New cut at an old argument

[HognotinMemphis]

If you are keeping score:

Arkansas 16 seasons of winning records against winning teams
LSU 15

Now I feel better about all those losses to Texas and about all the bowl game losses over the decades.

[Oklahawg]

To paraphrase an old axiom, never argue with Biggus: it irritates Biggus and eventually shows you to be an idiot.

[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?

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.

After the season shown above, the SWC had four teams in the top 20.  Does that sound like a weak conference?

[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.

After the season shown above, the SWC had four teams in the top 20.  Does that sound like a weak conference?

Id like to know who the 4th was.  I could see TX,SMu, AR  but who else?  A 5-3-2 TT team?

[Pignominious]

To paraphrase an old axiom, never argue with Biggus: it irritates Biggus and eventually shows you to be an idiot.

I thought about warning some folks and then I decided I'd rather see the enjoyment of ALL the responses.  I still miss the old days of Hogville. 

I heard that one.  I have been enjoying this discussion.

[hogsanity]

Ok, the main thing I take away from all of this, is that, except for 1964, the Hogs always find a way to frick up a great season.

[RazorsEdge]

Houston was in the top 20, but you are right they weren't in the SWC at that time.

[bearcathog]

Try this for comparisons Best Teams by Decade:

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1960-1969

1960's-SWC 2 in top 25(#2,4)  SEC 7(#1,7,8,14,19,20,22) in top25

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1970-1979
1970's SWC 5(#6,10,16,21,22) in top 25 SEC  6(#1,11,12,14,17,24) in top 25

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1980-1989
1980's  SWC 3(#16,19,22) in top 25 SEC 6(#4,10,11,18,20,21) in top 25

How does that compare the SEC vs. SWC??

Teams with 15 bowl wins:

SWC 1(Texas)

SEC 7(Bama, Tenn, Georgia, LSU, Ole Miss, Auburn, Florida)

[HognotinMemphis]

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.

After the season shown above, the SWC had four teams in the top 20.  Does that sound like a weak conference?

Id like to know who the 4th was.  I could see TX,SMu, AR  but who else?  A 5-3-2 TT team?

10,000 posts and you're still one of the more ignorant posters on this board.

[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.

After the season shown above, the SWC had four teams in the top 20.  Does that sound like a weak conference?

Id like to know who the 4th was.  I could see TX,SMu, AR  but who else?  A 5-3-2 TT team?

10,000 posts and you're still one of the more ignorant posters on this board.

Wow, that added alot to the conversation. 

[Swino]

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.

After the season shown above, the SWC had four teams in the top 20.  Does that sound like a weak conference?

Id like to know who the 4th was.  I could see TX,SMu, AR  but who else?  A 5-3-2 TT team?

10,000 posts and you're still one of the more ignorant posters on this board.

Wow, that added alot to the conversation. 

He was just stating the obvious.

[hogsanity]

And so adult of both of you.  Thats why message boards get no respect, because all opinions are not respected.  Eventually, someone has to start namecalling just because they do not agree with someone else.

[311Hog]

And so adult of both of you.  Thats why message boards get no respect, because all opinions are not respected.  Eventually, someone has to start namecalling just because they do not agree with someone else.

umm no if this was real life and we were face to face people would have stopped listening to your opinions along time ago. You should be happy the internet exists otherwise no one would read your "thoughts" at all. I mean seriously man sometimes it is fun but more often then not you are grasping for the furtherest of straws.

[Hogginitall]

Try this for comparisons Best Teams by Decade:

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1960-1969

1960's-SWC 2 in top 25(#2,4)  SEC 7(#1,7,8,14,19,20,22) in top25

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1970-1979
1970's SWC 5(#6,10,16,21,22) in top 25 SEC  6(#1,11,12,14,17,24) in top 25

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1980-1989
1980's  SWC 3(#16,19,22) in top 25 SEC 6(#4,10,11,18,20,21) in top 25

How does that compare the SEC vs. SWC??

