New cut at an old argument

[311Hog]

We lost those 3 games for other reasons than our passing game.  One of the biggest reasons was our special teams for those 3 games.  The special teams had been great for 11 games, and then just self-destructed in the LSU, Florida, and Wisconsin games.

I disagree.

You cannot tell me the fact that with 1 minute 50 seconds to go in the game and WE DO NOT HAVE A TWO MINUTE OFFENSE, didnt lose the LSU game for us. Peewee football teams can run a 2 minute drill but we cannot.

I dont disagree that special teams failed us and prolly cost us 2 of the 3, but fact of the matter is we had the ball in perfect position to win the LSU and failed horribly.

Wiscon. Begged us to beat them we held them to NEGATIVE rushing yards, but like always our coaching staff had a hang over from the party the night before and lost the bowl game again.

Yeah, we had the ball in "perfect position" to win against LSU.  Are you kidding?  We were down by 5 points and had less than 2 minutes to drive 73 yards against one of the best defenses in college football.  We really had them right where we wanted them, didn't we?

You cant have it both ways, either they shut us down or we were in perfect position.

Are you telling me we didnt have enough time to formulate a drive? 2 minutes 70 yards do teams NOT DO THIS EVERY DAY?

Fact of the matter is "quick strike" "executed play" what ever you want to tell yourself, those big plays occurred mostly due to one thing.

1. Extreme individual effort and ability.

My point is unless Dmac, Felix, or Monk goes above and beyond the call of duty we arent scoring period.  We lack the fundamental ability to "drive" the football like most normal football teams possess. This is also why we arent a "running team" sure we run the ball and pile up the yards but it all comes from INDIVIDUAL effort and cannot be called upon at will, we do not impose our will on our opponents we simply beat them with one or two magical players making magical plays.

[hawgfandude]

We lost those 3 games for other reasons than our passing game.  One of the biggest reasons was our special teams for those 3 games.  The special teams had been great for 11 games, and then just self-destructed in the LSU, Florida, and Wisconsin games.

I disagree.

You cannot tell me the fact that with 1 minute 50 seconds to go in the game and WE DO NOT HAVE A TWO MINUTE OFFENSE, didnt lose the LSU game for us. Peewee football teams can run a 2 minute drill but we cannot.

I dont disagree that special teams failed us and prolly cost us 2 of the 3, but fact of the matter is we had the ball in perfect position to win the LSU and failed horribly.

Wiscon. Begged us to beat them we held them to NEGATIVE rushing yards, but like always our coaching staff had a hang over from the party the night before and lost the bowl game again.

Yeah, we had the ball in "perfect position" to win against LSU.  Are you kidding?  We were down by 5 points and had less than 2 minutes to drive 73 yards against one of the best defenses in college football.  We really had them right where we wanted them, didn't we?

Special Teams DID cost us the game, and a coach who wouldn't trade QBs cost any chance to come back.

[Hogginitall]

We lost those 3 games for other reasons than our passing game.  One of the biggest reasons was our special teams for those 3 games.  The special teams had been great for 11 games, and then just self-destructed in the LSU, Florida, and Wisconsin games.

I disagree.

You cannot tell me the fact that with 1 minute 50 seconds to go in the game and WE DO NOT HAVE A TWO MINUTE OFFENSE, didnt lose the LSU game for us. Peewee football teams can run a 2 minute drill but we cannot.

I dont disagree that special teams failed us and prolly cost us 2 of the 3, but fact of the matter is we had the ball in perfect position to win the LSU and failed horribly.

Wiscon. Begged us to beat them we held them to NEGATIVE rushing yards, but like always our coaching staff had a hang over from the party the night before and lost the bowl game again.

Yeah, we had the ball in "perfect position" to win against LSU.  Are you kidding?  We were down by 5 points and had less than 2 minutes to drive 73 yards against one of the best defenses in college football.  We really had them right where we wanted them, didn't we?

You cant have it both ways, either they shut us down or we were in perfect position.

Are you telling me we didnt have enough time to formulate a drive? 2 minutes 70 yards do teams NOT DO THIS EVERY DAY?

Fact of the matter is "quick strike" "executed play" what ever you want to tell yourself, those big plays occurred mostly due to one thing.

1. Extreme individual effort and ability.

My point is unless Dmac, Felix, or Monk goes above and beyond the call of duty we arent scoring period.  We lack the fundamental ability to "drive" the football like most normal football teams possess. This is also why we arent a "running team" sure we run the ball and pile up the yards but it all comes from INDIVIDUAL effort and cannot be called upon at will, we do not impose our will on our opponents we simply beat them with one or two magical players making magical plays.

How am I having it both ways?  I conceded that LSU shut our passing game down.  What I said was, Arkansas scored 26 points in that game which should've been enough to win had it not been for our horrible secondary play and special teams play.

Yeah, teams drive 70 yards to score everyday during the season.  But not exactly in the position that we were in.  I know for a fact that not one team did it to LSU's defense last season (down by 5 or more points and drive 70+ yards to score and win the game).

My point is, you can't just say "Minus McFadden, Jones, and Monk, Arkansas' offense can't drive the field and score.  Without their long plays, Arkansas' offense sucks."  Either they're part of our team or not.  You can't have Arkansas' offense without all or some of these guys on the field.

If you take them away to prove a point, how about Jamarcus Russell from LSU, Percy Harvin or Chris Leak from Florida, Jarrett, Smith, and Booty from USC?

[311Hog]

We lost those 3 games for other reasons than our passing game.  One of the biggest reasons was our special teams for those 3 games.  The special teams had been great for 11 games, and then just self-destructed in the LSU, Florida, and Wisconsin games.

I disagree.

You cannot tell me the fact that with 1 minute 50 seconds to go in the game and WE DO NOT HAVE A TWO MINUTE OFFENSE, didnt lose the LSU game for us. Peewee football teams can run a 2 minute drill but we cannot.

I dont disagree that special teams failed us and prolly cost us 2 of the 3, but fact of the matter is we had the ball in perfect position to win the LSU and failed horribly.

Wiscon. Begged us to beat them we held them to NEGATIVE rushing yards, but like always our coaching staff had a hang over from the party the night before and lost the bowl game again.

Yeah, we had the ball in "perfect position" to win against LSU.  Are you kidding?  We were down by 5 points and had less than 2 minutes to drive 73 yards against one of the best defenses in college football.  We really had them right where we wanted them, didn't we?

You cant have it both ways, either they shut us down or we were in perfect position.

