about that for a second

What??? In 2005-2006 he lost 10.

[Karma]

    Neither did Satchell, Gomez, Darnell Robinson, Phillip McKellar or Cannon Whitby. What is your point?

    I guess Beverly, Weems and Brewer did?

Number 1, Darnell Robinson helped win a national championship and doesn't belong on that list. But you made the point that Nolan had more talent on his 5th team than did Heath. I'm saying that falls on the coach and isn't a reason for a free pass.

[Dwight_K_Shrute]

You lose all credibility when you equate 21-14 in fifth year with 30-5 in fifth year, or even comparing Stan's 21-14 in fifth year to Nolan's 25-7 in fourth year.

You also lose all credibility by comparing Stan to Nolan at all. 

[Arazorbackguy1]

SWC does not equal the SEC.  Nolans style of ball was brand new and teams adjusted accordingly.  To me, SWC was much easier than the SEC these days.

[Hogtropolis™]

SWC does not equal the SEC.  Nolans style of ball was brand new and teams adjusted accordingly.  To me, SWC was much easier than the SEC these days.

Good point, winning 10 in the SEC would equate to winning 12-14 in the SWC.

[jry04]

NOLAN RICHARDSON AT ARKANSAS

Year 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90

Overall Record 12-16 19-14 21-9 25-7 30-5

Postseason No Tournament NIT #11 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #6 seed Nova #5 seed in NCAAT, beat #12 seed Loyola in 1st round, lost to #4 seed Louisville in 2nd round #4 seed in NCAAT, went to the Final Four and lost to #3 seed Duke

STAN HEATH AT ARKANSAS

Year 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Overall Record 9-19 12-16 18-12 22-10 21-14 ??-??

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament (had the 8th youngest team in the nation this year) Turned down NIT bid #8 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #9 seed Bucknell #12 seed in NCAAT, lost to #5 seed USC in 1st round ?? ?? ??

We all know what Nolan did following these first 5 years.  If you give SH a pass on his first year here (which most are willing to do), then he is right on pace with what Nolan did in his first 5 years here.  If Stan is able to keep this pace, then we are looking at a very good year next year and possibly for many years to come.

I've been back and forth many times on whether or not we should keep Stan or cut our losses and move on.  I even started a thread the night that we lost the game to USC that said we need a new HC and Stan just wasn't getting it done (which I believe was emotion talking more than logic).  The fact is, that he did what the PTB asked of him (made the NCAAT) and should be retained because of that.  I think we should stick with Stan and show him that we believe in him and in the end I believe we will be pleasantly surprised with the results. :razorback: GO HOGS! :razorback:

Did you really look at the numbers you posted, or are you just that bad at math.  If you are going to give Stan a pass for the 1st year, the same has to be done for Nolan.  The group Nolan had his first two years, couldn't play his style of ball.  The yearly records through year 5 should be compared head-to-head, and when that is done, there is NO comparison.

While we are at it, why don't we throw Sutton's first 5 in as well...
EDDIE SUTTON AT ARKANSAS

Year 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79

Overall Record 17-9 19-9 26-2 32-4 25-5

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament NCAA First Round NCAA Final Four, #3 overall NCAA Regional Final, which I believe was Elite 8.

It's as simple as this.  Each of the 3 coaches mentioned had to build/rebuild our program.  Basketball in Fayetteville had been a joke for many years prior to Sutton's arrival.  He quickly turned us into a National Power.  Nolan walked into a situation that simply didn't have the athletes needed to run his style of ball.  He got his players here, and quickly took us back to National prominence.  Stan has had 5 years, and still doesn't seem to have a basketball identity.  His coaching shows no consistency, and is as stoic as I have ever seen.  That translates through his players in their on-court performance.

Take up for your boy Stan all you want, but the simple fact is... He isn't getting the job done.  He may do well in the Big10 (that is his style of basketball), but the man just doesn't have the style of play that will be a winner in the SEC.  If 5 years isn't enough for you to figure that out, you may never figure it out.