Teams with 15 bowl wins:

SWC 1(Texas)

SEC 7(Bama, Tenn, Georgia, LSU, Ole Miss, Auburn, Florida)

Anyone want to counter this?  The SWC NEVER compared to the SEC.

[RazorsEdge]

I would counter it by saying:  Go to the links provided above and look at where Arkansas ranked.
60's #4
70's #10
80's #16
90's #48
00's #38
We are nowhere near where we once were.  I realize the SEC is the toughest conference in the nation, that is why it usually puts 5 or 6 teams in the top 25.  The voters respect the SEC.  We just aren't as strong as we once were.

[Oklahawg]

The decline of private schools in big-time college football hasn't been touched. That the SWC had SMU, Baylor, Rice and TCU seems to be a non-issue to folks. Those were power teams at one point, when the private aspect of the school didn't impact the talent on the field. Like it does now.

Exclude ND, and where is the power private team today? Ga Tech? Wake? Stanford? Northwestern? Vandy for crying out loud??

[Albert Einswine]

The decline of private schools in big-time college football hasn't been touched. That the SWC had SMU, Baylor, Rice and TCU seems to be a non-issue to folks. Those were power teams at one point, when the private aspect of the school didn't impact the talent on the field. Like it does now.

Exclude ND, and where is the power private team today? Ga Tech? Wake? Stanford? Northwestern? Vandy for crying out loud??

Ahem!  Miami?

[Hogginitall]

I would counter it by saying:  Go to the links provided above and look at where Arkansas ranked.
60's #4
70's #10
80's #16
90's #48
00's #38
We are nowhere near where we once were.  I realize the SEC is the toughest conference in the nation, that is why it usually puts 5 or 6 teams in the top 25.  The voters respect the SEC.  We just aren't as strong as we once were.

BECAUSE WE ARE PLAYING 5-6 TEAMS A YEAR THAT ARE THE CALIBER OF THE ONLY GOOD TEAM BESIDES ARKANSAS IN THE SWC, TEXAS.  If we were still playing against these teams in the SWC, we would still be putting up the 2-loss records and be in the top 10-15 probably.

[Hogginitall]

A lot of these rankings are due PURELY on a team's W-L record, not necessarily the best team.  Take USC and put them in the SEC and they would most likely be ranked lower over a particular decade because they would have 1, 2, 3 more losses a year.  Same with any other team in the country.  It's not the Arkansas has become a weaker football program....it's that the competition they play against has gotten that much STRONGER.

[Albert Einswine]

A lot of these rankings are due PURELY on a team's W-L record, not necessarily the best team.  Take USC and put them in the SEC and they would most likely be ranked lower over a particular decade because they would have 1, 2, 3 more losses a year.  Same with any other team in the country.  It's not the Arkansas has become a weaker football program....it's that the competition they play against has gotten that much STRONGER.

We are much weaker across the board than we were in the '60s and '70s.  If we weren't, we'd be consistently near the top in this conference.

Just because the SEC has always had more depth of quality teams doesn't mean the top SEC team was instantly head and shoulders above the top SWC team, historically speaking.

Understand, I agree that the SEC was always a better conference from top to bottom.  It is now and has always been the best in the country from top to bottom, but that didn't always mean that the SEC's #1 was better than the SWC's #1.

Disclaimer:  I, for the most part, exclude the last 10 years of the SWC from the argument.

[RazorsEdge]

I would counter it by saying:  Go to the links provided above and look at where Arkansas ranked.
60's #4
70's #10
80's #16
90's #48
00's #38
We are nowhere near where we once were.  I realize the SEC is the toughest conference in the nation, that is why it usually puts 5 or 6 teams in the top 25.  The voters respect the SEC.  We just aren't as strong as we once were.

BECAUSE WE ARE PLAYING 5-6 TEAMS A YEAR THAT ARE THE CALIBER OF THE ONLY GOOD TEAM BESIDES ARKANSAS IN THE SWC, TEXAS.  If we were still playing against these teams in the SWC, we would still be putting up the 2-loss records and be in the top 10-15 probably.