Are you telling me we didnt have enough time to formulate a drive? 2 minutes 70 yards do teams NOT DO THIS EVERY DAY?

Fact of the matter is "quick strike" "executed play" what ever you want to tell yourself, those big plays occurred mostly due to one thing.

1. Extreme individual effort and ability.

My point is unless Dmac, Felix, or Monk goes above and beyond the call of duty we arent scoring period.  We lack the fundamental ability to "drive" the football like most normal football teams possess. This is also why we arent a "running team" sure we run the ball and pile up the yards but it all comes from INDIVIDUAL effort and cannot be called upon at will, we do not impose our will on our opponents we simply beat them with one or two magical players making magical plays.

How am I having it both ways?  I conceded that LSU shut our passing game down.  What I said was, Arkansas scored 26 points in that game which should've been enough to win had it not been for our horrible secondary play and special teams play.

Yeah, teams drive 70 yards to score everyday during the season.  But not exactly in the position that we were in.  I know for a fact that not one team did it to LSU's defense last season.

My point is, you can't just say "Minus McFadden, Jones, and Monk, Arkansas' offense can't drive the field and score.  Without their long plays, Arkansas' offense sucks."  Either they're part of our team or not.  You can't have Arkansas' offense without all or some of these guys on the field.

If you take them away to prove a point, how about Jamarcus Russell from LSU, Percy Harvin or Chris Leak from Florida, Jarrett, Smith, and Booty from USC?

no you are not understanding the point, before those players got here what were we?

a LOSING FOOTBALL TEAM, and what will we return to being once those players leave? hmm ponderous.

Arkansas, and more to the point HDN ABSOLUTELY HAS TO HAVE at least 1 player that is so gifted athletically, that he can create all the offense almost by himself.  If you sub in "avg. D1 football players" in the positions of Dmac or Matt Jones we dont even win half our football games.

That is my point we dont run any assemblance of an offense, Dmac is just creating out there on the fly with a "loose collection" of plays and these things cannot be relied upon to happen nor can they be consistently repeated.

Hince the fact that down 5 with 2 minutes to go if Dmac doesnt perform a miracle (or matt jones) we  LOSE THE GAME, why ? because we dont have even a "shell" of a legit D1 offense installed.

Do you see a 5 star number 1 in his position player in this next year's recruiting class ? if there isnt one we are in deep shiet.

[HognotinMemphis]

You know what would be nice?

A 2:00 minute offense that was more imaginative than giving the ball to D-Mac and hoping he'll break an 80-yard run. Or two 40-yards runs. That would be nice.

That's why I knew we had absolutely no chance on the last possession against LSU last year.

If at any time this fall you see that there is approximately 2:00 on the clock and we need to go the length of the field to score, the smartest thing for you to do is to look at the person sitting next to you and say, "We're beat."

It would be great to have a passing offense sophisticated enough and a quarterback competent enough to be in that situation - one where the other team KNOWS we have to pass to win - and still be able to get the job done. 

Last year Nutt would run the ball to the 50, let the clock run down and heave it in the endzone, i.e. South Carolina.  I believe he also used the same tactic against one of the non-conference opponents.  His conservative approach won't cut it in the big game. 

These are the best two posts in this thread.

<ONE THING ABOVE ALL ELSE SHOULD ALERT HUGGER AND DARKSIDER ALIKE>


Why do we not have a 2 minute offense installed and "working" by the final regular season game last year?

Can anyone answer the above question for me?  Jr. High School football teams, PEWEE FOOTBALL TEAMS, can run a "2 minute drill" and yet here we are UofArkansas cant run a 2 minute drill.

Does this fact not scare anyone?

Let me answer that with a question: Why do we not have an adequate kicking game after 9 years of Nutt and Shibest? Even last year in the 10-4 season, every phase of the kicking game broke down at just the wrong time against the wrong opponent. Kicking game errors that cost points were made in the LSU, FLA and Wisc games...blocked punts, fake punts that were successful, KO's returned for TD's, fumbled punt return for a TD, missed short FG's, missed PAT against LSU, etc.

[Biggus Piggus]

The only way we get a good kicker with Nutt around is if we luck into having a really good in-state kicker who coaches himself.

[HognotinMemphis]

Interestingly, I note in todays Morning News of NWA that even Pea Ridge has abandoned the Dead T for a new spread offense.  Most high schools in NWA run some version now of Gus' spread offense.  It's the wave of the future...heck it's the here and now....and most players want to play that kind of ball.  Only the ancient JFB, DMW, MSM and the Nuttzis want to think it's 1965 and keep living in the past.

Not only is it fun to play in, that offense is just plain fun to watch!

Did any of you catch the interview on ESPN radio yesterday with the Coach of Boise St? It was interesting as the announcer mentioned something about them needing to go to a more traditional, less innovative offense now that "they've arrived at the big time". The coach just said, we will continue to run the offense we've always run, the players have bought into the system AND ITS A WHOLE LOT MORE FUN TO RUN.

Let me ask you...what is a high school stud going to want to do....play in a plodding offense, or one that is fun? We have tradition, we have the support (I'm not talking about the coach), we just don't have any fun. Bring the 21st century to our team and I expect we'll all be surprised at how well it does.

TT runs a "fun" offense.  Only problem, it gets killed whenever they play a half decent defense.

Are you suggesting they would be better off without it?

I am not a TT fans, so to say they would be better off doing something else would be for a TT to say.  I have 2 cousins that went to TT, and they hate it because they know that Texas and OU will beat them 80-95% of the time with that style of play.  TT situation is much like ours.  The average everyday fan does not care.  The "hardcore" fans are divided, at best, over Leech because they know they are limited by the offense.

do we not get shut down by good defenses that go up against our tired old one diminsional offense? (LSU, Florida, Wisconsin)

Most of us are not asking for a TT type offense, we're just asking for some balance. Something we havent had since the days of Stoerner and Lucas.
We STILL have not developed a good QB since then either. Matt Jones was just a freak athlete that not even nutt could ruin him.

We didn't get "shut down" by any of those defenses that you mentioned...not even close.

our passing game did.

Only in the LSU game.  But then again, we had 298 yards rushing in that game.  In the Florida and Wisconsin games, Arkansas had more passing first downs than rushing ones.

Only Nutt could lose a game in which his offense rushes for 300 yards. I bet there has not been more than a few games in the modern history of college football that a team lost a game in which it rushed for at least 300 yards. And Nutt lost that game at home to boot!