I find it funny you say Nolan didn't have the athletes to run his style of ball and try and make it a legit excuse as to why Nolan's team did poorly his first year. Nolan's team may not have had the athletes to run his style, but it still had athletes and talented players. He had some players coming off a 25-5 team coached by Sutton. I understand it is hard to install a new system, but he still had talented players to work with. Heath had to install a new system with untalented players. Players that were coming off a 15-14 season and most of the key players had graduated. Heath had to deal with less talented players and had to wait for those players to lead before he had a sufficient amount of scholarships to start rebuilding. He finally has a veteran team next year made up of players he recruited. The team has started to mesh together and will more than likely carry over to next year. Sure Nolan turned it around faster, but he also had better players to work with considering Arkansas had came off 3 straight NCAA tournament appearances including a previous season Elite 8.

Keep in mind he lost three 1,000 point scorers. He lost his entire backcourt that consist of 4 key players. It is hard to have back to back 20 win seasons when you lose 3 starters and a PG that comes off the bench.

[loulouhog]

How can you compare Nolan's early years and Stan Heath?  Sure Nolan's players wouldn't play for him, but if you remember correctly, Nolan's daughter was very ill and past away during that time.  Stan hasn't had that type of challenge to deal with while trying to coah.  Stan is just over his head.  He's a great guy, but not a coach for this level.  I want a coach that sounded like So Il's coach.  He said he showed his emotion so that his team would know that he was there for them.   

[jry04]

How can you compare Nolan's early years and Stan Heath?  Sure Nolan's players wouldn't play for him, but if you remember correctly, Nolan's daughter was very ill and past away during that time.  Stan hasn't had that type of challenge to deal with while trying to coah.  Stan is just over his head.  He's a great guy, but not a coach for this level.  I want a coach that sounded like So Il's coach.  He said he showed his emotion so that his team would know that he was there for them.   

I know it was tough for Nolan, but if anything that united his team more and they rallied around him. Whether he had personal problems or not, his players were still far more talented than Heath's.

[Footballref]

It is hard to compare either one of them because Nolan did not have any players leave for the NBA
his first four seasons.

I would agree a times it is not very exciting to watch Stan's teams play.
But I promise you if Stan was winning 26 to 30 games a year the place would be full.
I would bet my house on that the style is tuff to watch when you are not winning
but if you are winning you will watch anything. Nolans teams were not fun to watch
when he was loosing either. If I remember the THE BUD was empty when he got fired.

[hawgsav1]

In 2005-2006 didn't they lose 11? I was including the NCAA tourney loss to Bucknell, though I may be mistaken (I remember looking at the brackets and Arkansas had (22-10) next to it. But you're right, I just looked it up, it was 10. But then I change my statement to Stan Heath has never lost less than 10 games a season :-P

[hawgsav1]

Regarding Nolan's style, talent isn't the most important thing (though it is very important). THe number one thing you need is conditioning and the ability and desire to play with high intensity for 40 minutes.  Look at Mike Anderson at UAB. All they had was Squeaky Johnson and even when they lost Ronell and Donell Taylor (their main offensive threats) they were still able to execute.  The reason 40 minutes of hell worked a lot lay in the conditioning of his team, Think about how quick NOlan's players got back when someone would pass out of the trap. Heath's team is not very well conditioned.  Look at Darian Townes, he definitely has a tubby and seems to have gotten slower and fatter over the last 3 years.  If a coach can't get his fat team in shape, that's a definite problem

[hawgsav1]

Sorry for the billion posts, but I remembere Bud Walton being empty when he was fired because it was cold.  The Vanderbilt game when Mike Anderson took over (W 81-67) it was snowing, because I ran from my house to Bud Walton during halftime and got in for free.

[jry04]

Regarding Nolan's style, talent isn't the most important thing (though it is very important). THe number one thing you need is conditioning and the ability and desire to play with high intensity for 40 minutes.  Look at Mike Anderson at UAB. All they had was Squeaky Johnson and even when they lost Ronell and Donell Taylor (their main offensive threats) they were still able to execute.  The reason 40 minutes of hell worked a lot lay in the conditioning of his team, Think about how quick NOlan's players got back when someone would pass out of the trap. Heath's team is not very well conditioned.  Look at Darian Townes, he definitely has a tubby and seems to have gotten slower and fatter over the last 3 years.  If a coach can't get his fat team in shape, that's a definite problem

I think the majority of our players are in pretty good shape. Hill runs the floor better than just about any 7 footer in the country. Keep in mind though, Nolan's and Heath's style are completely different.