On the other side of the coin, you can go .500 in SEC games and still be in the top 25.  The SEC had 6 teams in the top 25 last year.  Georgia lost to  Tenn, Vandy, Kentucky and Florida.  In conference they beat Ole Miss, Miss St., Auburn and South Carolina and they finished AP23.  Sure this is a harder conference to win than the SWC, but we should still be in the top 25 consistently.

I would say the University of Texas has about as many assets as anyone when it comes to fielding a football team, but when we were in a conference with them we never had the "we can't compete because..." attitude that prevails now.  Sure they beat us more often than not, but we never felt like they were too much for us. 

In my opinion, the area we trail the rest of the SEC by the largest margin is coaching and leadership.

[Hogginitall]

The decline of private schools in big-time college football hasn't been touched. That the SWC had SMU, Baylor, Rice and TCU seems to be a non-issue to folks. Those were power teams at one point, when the private aspect of the school didn't impact the talent on the field. Like it does now.

Exclude ND, and where is the power private team today? Ga Tech? Wake? Stanford? Northwestern? Vandy for crying out loud??

So, I got to looking after you made this comment and found these stats for those schools:

Rice:     93 seasons      32 winning seasons, 61 non-winning
Baylor:   104 seasons    47 winning seasons, 57 non-winning
TCU:     103 seasons     45 winning seasons, 59 non-winning
SMU:     91 seasons      38 winning seasons, 53 non-winning

Now, compare that to Arkansas:

Arkansas:  101 seasons    58 winning seasons, 43 non-winning

Now compare it to Arkansas' opponents in the SEC West:

Auburn:     105 seasons    67 winning seasons, 38 non-winning
Alabama:   105 seasons    89 winning seasons, 16 non-winning
Mississippi: 105 seasons    52 winning seasons, 53 non-winning
LSU:         105 seasons    70 winning seasons, 35 non-winning

There is a MAJOR difference in competition between the SEC and the old SWC.  I just don't know how you guys can try to make it seem like the old SWC used to be a powerhouse conference, or at least comparatively to the SEC.  

[Albert Einswine]

The decline of private schools in big-time college football hasn't been touched. That the SWC had SMU, Baylor, Rice and TCU seems to be a non-issue to folks. Those were power teams at one point, when the private aspect of the school didn't impact the talent on the field. Like it does now.

Exclude ND, and where is the power private team today? Ga Tech? Wake? Stanford? Northwestern? Vandy for crying out loud??

So, I got to looking after you made this comment and found these stats for those schools:

Rice:     93 seasons      32 winning seasons, 61 non-winning
Baylor:   104 seasons    47 winning seasons, 57 non-winning
TCU:     103 seasons     45 winning seasons, 59 non-winning
SMU:     91 seasons      38 winning seasons, 53 non-winning

Now, compare that to Arkansas:

Arkansas:  101 seasons    58 winning seasons, 43 non-winning

Now compare it to Arkansas' opponents in the SEC West:

Auburn:     105 seasons    67 winning seasons, 38 non-winning
Alabama:   105 seasons    89 winning seasons, 16 non-winning
Mississippi: 105 seasons    52 winning seasons, 53 non-winning
LSU:         105 seasons    70 winning seasons, 35 non-winning

There is a MAJOR difference in competition between the SEC and the old SWC.  I just don't know how you guys can try to make it seem like the old SWC used to be a powerhouse conference, or at least comparatively to the SEC.  

A better comparison would have been against Texas, Texas A&M, Houston and Arkansas.  You chose the bottom half of the SWC against which to make your argument.

[RazorsEdge]

1968 was used as an example earlier.
In that year Arkansas beat undefeated SEC Champ Georgia in the Sugar Bowl
Texas beat one loss Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl and
SMU defeated Auburn in the regular season. 

I realize this was one year, but the top 3 teams in the SWC were usually in the top 20. 

The bottom line is Arkansas used to be a better football school than it is now. 