[Biggus Piggus]

Just wanted to note some math, for those who didn't understand the significance of

Winning %:

1970-74 63.4%
1975-79 78.0%
1980-84 64.4%
1985-89 78.7%
1990-94 39.3%
1995-99 55.9%
2000-04 58.1%
2005-06 56.0%

If we averaged 3.5 nonconference wins and 4-4 in the SEC, and won a bowl every other year, Arkansas's winning % would be 61.5%.

9-4 = 69.2%.

Watch where you set that hurdle.

[Hogginitall]

Just wanted to note some math, for those who didn't understand the significance of

Winning %:

1970-74 63.4%
1975-79 78.0%
1980-84 64.4%
1985-89 78.7%
1990-94 39.3%
1995-99 55.9%
2000-04 58.1%
2005-06 56.0%

If we averaged 3.5 nonconference wins and 4-4 in the SEC, and won a bowl every other year, Arkansas's winning % would be 61.5%.

9-4 = 69.2%.

Watch where you set that hurdle.

And when did we come into the SEC from the SouthWEAKEST Conference?  Isn't it funny that there seems to be a direct correlation between coming into the SEC and lower win totals.  I know some people think it's just coaching, but it's not.  It's MUCH STIFFER COMPETITION.

[Biggus Piggus]

And when did we come into the SEC from the SouthWEAKEST Conference?  Isn't it funny that there seems to be a direct correlation between coming into the SEC and lower win totals.  I know some people think it's just coaching, but it's not.  It's MUCH STIFFER COMPETITION.

It's hard to distinguish level of competition from the sad state Ken Hatfield left the program.  After the 1987 season he and his staff quit recruiting--first, because they were on the first train out after Broyles's attempt to embarrass Hatfield into making staff changes; second, because they thought they were headed for Georgia; third, because they knew they were leaving after the 1989 season no matter what; fourth, because they left not long before signing day 1990.

The talent pool at Arkansas was at an historic low, worst since integration, when the Hogs entered the SEC.  You cannot possibly believe that the drop in winning % was explained solely by the toughness of the SEC.  We lost to the friggin' Citadel at home before we had played a single SEC game.

In 1992, here were the regular-season win totals of our SEC opponents:

Alabama 11
Georgia 9
Tennessee 8 <=and we beat them
Ole Miss 8
Mississippi State 7
Auburn 5 <=tied them
South Carolina 5 <=beat them
LSU 2 <=beat them

Wow, with a sack of crap team we almost went 4-4 in our first SEC season.

In 1993:

Auburn 11
Tennessee 9
Alabama 8
Georgia 5 <=beat them
LSU 5 <=beat them
Ole Miss 5
South Carolina 4 <=beat them
Mississippi State 3 <=tied them

Again, almost 4-4 with our crap roster in the vaunted SEC.

THE TRUTH, fellers, is the SEC got tougher while we were a member, and we did not keep up.

[hogsanity]

And when did we come into the SEC from the SouthWEAKEST Conference?  Isn't it funny that there seems to be a direct correlation between coming into the SEC and lower win totals.  I know some people think it's just coaching, but it's not.  It's MUCH STIFFER COMPETITION.

It's hard to distinguish level of competition from the sad state Ken Hatfield left the program.  After the 1987 season he and his staff quit recruiting--first, because they were on the first train out after Broyles's attempt to embarrass Hatfield into making staff changes; second, because they thought they were headed for Georgia; third, because they knew they were leaving after the 1989 season no matter what; fourth, because they left not long before signing day 1990.

The talent pool at Arkansas was at an historic low, worst since integration, when the Hogs entered the SEC.  You cannot possibly believe that the drop in winning % was explained solely by the toughness of the SEC.  We lost to the friggin' Citadel at home before we had played a single SEC game.

In 1992, here were the regular-season win totals of our SEC opponents:

Alabama 11
Georgia 9
Tennessee 8 <=and we beat them
Ole Miss 8
Mississippi State 7
Auburn 5 <=tied them
South Carolina 5 <=beat them
LSU 2 <=beat them

Wow, with a sack of crap team we almost went 4-4 in our first SEC season.

In 1993:

Auburn 11
Tennessee 9
Alabama 8
Georgia 5 <=beat them
LSU 5 <=beat them
Ole Miss 5
South Carolina 4 <=beat them
Mississippi State 3 <=tied them

Again, almost 4-4 with our crap roster in the vaunted SEC.

THE TRUTH, fellers, is the SEC got tougher while we were a member, and we did not keep up.

YES, because no one knew how hard recruiting would be in the SEC.  OR, perhaps, how hard it would be to recruit LEGIT SEC TALENT in sufficient numbers.

[311Hog]

And when did we come into the SEC from the SouthWEAKEST Conference?  Isn't it funny that there seems to be a direct correlation between coming into the SEC and lower win totals.  I know some people think it's just coaching, but it's not.  It's MUCH STIFFER COMPETITION.

It's hard to distinguish level of competition from the sad state Ken Hatfield left the program.  After the 1987 season he and his staff quit recruiting--first, because they were on the first train out after Broyles's attempt to embarrass Hatfield into making staff changes; second, because they thought they were headed for Georgia; third, because they knew they were leaving after the 1989 season no matter what; fourth, because they left not long before signing day 1990.

The talent pool at Arkansas was at an historic low, worst since integration, when the Hogs entered the SEC.  You cannot possibly believe that the drop in winning % was explained solely by the toughness of the SEC.  We lost to the friggin' Citadel at home before we had played a single SEC game.

In 1992, here were the regular-season win totals of our SEC opponents:

Alabama 11
Georgia 9
Tennessee 8 <=and we beat them
Ole Miss 8
Mississippi State 7
Auburn 5 <=tied them
South Carolina 5 <=beat them
LSU 2 <=beat them

Wow, with a sack of crap team we almost went 4-4 in our first SEC season.

In 1993:

Auburn 11
Tennessee 9
Alabama 8
Georgia 5 <=beat them
LSU 5 <=beat them
Ole Miss 5
South Carolina 4 <=beat them
Mississippi State 3 <=tied them

Again, almost 4-4 with our crap roster in the vaunted SEC.

THE TRUTH, fellers, is the SEC got tougher while we were a member, and we did not keep up.

YES, because no one knew how hard recruiting would be in the SEC.  OR, perhaps, how hard it would be to recruit LEGIT SEC TALENT in sufficient numbers.

or they knew and didnt give a shiet, because my honest opinion is that alot of Hog fans come to the games to WATCH THE OTHER TEAM, i mean yeah they are hog fans but you cant tell me they werent happy is pie to go watch some SEC power house, and just hoped the Hogs "made a good show of it".