[jkcrunch]

NOLAN RICHARDSON AT ARKANSAS

Year 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90

Overall Record 12-16 19-14 21-9 25-7 30-5

Postseason No Tournament NIT #11 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #6 seed Nova #5 seed in NCAAT, beat #12 seed Loyola in 1st round, lost to #4 seed Louisville in 2nd round #4 seed in NCAAT, went to the Final Four and lost to #3 seed Duke

STAN HEATH AT ARKANSAS

Year 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Overall Record 9-19 12-16 18-12 22-10 21-14 ??-??

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament (had the 8th youngest team in the nation this year) Turned down NIT bid #8 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #9 seed Bucknell #12 seed in NCAAT, lost to #5 seed USC in 1st round ?? ?? ??

We all know what Nolan did following these first 5 years.  If you give SH a pass on his first year here (which most are willing to do), then he is right on pace with what Nolan did in his first 5 years here.  If Stan is able to keep this pace, then we are looking at a very good year next year and possibly for many years to come.

I've been back and forth many times on whether or not we should keep Stan or cut our losses and move on.  I even started a thread the night that we lost the game to USC that said we need a new HC and Stan just wasn't getting it done (which I believe was emotion talking more than logic).  The fact is, that he did what the PTB asked of him (made the NCAAT) and should be retained because of that.  I think we should stick with Stan and show him that we believe in him and in the end I believe we will be pleasantly surprised with the results. :razorback: GO HOGS! :razorback:

Did you really look at the numbers you posted, or are you just that bad at math.  If you are going to give Stan a pass for the 1st year, the same has to be done for Nolan.  The group Nolan had his first two years, couldn't play his style of ball.  The yearly records through year 5 should be compared head-to-head, and when that is done, there is NO comparison.

While we are at it, why don't we throw Sutton's first 5 in as well...
EDDIE SUTTON AT ARKANSAS

Year 74-75 75-76 76-77 77-78 78-79

Overall Record 17-9 19-9 26-2 32-4 25-5

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament NCAA First Round NCAA Final Four, #3 overall NCAA Regional Final, which I believe was Elite 8.

It's as simple as this.  Each of the 3 coaches mentioned had to build/rebuild our program.  Basketball in Fayetteville had been a joke for many years prior to Sutton's arrival.  He quickly turned us into a National Power.  Nolan walked into a situation that simply didn't have the athletes needed to run his style of ball.  He got his players here, and quickly took us back to National prominence.  Stan has had 5 years, and still doesn't seem to have a basketball identity.  His coaching shows no consistency, and is as stoic as I have ever seen.  That translates through his players in their on-court performance.

Take up for your boy Stan all you want, but the simple fact is... He isn't getting the job done.  He may do well in the Big10 (that is his style of basketball), but the man just doesn't have the style of play that will be a winner in the SEC.  If 5 years isn't enough for you to figure that out, you may never figure it out.

I find it funny you say Nolan didn't have the athletes to run his style of ball and try and make it a legit excuse as to why Nolan's team did poorly his first year. Nolan's team may not have had the athletes to run his style, but it still had athletes and talented players. He had some players coming off a 25-5 team coached by Sutton. I understand it is hard to install a new system, but he still had talented players to work with. Heath had to install a new system with untalented players. Players that were coming off a 15-14 season and most of the key players had graduated. Heath had to deal with less talented players and had to wait for those players to lead before he had a sufficient amount of scholarships to start rebuilding. He finally has a veteran team next year made up of players he recruited. The team has started to mesh together and will more than likely carry over to next year. Sure Nolan turned it around faster, but he also had better players to work with considering Arkansas had came off 3 straight NCAA tournament appearances including a previous season Elite 8.

Keep in mind he lost three 1,000 point scorers. He lost his entire backcourt that consist of 4 key players. It is hard to have back to back 20 win seasons when you lose 3 starters and a PG that comes off the bench.

The team Nolan inherited from Sutton had a ton of off court issues.  William Mills and Kenny Hutchinson never passed a drug test and had to be kicked off the team his best players that year were Mike Ratliff and Eric Poershke?.   We played a walk on at point guard, this team also starred Jay Crane.

[Junkyard Hog]

NOLAN RICHARDSON AT ARKANSAS

Year 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90

Overall Record 12-16 19-14 21-9 25-7 30-5

Postseason No Tournament NIT #11 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #6 seed Nova #5 seed in NCAAT, beat #12 seed Loyola in 1st round, lost to #4 seed Louisville in 2nd round #4 seed in NCAAT, went to the Final Four and lost to #3 seed Duke

STAN HEATH AT ARKANSAS

Year 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08

Overall Record 9-19 12-16 18-12 22-10 21-14 ??-??