[RazorsEdge]

The decline of private schools in big-time college football hasn't been touched. That the SWC had SMU, Baylor, Rice and TCU seems to be a non-issue to folks. Those were power teams at one point, when the private aspect of the school didn't impact the talent on the field. Like it does now.

Exclude ND, and where is the power private team today? Ga Tech? Wake? Stanford? Northwestern? Vandy for crying out loud??

So, I got to looking after you made this comment and found these stats for those schools:

Rice:     93 seasons      32 winning seasons, 61 non-winning
Baylor:   104 seasons    47 winning seasons, 57 non-winning
TCU:     103 seasons     45 winning seasons, 59 non-winning
SMU:     91 seasons      38 winning seasons, 53 non-winning

Now, compare that to Arkansas:

Arkansas:  101 seasons    58 winning seasons, 43 non-winning

Now compare it to Arkansas' opponents in the SEC West:

Auburn:     105 seasons    67 winning seasons, 38 non-winning
Alabama:   105 seasons    89 winning seasons, 16 non-winning
Mississippi: 105 seasons    52 winning seasons, 53 non-winning
LSU:         105 seasons    70 winning seasons, 35 non-winning

There is a MAJOR difference in competition between the SEC and the old SWC.  I just don't know how you guys can try to make it seem like the old SWC used to be a powerhouse conference, or at least comparatively to the SEC. 

A better comparison would have been against Texas, Texas A&M, Houston and Arkansas.  You chose the bottom half of the SWC against which to make your argument.

Also, I don't think anybody cares about pre-WWII records.  The last 50 or 60 years gives a better look at a program.

[Hogginitall]

The decline of private schools in big-time college football hasn't been touched. That the SWC had SMU, Baylor, Rice and TCU seems to be a non-issue to folks. Those were power teams at one point, when the private aspect of the school didn't impact the talent on the field. Like it does now.

Exclude ND, and where is the power private team today? Ga Tech? Wake? Stanford? Northwestern? Vandy for crying out loud??

So, I got to looking after you made this comment and found these stats for those schools:

Rice:     93 seasons      32 winning seasons, 61 non-winning
Baylor:   104 seasons    47 winning seasons, 57 non-winning
TCU:     103 seasons     45 winning seasons, 59 non-winning
SMU:     91 seasons      38 winning seasons, 53 non-winning

Now, compare that to Arkansas:

Arkansas:  101 seasons    58 winning seasons, 43 non-winning

Now compare it to Arkansas' opponents in the SEC West:

Auburn:     105 seasons    67 winning seasons, 38 non-winning
Alabama:   105 seasons    89 winning seasons, 16 non-winning
Mississippi: 105 seasons    52 winning seasons, 53 non-winning
LSU:         105 seasons    70 winning seasons, 35 non-winning

There is a MAJOR difference in competition between the SEC and the old SWC.  I just don't know how you guys can try to make it seem like the old SWC used to be a powerhouse conference, or at least comparatively to the SEC.  

A better comparison would have been against Texas, Texas A&M, Houston and Arkansas.  You chose the bottom half of the SWC against which to make your argument.

I didn't choose anything.  I based it on the comments that I referenced from Oklahawg's previous post.  He only referenced SMU, Rice, TCU, and Baylor.

Ok...over OUR "dominant period" of the 60's, 70's, and 80's these are the number of winning seasons for each team (it's 30 seasons from 1960-1989):

Texas:          26
Houston:       21
Texas Tech:  15
Texas A&M:   14
Baylor:          12
SMU:            12
TCU:             4
Rice:             3

In the SEC, it was:

Alabama:       29
LSU:             25
Florida:          24
Tennessee:    23
Auburn:         22
Georgia:        22
Mississippi:     15
Kentucky:       8
Vandy:           4

[Hogginitall]

1968 was used as an example earlier.
In that year Arkansas beat undefeated SEC Champ Georgia in the Sugar Bowl
Texas beat one loss Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl and
SMU defeated Auburn in the regular season. 