Also at that time we neither had impressive facilities nor an impressive home stadium.

[Hogginitall]

And when did we come into the SEC from the SouthWEAKEST Conference?  Isn't it funny that there seems to be a direct correlation between coming into the SEC and lower win totals.  I know some people think it's just coaching, but it's not.  It's MUCH STIFFER COMPETITION.

It's hard to distinguish level of competition from the sad state Ken Hatfield left the program.  After the 1987 season he and his staff quit recruiting--first, because they were on the first train out after Broyles's attempt to embarrass Hatfield into making staff changes; second, because they thought they were headed for Georgia; third, because they knew they were leaving after the 1989 season no matter what; fourth, because they left not long before signing day 1990.

The talent pool at Arkansas was at an historic low, worst since integration, when the Hogs entered the SEC.  You cannot possibly believe that the drop in winning % was explained solely by the toughness of the SEC.  We lost to the friggin' Citadel at home before we had played a single SEC game.

In 1992, here were the regular-season win totals of our SEC opponents:

Alabama 11
Georgia 9
Tennessee 8 <=and we beat them
Ole Miss 8
Mississippi State 7
Auburn 5 <=tied them
South Carolina 5 <=beat them
LSU 2 <=beat them

Wow, with a sack of crap team we almost went 4-4 in our first SEC season.

In 1993:

Auburn 11
Tennessee 9
Alabama 8
Georgia 5 <=beat them
LSU 5 <=beat them
Ole Miss 5
South Carolina 4 <=beat them
Mississippi State 3 <=tied them

Again, almost 4-4 with our crap roster in the vaunted SEC.

THE TRUTH, fellers, is the SEC got tougher while we were a member, and we did not keep up.

YES, because no one knew how hard recruiting would be in the SEC.  OR, perhaps, how hard it would be to recruit LEGIT SEC TALENT in sufficient numbers.

Nope, the SEC has ALWAYS been as tough as it is now.  I'm not saying that's the sole reason for Arkansas' number of average wins per year going down, but it's the main one.  In the SWC, we'd lose to Texas, MAYBE Mississippi (or some other OOC team), and then MAYBE one other SWC team that happened to be good that year.  We'd go 11-1, 10-2, 9-3 every year because we didn't play ANYBODY except Texas in-conference.

[hogsanity]

And when did we come into the SEC from the SouthWEAKEST Conference?  Isn't it funny that there seems to be a direct correlation between coming into the SEC and lower win totals.  I know some people think it's just coaching, but it's not.  It's MUCH STIFFER COMPETITION.

It's hard to distinguish level of competition from the sad state Ken Hatfield left the program.  After the 1987 season he and his staff quit recruiting--first, because they were on the first train out after Broyles's attempt to embarrass Hatfield into making staff changes; second, because they thought they were headed for Georgia; third, because they knew they were leaving after the 1989 season no matter what; fourth, because they left not long before signing day 1990.

The talent pool at Arkansas was at an historic low, worst since integration, when the Hogs entered the SEC.  You cannot possibly believe that the drop in winning % was explained solely by the toughness of the SEC.  We lost to the friggin' Citadel at home before we had played a single SEC game.

In 1992, here were the regular-season win totals of our SEC opponents:

Alabama 11
Georgia 9
Tennessee 8 <=and we beat them
Ole Miss 8
Mississippi State 7
Auburn 5 <=tied them
South Carolina 5 <=beat them
LSU 2 <=beat them

Wow, with a sack of crap team we almost went 4-4 in our first SEC season.

In 1993:

Auburn 11
Tennessee 9
Alabama 8
Georgia 5 <=beat them
LSU 5 <=beat them
Ole Miss 5
South Carolina 4 <=beat them
Mississippi State 3 <=tied them

Again, almost 4-4 with our crap roster in the vaunted SEC.

THE TRUTH, fellers, is the SEC got tougher while we were a member, and we did not keep up.

YES, because no one knew how hard recruiting would be in the SEC.  OR, perhaps, how hard it would be to recruit LEGIT SEC TALENT in sufficient numbers.

or they knew and didnt give a shiet, because my honest opinion is that alot of Hog fans come to the games to WATCH THE OTHER TEAM, i mean yeah they are hog fans but you cant tell me they werent happy is pie to go watch some SEC power house, and just hoped the Hogs "made a good show of it".


Also at that time we neither had impressive facilities nor an impressive home stadium.

UM, when we moved to the SEC all I remember hearing was how sad it was that we would not play Texas anymore.

[Flatline]

I was looking over my ESPN College Football Encyclopedia, this weekend and an Old Media Guide.

What is weird, in the old SWC, We haven't had too many seasons since 1961 that we have beaten more than one team with a winning record.  Many of those years we were 8-3, and the 8 wins were against teams with losing records and the 3 loses against teams with winning records.

For example start here and work your was through the years.

http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/1960/ark.shtml

We had a coach, Holtz, who was ready to take us all the way until he was shown the door.  Broyles has always had is hand in the program and he is the reason for most of this mess.  When Nutt first arrived he threw the ball.  Broyles put his big ole hand in there once again.  It is time for a change not just because of all the other non sense but looking at what he is recruiting.

Broyles is gone.  Get a new A.D. with fresh ideas and bring in a new coach and get this program over the hump.  Some on here will say ten wins, but I look at the three losses at the end of the year.  HUMP.  Nutt can't win the big one.  Some of it is bad luck, most of it is coaching.  I wanted him gone long before all this mess came up. 

[311Hog]

And when did we come into the SEC from the SouthWEAKEST Conference?  Isn't it funny that there seems to be a direct correlation between coming into the SEC and lower win totals.  I know some people think it's just coaching, but it's not.  It's MUCH STIFFER COMPETITION.

It's hard to distinguish level of competition from the sad state Ken Hatfield left the program.  After the 1987 season he and his staff quit recruiting--first, because they were on the first train out after Broyles's attempt to embarrass Hatfield into making staff changes; second, because they thought they were headed for Georgia; third, because they knew they were leaving after the 1989 season no matter what; fourth, because they left not long before signing day 1990.

The talent pool at Arkansas was at an historic low, worst since integration, when the Hogs entered the SEC.  You cannot possibly believe that the drop in winning % was explained solely by the toughness of the SEC.  We lost to the friggin' Citadel at home before we had played a single SEC game.

In 1992, here were the regular-season win totals of our SEC opponents:

Alabama 11
Georgia 9
Tennessee 8 <=and we beat them
Ole Miss 8
Mississippi State 7
Auburn 5 <=tied them
South Carolina 5 <=beat them
LSU 2 <=beat them

Wow, with a sack of crap team we almost went 4-4 in our first SEC season.