Postseason No Tournament No Tournament (had the 8th youngest team in the nation this year) Turned down NIT bid #8 seed in NCAAT, Lost in 1st round to #9 seed Bucknell #12 seed in NCAAT, lost to #5 seed USC in 1st round ?? ?? ??

We all know what Nolan did following these first 5 years.  If you give SH a pass on his first year here (which most are willing to do), then he is right on pace with what Nolan did in his first 5 years here.  If Stan is able to keep this pace, then we are looking at a very good year next year and possibly for many years to come.

I've been back and forth many times on whether or not we should keep Stan or cut our losses and move on.  I even started a thread the night that we lost the game to USC that said we need a new HC and Stan just wasn't getting it done (which I believe was emotion talking more than logic).  The fact is, that he did what the PTB asked of him (made the NCAAT) and should be retained because of that.  I think we should stick with Stan and show him that we believe in him and in the end I believe we will be pleasantly surprised with the results. :razorback: GO HOGS! :razorback:

Your comparison makes it look like we should fire Stan.

[Hogtropolis™]

Your comparison makes it look like we should fire Stan.

Care to elaborate how so?  He has been step for step as good as Nolan up until this last year, a year in which three 1000 point scorers either graduated or left for the NBA, and this included 3 starters and the #1 PG off the bench, and Nolan had none of his players leave early for the NBA in his first 4 years at Arkansas.  Stan deserves another year here at Arkansas.

[hawgsav1]

How is that step for step as good as NOlan? Nolan made the tourney his 4th year and made it to the second round at least. Heath never did that. We were a 7 seed and got upset by *******.  Heath's team underachieved.  By the way, Sutton's last team went 22-13 and lost in the second round. I mean that's not a bad team, I'm just saying it wasn't an Elite 8 team or anything.

[jry04]

Yea, my bad. I thought that the one guy was showing the 5 years before Nolan for some reason. I don't know why i was thinking that.

[Hogtropolis™]

First of all, we were an 8 seed when we lost to Bucknell (which I know isn't better, but just thought we should be factual here).  Second of all, if you give Stan a pass on the first year he was here (which most people are willing to do) then he has been step for step with Nolan up until this past year when he had his leading scorer leave along with the #2 and #3 leading scorers graduate.  Did anyone really expect us to be a GREAT team this year.  I mean I expected us to be competitive, but I knew going into the season that we would be lucky to make the NCAAT (which we were very lucky).  Our recruiting will get better and better each year considering we are now back to being a perennial NCAAT team and we shouldn't have the same problems that we had this year after a player left for the NBA.  I now expect us to have a deeper bench in the future to help adjust to players leaving for the draft early.  Maybe I am being way to optimistic, but I see our program going no where but up from here.

[Junkyard Hog]

Your comparison makes it look like we should fire Stan.

Care to elaborate how so?  He has been step for step as good as Nolan up until this last year, a year in which three 1000 point scorers either graduated or left for the NBA, and this included 3 starters and the #1 PG off the bench, and Nolan had none of his players leave early for the NBA in his first 4 years at Arkansas.  Stan deserves another year here at Arkansas.

He has NOT been step for step as good as Nolan.  He has been more than a step behind.  Their first years are comparable.  Both were losing records.  Year 2 Nolan made the NIT and Stan had another losing record.  Year 3 Nolan made the tourney as a better seed than Stan made in his fifth year.  Year four Nolan made the second round of the tourney.  Stan lost to Bucknell.  Year 5 Nolan went to the Final Four.  Stan barely made the tourney.  After 5 years Nolan was 107-51 with a Final Four to his credit.  After 5 years Stan is 82-71 with no tourney wins. This is not exactly what I call matching someone step for step.

[Hogtropolis™]

Your comparison makes it look like we should fire Stan.

Care to elaborate how so?  He has been step for step as good as Nolan up until this last year, a year in which three 1000 point scorers either graduated or left for the NBA, and this included 3 starters and the #1 PG off the bench, and Nolan had none of his players leave early for the NBA in his first 4 years at Arkansas.  Stan deserves another year here at Arkansas.