In 1993:

Auburn 11
Tennessee 9
Alabama 8
Georgia 5 <=beat them
LSU 5 <=beat them
Ole Miss 5
South Carolina 4 <=beat them
Mississippi State 3 <=tied them

Again, almost 4-4 with our crap roster in the vaunted SEC.

THE TRUTH, fellers, is the SEC got tougher while we were a member, and we did not keep up.

YES, because no one knew how hard recruiting would be in the SEC.  OR, perhaps, how hard it would be to recruit LEGIT SEC TALENT in sufficient numbers.

or they knew and didnt give a shiet, because my honest opinion is that alot of Hog fans come to the games to WATCH THE OTHER TEAM, i mean yeah they are hog fans but you cant tell me they werent happy is pie to go watch some SEC power house, and just hoped the Hogs "made a good show of it".


Also at that time we neither had impressive facilities nor an impressive home stadium.

UM, when we moved to the SEC all I remember hearing was how sad it was that we would not play Texas anymore.

This is true, because they were our REAL RIVAL, i dont mean people wanting to see SEC schools because of a rivalry, they wanted to see them because most are regarded as the best programs in the history of college football, and not many people had ever seen them play live.

[Hogginitall]

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.  Just take a look at the records of the teams we beat this year to go 9-2 (82% win percentage).

1969-Arkansas (SWC)

9/20 vs.    Oklahoma State (5-5) W 39 0 @ Little Rock, AR
9/27 vs.    Tulsa (1-9) W 55 0
10/4 vs. * Texas Christian (4-6) W 24 6 @ Little Rock, AR
10/18 @ * Baylor (0-10) W 21 7
10/25 vs.  Wichita State (2-8) W 52 14 @ Little Rock, AR
11/1 vs. * Texas A&M (3-7) W 35 13
11/8 @ *  Rice (3-7) W 30 6
11/15 @ *Southern Methodist (3-7) W 28 15
11/27 vs. Texas Tech (5-5) W 33 0 @ Little Rock, AR
12/6 vs. *Texas (11-0) L 14 15
1/1 vs.    Mississippi (8-3) L 22 27 @ New Orleans, LA Sugar Bowl
  9-2-0
   353 103

http://jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arkansas.htm

[Hogginitall]

1968-Arkansas (SWC)

9/21 vs. Oklahoma State (3-7) W 32 15 @ Little Rock, AR
9/28 vs. Tulsa (3-7) W 56 13
10/5 @ *Texas Christian (3-7) W 17 7
10/12 vs. *Baylor (3-7) W 35 19
10/19 @ *Texas (9-1-1) L 29 39
10/26 vs. North Texas (8-2) W 17 15 @ Little Rock, AR
11/2 @ *Texas A&M (3-7) W 25 22
11/9 vs. *Rice (0-9-1) W 46 21
11/16 vs. *Southern Methodist (8-3) W 35 29 @ Little Rock, AR
11/23 @ *Texas Tech (5-3-2) W 42 7
1/1 vs. Georgia (8-1-2) W 16 2 @ New Orleans, LA Sugar Bowl
  10-1-0
   350 189

http://jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arkansas.htm

10-1 (91% win %)

[Biggus Piggus]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

[311Hog]

Stop acting like idiots.

1960 THERE WASNT SUCH A THING AS A TOP SCHEDULE. darn THERE WASNT MORE THEN TWO CHANNELS ON THE TV IF THERE WAS EVEN SUCH A THING AS A TV.

So to act like the SEC wasnt EXACTLY LIKE THE SWC in 1964 is just plain stupid.  The Big 12 is the nearest representation of the "SWC" in today's era and the difference between the Big 12 and the SEC is NEGLIGIBLE.

[Hogginitall]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

Every team has down periods (see USC).  As a whole, however, the SEC has ALWAYS been one of the top conferences in the nation at any given time.  The SWC, in my opinion, NEVER was one of the top conferences in the nation.  Thus, it was much easier to have a higher win % in that conference than it is to have one in the SEC.  That is the biggest reason for our win % going down.  It's just a fact.

[bearcathog]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

Say what you will,those SEC teams struggled because there were always 3/4 really good teams in the SEC.  The mid to late 80's the SWC was known everywhere as the SouthWorst Conference.

[Biggus Piggus]

I still can't believe we still get bozos coming on here comparing scheduling back in the propjet, pre-integration, 10-game schedule days with today.  Everybody scheduled like that.  The real question was: Can you beat Texas?  The best in the country struggled to beat Texas.  If we could do that, schedule strength was meaningless.  We should have done it more times than we did, but we were very competitive against them from Broyles's time on.  Arkansas played football at a high level of accomplishment, coached by an incredible passel of football minds.

[Biggus Piggus]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

Say what you will,those SEC teams struggled because there were always 3/4 really good teams in the SEC.  The mid to late 80's the SWC was known everywhere as the SouthWorst Conference.

You mean a five-year stretch when most of the conference was on probation?  Shock.

[hogsanity]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

Say what you will,those SEC teams struggled because there were always 3/4 really good teams in the SEC.  The mid to late 80's the SWC was known everywhere as the SouthWorst Conference.

You mean a five-year stretch when most of the conference was on probation?  Shock.

Sure helped pad our wins in the league and add 2 of tyhose titles we won. 

Just look at 1968.  SWC had 2 teams above .500.  Has the SEC EVER had year when only 2 teams finished above .500. 

[Hogginitall]

I'll I'm saying is that you can't tell me that the schedules that some of our "powerhouse" teams from back in the 60's and 70's weren't easier than the ones that we have now.  EVEN THIS YEAR'S SCHEDULE!  All they had to do back then was lose to the teams with 9 or more wins, beat two teams with winning records, and then just take care of business against the other 7 teams that had 0-9, 2-9, 4-7 records.  They had to beat 2 TEAMS WITH WINNING RECORDS to go 9-2!  That's an 82% win percentage.  Wonder why their win % was so high back then?  Hmmmm.....

1970-Arkansas (SWC)

9/12 vs. Stanford (9-3) L 28 34 @ Little Rock, AR
9/19 vs. Oklahoma State (4-7) W 23 7 @ Little Rock, AR
9/26 vs. Tulsa (6-4) W 49 7
10/3 @ *Texas Christian (4-6-1) W 49 14
10/10 vs. *Baylor (2-9) W 41 7 @ Little Rock, AR
10/24 vs. Wichita State (0-9) W 62 0 @ Little Rock, AR
10/31 @ *Texas A&M (2-9) W 45 6
11/7 vs. *Rice (5-5) W 38 14
11/14 vs. *Southern Methodist (5-6) W 36 3
11/21 @ *Texas Tech (8-4) W 24 10
12/5 @ *Texas (10-1) L 7 42
 9-2-0
  402 144

http://jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arkansas.htm

[311Hog]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

Every team has down periods (see USC).  As a whole, however, the SEC has ALWAYS been one of the top conferences in the nation at any given time.  The SWC, in my opinion, NEVER was one of the top conferences in the nation.  Thus, it was much easier to have a higher win % in that conference than it is to have one in the SEC.  That is the biggest reason for our win % going down.  It's just a fact.

this is completely inncorrect.

[Biggus Piggus]

If you guys had worked in SEC country (like I did when I was in the newspaper business), you'd know that balance in football was a major subject of discussion across the league for decades.  It took Alabama and Auburn getting put on probation, Spurrier at Florida, Saban at LSU and Fat Boy at Tennessee to produce something closer to balance in the SEC (not to mention the needed revival at Georgia).  Florida and Tennessee winning national titles were major turning points in the history of the league.

Again, if Arkansas were on the track its resources would support, the winning % would be well above 60% in this decade.  It should be there in the future.

[bearcathog]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

Say what you will,those SEC teams struggled because there were always 3/4 really good teams in the SEC.  The mid to late 80's the SWC was known everywhere as the SouthWorst Conference.

You mean a five-year stretch when most of the conference was on probation?  Shock.

That's why they were good in the 70's: recruiting violations, in an era where they was little or no scholarship limits.

[Biggus Piggus]

It's just a fact.

It's just horseshit.  In the 1960s and '70s the SWC was consistently among the top three conferences.  If you refer to authoritative resources, you can easily confirm this.  Being a top conference required less than it does now.  You are lacking perspective.

[Biggus Piggus]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

Say what you will,those SEC teams struggled because there were always 3/4 really good teams in the SEC.  The mid to late 80's the SWC was known everywhere as the SouthWorst Conference.

You mean a five-year stretch when most of the conference was on probation?  Shock.

That's why they were good in the 70's: recruiting violations, in an era where they was little or no scholarship limits.

1970s = era that scholarship limits began.  Please don't talk out of your ass.  And any longtime SEC fan would laugh at the suggestion that SEC recruiting has ever been cleaner than anybody else.

[bearcathog]

These are the years since 1960,Arkansas was .500 or better against teams with winning records:
1964
1965
1966
1969
1972
1976
1978
1979
1980
1986
1988
1989
1998
1999
2002
2003

These include bowl games.

[bearcathog]

1) It's harder to recruit when you are not going to bowls. 
2) The SEC was not always as tough as it has been since the mid-1990s.  Don't force me to whip out the numbers again.  Florida was a middling program for decades.  Tennessee was very choppy in the 1970s and '80s.  Ole Miss didn't contend after integration until another Manning arrived.  A great, once-in-a-generation season for MSU was 9 wins, and they usually sucked.  LSU was several steps below their present form.  Kentucky was never anything in football till Couch.  Georgia had runs of crappy in the 1960s, '70s and '90s.  Auburn had consecutive losing seasons in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.  Don't trot out that crap; this board has been through the facts many times over.

Say what you will,those SEC teams struggled because there were always 3/4 really good teams in the SEC.  The mid to late 80's the SWC was known everywhere as the SouthWorst Conference.

You mean a five-year stretch when most of the conference was on probation?  Shock.

That's why they were good in the 70's: recruiting violations, in an era where they was little or no scholarship limits.

1970s = era that scholarship limits began.  Please don't talk out of your ass.  And any longtime SEC fan would laugh at the suggestion that SEC recruiting has ever been cleaner than anybody else.

Scholarships were not limited until 1977.

set at 95 from 1977 to 1991.

92 for 1992.

88 for 1993.

85 fro 1994 to present.

Who said SEC was clean??  Just the SWC was blatant.

[Hogginitall]

It's just a fact.

It's just horsecrap.  In the 1960s and '70s the SWC was consistently among the top three conferences.  If you refer to authoritative resources, you can easily confirm this.  Being a top conference required less than it does now.  You are lacking perspective.

You're right.  Not counting Arkansas, there were:


1960:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1961:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1962:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1963:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1964:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1965:  3 teams with winning records in the league (2 with a 6-5 record)
1966:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1967:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1968:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1969:  1 team with a winning record in the league
1970:  2 teams with a winning record in the league

Sorry, but that just doesn't sound like a "power conference" to me.

[311Hog]

It's just a fact.

It's just horsecrap.  In the 1960s and '70s the SWC was consistently among the top three conferences.  If you refer to authoritative resources, you can easily confirm this.  Being a top conference required less than it does now.  You are lacking perspective.

You're right.  Not counting Arkansas, there were:


1960:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1961:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1962:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1963:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1964:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1965:  3 teams with winning records in the league (2 with a 6-5 record)
1966:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1967:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1968:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1969:  1 team with a winning record in the league
1970:  2 teams with a winning record in the league

Sorry, but that just doesn't sound like a "power conference" to me.

that is because the definition of a "power conference" is different NOW THEN IT WAS THEN, for god sake's its like im taking crazy pills and trying to explain how things are to a child.


Let me talk real slow.

You cant compare the SWC of the 60's and 70's to the SEC of today.

You cant compare ANY CONFERENCE of today to ANY CONFERENCE OF YESTERDAY.

You just cant. EVERY SINGLE THING IMAGINABLE IS DIFFERENT NOW THEN IT WAS THEN.

[RazorsEdge]

1968-Arkansas (SWC)

9/21 vs. Oklahoma State (3-7) W 32 15 @ Little Rock, AR
9/28 vs. Tulsa (3-7) W 56 13
10/5 @ *Texas Christian (3-7) W 17 7
10/12 vs. *Baylor (3-7) W 35 19
10/19 @ *Texas (9-1-1) L 29 39
10/26 vs. North Texas (8-2) W 17 15 @ Little Rock, AR
11/2 @ *Texas A&M (3-7) W 25 22
11/9 vs. *Rice (0-9-1) W 46 21
11/16 vs. *Southern Methodist (8-3) W 35 29 @ Little Rock, AR
11/23 @ *Texas Tech (5-3-2) W 42 7
1/1 vs. Georgia (8-1-2) W 16 2 @ New Orleans, LA Sugar Bowl
  10-1-0
   350 189

http://jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arkansas.htm

10-1 (91% win %)

What does the fact that we dominated the SEC Champ in the Sugar Bowl do to your argument?