He has NOT been step for step as good as Nolan.  He has been more than a step behind.  Their first years are comparable.  Both were losing records.  Year 2 Nolan made the NIT and Stan had another losing record.  Year 3 Nolan made the tourney as a better seed than Stan made in his fifth year.  Year four Nolan made the second round of the tourney.  Stan lost to Bucknell.  Year 5 Nolan went to the Final Four.  Stan barely made the tourney.  After 5 years Nolan was 107-51 with a Final Four to his credit.  After 5 years Stan is 82-71 with no tourney wins. This is not exactly what I call matching someone step for step.

Go back and look at the stats if you exclude Stan's first year, which if you read, is the premise of the comparison.  If you don't feel that Stan deserves a pass on his first year, then I can completely understand why you think Stan has not been step for step with Nolan and probably should be replaced.  I for one think that Stan deserves a pass for that first year and therefore should be given a chance next year to see what his team can do.

[hawgsav1]

I agree with Hogtropolis to an extent. No one expected the Hogs to be a giant success after losing so many guys.  However, the point is they've given Heath 5 years to turn it around, regardless of how he did it or his graduating classes or whatever.  Heath shouldn't have put himself in the situation where he needed to start pBev as a freshman SG who is our leading scorer and another SF in Weems and a PG in Ervin.  I mean at this rate even with the pass for heath, Heath's third season should have been a NCAA team.  Famutimi and Brewer were 5 star recruits and should have been able to lead us to a good record an a tourney berth.  I agree no one expected them to be that great.  But even if you remember the line was making the tourney this year, which Heath almost didn't make and once we were lucky to get there, we blew the game miserably and didn't even look like we belonged. 

[Junkyard Hog]

Your comparison makes it look like we should fire Stan.

Care to elaborate how so?  He has been step for step as good as Nolan up until this last year, a year in which three 1000 point scorers either graduated or left for the NBA, and this included 3 starters and the #1 PG off the bench, and Nolan had none of his players leave early for the NBA in his first 4 years at Arkansas.  Stan deserves another year here at Arkansas.

He has NOT been step for step as good as Nolan.  He has been more than a step behind.  Their first years are comparable.  Both were losing records.  Year 2 Nolan made the NIT and Stan had another losing record.  Year 3 Nolan made the tourney as a better seed than Stan made in his fifth year.  Year four Nolan made the second round of the tourney.  Stan lost to Bucknell.  Year 5 Nolan went to the Final Four.  Stan barely made the tourney.  After 5 years Nolan was 107-51 with a Final Four to his credit.  After 5 years Stan is 82-71 with no tourney wins. This is not exactly what I call matching someone step for step.

Go back and look at the stats if you exclude Stan's first year, which if you read, is the premise of the comparison.  If you don't feel that Stan deserves a pass on his first year, then I can completely understand why you think Stan has not been step for step with Nolan and probably should be replaced.  I for one think that Stan deserves a pass for that first year and therefore should be given a chance next year to see what his team can do.

You can "throw out" Stan's first year if you want, but that doesn't make this Stan's "year four."  The point is he has been here for 5 years and we got lucky to even make the tournament this year. Nolan went to the final four with a 30-5 record in his fifth year.

[Hogtropolis™]

I do think that we should give Stan a pass during his first year here and from my thinking, that would make this past year his 4th year that you have been really grading him.  You either give him the pass or you don't.  IMO, with the pass he gets his "5th year", without the pass he already had his 5th year.  Just all depends on how you want to look at it.  I think he has yet to have his real "5th year".

[hawgsav1]

Besides, granted Heath's second year team wasn't completely as talented as Richardson's first year, though I'm sure Nolan's team lost some good players to graduation also.  However, Heath did have a talented backcourt in Brewer, Famutimi, Modica, Ferguson, and Kendrick Davis.  Those guys were pretty good and if Famutimi hadn't been an idiot and made the jump, he would have been a fabulous player.

[hawgsav1]

You know, I think we all have to take a step back and think "Wow, how sad is it that as a fan nation, we have to discuss THESE type of things on our message boards.  How far has Razorback nation fallen when instead of discussing whether we can win the SEC championship game and beat LSU and get our BCS bowl or whether we can upset UNC in the tourney, we've been discussing for the past 5-6 years whether our coaches deserve to stay or not and whether they can bring us back to glory."  We sit here salivating over possible coaches who may never come.  Sigh, how the mighty have fallen.