[Biggus Piggus]

These are the years LSU was .500 or better against teams with winning records:
1961
1962
1965
1969 2-1 vs. >.500 opponents, no bowl game
1970
1972
1982 lost twice to sub-.500 teams including Tulane
1984
1986
1987
1996 went 10-2, 3-2 against teams with winning records
2001
2003
2005
2006 needed last two wins to get above .500 against winning opponents

These include bowl games.

In 1978, LSU was 8-4, 0-4 against teams with winning records.

In 1979, LSU was 7-5, 1-5 against teams with winning records.  The 1 was Wake Forest.

In 1985, LSU was 9-2-1, 0-2 against teams with winning records.

So boom.

[Biggus Piggus]

If you are keeping score:

Arkansas 16 seasons of winning records against winning teams
LSU 15

[Hogginitall]

It's just a fact.

It's just horsecrap.  In the 1960s and '70s the SWC was consistently among the top three conferences.  If you refer to authoritative resources, you can easily confirm this.  Being a top conference required less than it does now.  You are lacking perspective.

You're right.  Not counting Arkansas, there were:


1960:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1961:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1962:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1963:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1964:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1965:  3 teams with winning records in the league (2 with a 6-5 record)
1966:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1967:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1968:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1969:  1 team with a winning record in the league
1970:  2 teams with a winning record in the league

Sorry, but that just doesn't sound like a "power conference" to me.

that is because the definition of a "power conference" is different NOW THEN IT WAS THEN, for god sake's its like im taking crazy pills and trying to explain how things are to a child.


Let me talk real slow.

You cant compare the SWC of the 60's and 70's to the SEC of today.

You cant compare ANY CONFERENCE of today to ANY CONFERENCE OF YESTERDAY.

You just cant. EVERY SINGLE THING IMAGINABLE IS DIFFERENT NOW THEN IT WAS THEN.

Let me alk really slow too.  It is much easier to have a high win % when your team only plays AT THE MOST 3 teams with a winning record in-conference.  That's all I'm trying to say.  It's harder NOW to have a 70%+ win percentage in the SEC than it was to have a 70%+ win percentage in the SWC in past years.

[311Hog]

It's just a fact.

It's just horsecrap.  In the 1960s and '70s the SWC was consistently among the top three conferences.  If you refer to authoritative resources, you can easily confirm this.  Being a top conference required less than it does now.  You are lacking perspective.

You're right.  Not counting Arkansas, there were:


1960:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1961:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1962:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1963:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1964:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1965:  3 teams with winning records in the league (2 with a 6-5 record)
1966:  2 teams with winning records in the league
1967:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1968:  3 teams with winning records in the league
1969:  1 team with a winning record in the league
1970:  2 teams with a winning record in the league

Sorry, but that just doesn't sound like a "power conference" to me.

that is because the definition of a "power conference" is different NOW THEN IT WAS THEN, for god sake's its like im taking crazy pills and trying to explain how things are to a child.


Let me talk real slow.

You cant compare the SWC of the 60's and 70's to the SEC of today.

You cant compare ANY CONFERENCE of today to ANY CONFERENCE OF YESTERDAY.

You just cant. EVERY SINGLE THING IMAGINABLE IS DIFFERENT NOW THEN IT WAS THEN.

Let me alk really slow too.  It is much easier to have a high win % when your team only plays AT THE MOST 3 teams with a winning record in-conference.  That's all I'm trying to say.  It's harder NOW to have a 70%+ win percentage in the SEC than it was to have a 70%+ win percentage in the SWC in past years.

Dont you understand the logical fallacy that you are presenting? you are trying to compare the winning % from an era when teams played AT MOST ELEVEN GAMES A SEASON, to the winning % from an era where teams play 13 to 14?

Im telling you right now winning % from the SWC to winning % to today is nothing it is flawed data and draws no conclusions for this type of arguement.

[311Hog]

60's and 70s the SWC was a premier conference period for its time

right now the SEC is a premier conference in this era, and if you wanted to you could compare teh SEC to the Big 12 because that is the closest representation to the SWC that exists.


<TODAY>

[Oliver]

The real problem that our program has had since joining the SEC is that JFB believes in Hoginitall's way of thinking.

[hogsanity]

1968-Arkansas (SWC)

9/21 vs. Oklahoma State (3-7) W 32 15 @ Little Rock, AR
9/28 vs. Tulsa (3-7) W 56 13
10/5 @ *Texas Christian (3-7) W 17 7
10/12 vs. *Baylor (3-7) W 35 19
10/19 @ *Texas (9-1-1) L 29 39
10/26 vs. North Texas (8-2) W 17 15 @ Little Rock, AR
11/2 @ *Texas A&M (3-7) W 25 22
11/9 vs. *Rice (0-9-1) W 46 21
11/16 vs. *Southern Methodist (8-3) W 35 29 @ Little Rock, AR
11/23 @ *Texas Tech (5-3-2) W 42 7
1/1 vs. Georgia (8-1-2) W 16 2 @ New Orleans, LA Sugar Bowl
  10-1-0
   350 189

http://jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arkansas.htm

10-1 (91% win %)

What does the fact that we dominated the SEC Champ in the Sugar Bowl do to your argument?

Nothing.  The SWC was incredibly weak with 2 very good teams (Ar and Tx) at the top.  What The Hogs did in the bowl does not change the fact that the swc had only 2 teams with winning records.  I also misspoke, I meant 69, the year of the game of the century.

[Hogginitall]

The real problem that our program has had since joining the SEC is that JFB believes in Hoginitall's way of thinking.

It's just the truth.  When you play only 2-3 teams a year in-conference with WINNING RECORDS, it's much easier to become a "national power" and to have a higher win percentage.  When you play 5,6,7 teams with winning records in your conference each year, it makes it a little harder to post these gaudy win % numbers.

[311Hog]

1968-Arkansas (SWC)

9/21 vs. Oklahoma State (3-7) W 32 15 @ Little Rock, AR
9/28 vs. Tulsa (3-7) W 56 13
10/5 @ *Texas Christian (3-7) W 17 7
10/12 vs. *Baylor (3-7) W 35 19
10/19 @ *Texas (9-1-1) L 29 39
10/26 vs. North Texas (8-2) W 17 15 @ Little Rock, AR
11/2 @ *Texas A&M (3-7) W 25 22
11/9 vs. *Rice (0-9-1) W 46 21
11/16 vs. *Southern Methodist (8-3) W 35 29 @ Little Rock, AR
11/23 @ *Texas Tech (5-3-2) W 42 7
1/1 vs. Georgia (8-1-2) W 16 2 @ New Orleans, LA Sugar Bowl
  10-1-0
   350 189

http://jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arkansas.htm

10-1 (91% win %)

What does the fact that we dominated the SEC Champ in the Sugar Bowl do to your argument?

Nothing.  The SWC was incredibly weak with 2 very good teams (Ar and Tx) at the top.  What The Hogs did in the bowl does not change the fact that the swc had only 2 teams with winning records.  I also misspoke, I meant 69, the year of the game of the century.

this is the key point in this discussion that some people are not catching.

1. Old SWC everyone played EVERYONE in a conference season, no divisions, no imbalanced schedules, this produced CLEAR CUT CHAMPIONS, it also caused some teams which were consistently beaten to have a LOWER WINNING %.

2. New SEC, everyone doesnt play everyone else in a conference season the league is divided their schedules PADDED with more weak non conference opponents, depending on the "luck" of the draw Strong teams could avoid other strong teams for several years, and basically beat up on the "bottem" and avoid other teams.

THIS CAUSED THE WINNING % of the two era's to be non comparable.

[Biggus Piggus]

Nothing.  The SWC was incredibly weak with 2 very good teams (Ar and Tx) at the top.  What The Hogs did in the bowl does not change the fact that the swc had only 2 teams with winning records.  I also misspoke, I meant 69, the year of the game of the century.

Also in 1969, Texas went 11-0 and won the national championship.  Arkansas would have, if not for Broyles's nuts having receded into his body cavity in the fourth quarter.  Surely you aren't telling me the '69 Razorbacks were no good because the SWC was weak that season.  The original complaint on this thread was an attempt to illegitimize Arkansas's past winning records, regardless of how objectively good the football program was.

[Biggus Piggus]

1968-Arkansas (SWC)

9/21 vs. Oklahoma State (3-7) W 32 15 @ Little Rock, AR
9/28 vs. Tulsa (3-7) W 56 13
10/5 @ *Texas Christian (3-7) W 17 7
10/12 vs. *Baylor (3-7) W 35 19
10/19 @ *Texas (9-1-1) L 29 39
10/26 vs. North Texas (8-2) W 17 15 @ Little Rock, AR
11/2 @ *Texas A&M (3-7) W 25 22
11/9 vs. *Rice (0-9-1) W 46 21
11/16 vs. *Southern Methodist (8-3) W 35 29 @ Little Rock, AR
11/23 @ *Texas Tech (5-3-2) W 42 7
1/1 vs. Georgia (8-1-2) W 16 2 @ New Orleans, LA Sugar Bowl
  10-1-0
   350 189

http://jhowell.net/cf/scores/Arkansas.htm

10-1 (91% win %)

What does the fact that we dominated the SEC Champ in the Sugar Bowl do to your argument?

Nothing.  The SWC was incredibly weak with 2 very good teams (Ar and Tx) at the top.  What The Hogs did in the bowl does not change the fact that the swc had only 2 teams with winning records.  I also misspoke, I meant 69, the year of the game of the century.

this is the key point in this discussion that some people are not catching.

1. Old SWC everyone played EVERYONE in a conference season, no divisions, no imbalanced schedules, this produced CLEAR CUT CHAMPIONS, it also caused some teams which were consistently beaten to have a LOWER WINNING %.

2. New SEC, everyone doesnt play everyone else in a conference season the league is divided their schedules PADDED with more weak non conference opponents, depending on the "luck" of the draw Strong teams could avoid other strong teams for several years, and basically beat up on the "bottem" and avoid other teams.

THIS CAUSED THE WINNING % of the two era's to be non comparable.

And old SEC, they didn't have complete round robins either.  In 1969 LSU didn't play Florida or Tennessee.

[hogsanity]

Nothing.  The SWC was incredibly weak with 2 very good teams (Ar and Tx) at the top.  What The Hogs did in the bowl does not change the fact that the swc had only 2 teams with winning records.  I also misspoke, I meant 69, the year of the game of the century.

Also in 1969, Texas went 11-0 and won the national championship.  Arkansas would have, if not for Broyles's nuts having receded into his body cavity in the fourth quarter.  Surely you aren't telling me the '69 Razorbacks were no good because the SWC was weak that season.  The original complaint on this thread was an attempt to illegitimize Arkansas's past winning records, regardless of how objectively good the football program was.

Uh, no.  My only point was that we played very weak competion, and as usual, when we did play the one team we had to beat, we yet again failed.

[311Hog]

Nothing.  The SWC was incredibly weak with 2 very good teams (Ar and Tx) at the top.  What The Hogs did in the bowl does not change the fact that the swc had only 2 teams with winning records.  I also misspoke, I meant 69, the year of the game of the century.

Also in 1969, Texas went 11-0 and won the national championship.  Arkansas would have, if not for Broyles's nuts having receded into his body cavity in the fourth quarter.  Surely you aren't telling me the '69 Razorbacks were no good because the SWC was weak that season.  The original complaint on this thread was an attempt to illegitimize Arkansas's past winning records, regardless of how objectively good the football program was.

Uh, no.  My only point was that we played very weak competion, and as usual, when we did play the one team we had to beat, we yet again failed.

and everyone else's point is that, THAT IS HOW IT WAS IN ALL CONFERENCES DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. To act like the SWC was the only conference dominated by 1 or 2 teams is just plain stupid.

In the days when all conference opponents played each other once, the dominate teams ALWAYS rose to the top, you never had teams like Wisc. this year sneak into 3rd place having NEVER PLAYED THE TOP TWO TEAMS in their conference.

[bearcathog]

These are the years LSU was .500 or better against teams with winning records:
1961
1962
1965
1969 2-1 vs. >.500 opponents, no bowl game
1970
1972
1982 lost twice to sub-.500 teams including Tulane
1984
1986
1987
1996 went 10-2, 3-2 against teams with winning records
2001
2003
2005
2006 needed last two wins to get above .500 against winning opponents

These include bowl games.

In 1978, LSU was 8-4, 0-4 against teams with winning records.

In 1979, LSU was 7-5, 1-5 against teams with winning records.  The 1 was Wake Forest.

In 1985, LSU was 9-2-1, 0-2 against teams with winning records.

So boom.

Compare us to LSU, not to shabby, a good comparison, good addition of extra info, do that for Arkansas, you will see similarities, also.

But look at bowl record Arkansas 3-9 versus the SEC since 1960.