I realize this was one year, but the top 3 teams in the SWC were usually in the top 20. 

The bottom line is Arkansas used to be a better football school than it is now. 

No, it didn't.  It is just perceived to be that way by naiive fans who think that because we won in the SWC (a weaker conference), we should automatically do the same or better in the SEC (the strongest conference in the nation, and always has been).

[DeltaBoy]

Nutt got to go ASAP  He is a failure as a HC at UA!

[RazorsEdge]

1968 was used as an example earlier.
In that year Arkansas beat undefeated SEC Champ Georgia in the Sugar Bowl
Texas beat one loss Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl and
SMU defeated Auburn in the regular season. 

I realize this was one year, but the top 3 teams in the SWC were usually in the top 20. 

The bottom line is Arkansas used to be a better football school than it is now. 

No, it didn't.  It is just perceived to be that way by naiive fans who think that because we won in the SWC (a weaker conference), we should automatically do the same or better in the SEC (the strongest conference in the nation, and always has been).

I guess the AP voters were naive enough to put Arkansas in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days.  The point I am trying to get across is "okay the SEC was a better conference top to bottom, but at the top the SWC was as good as any other conference's top."  The SEC is better than the PAC-10, but we forgot to tell USC the last couple of years.

How do you explain Georgia being AP23 last year with one big SEC victory?  The SEC is tough and the voters know that.  Why didn't undefeated Boise St. win the National Championship last year?  Conference.  You can lose games in the SEC and still be ranked, you couldn't get that same respect in the SWC. 

I'm not saying the SEC isn't the toughest conference.  If you win this conference you have a good chance to play for the National Championship.  I am saying Arkansas is not the top 20 program it once was.  Our end of the season ranking bears that out.  If we could go .500 or better in conference and win our bowl game we would be in the top 25

[Hogginitall]

1968 was used as an example earlier.
In that year Arkansas beat undefeated SEC Champ Georgia in the Sugar Bowl
Texas beat one loss Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl and
SMU defeated Auburn in the regular season. 

I realize this was one year, but the top 3 teams in the SWC were usually in the top 20. 

The bottom line is Arkansas used to be a better football school than it is now. 

No, it didn't.  It is just perceived to be that way by naiive fans who think that because we won in the SWC (a weaker conference), we should automatically do the same or better in the SEC (the strongest conference in the nation, and always has been).

I guess the AP voters were naive enough to put Arkansas in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days.  The point I am trying to get across is "okay the SEC was a better conference top to bottom, but at the top the SWC was as good as any other conference's top."  The SEC is better than the PAC-10, but we forgot to tell USC the last couple of years.

How do you explain Georgia being AP23 last year with one big SEC victory?  The SEC is tough and the voters know that.  Why didn't undefeated Boise St. win the National Championship last year?  Conference.  You can lose games in the SEC and still be ranked, you couldn't get that same respect in the SWC. 

I'm not saying the SEC isn't the toughest conference.  If you win this conference you have a good chance to play for the National Championship.  I am saying Arkansas is not the top 20 program it once was.  Our end of the season ranking bears that out.  If we could go .500 or better in conference and win our bowl game we would be in the top 25

And the point I'm trying to make is:  We played MAYBE 3 teams per year in the SWC with WINNING RECORDS, now we play 5,6, or 7 (in the SEC, we usually play 3 teams per year that end up in the top 15 in the nation, not just have winning records at the end of the year).  Yeah, the top of the SWC (Texas) could play with anyone in the country, but that's only ONE team per year that we played that was the caliber of LSU, Tenn, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, and Alabama.  So, instead of playing ONE or MAYBE two top-caliber teams per year, we now play AT LEAST 3 or 4 per year and most years, 5,6, or even 7.  That makes it MUCH TOUGHER to have a HIGHER WIN %, which in turn, makes naiive fans think that our football program has "fallen" to this "lower level".  When, in fact, our program hasn't fallen at all...the competition (the NUMBER OF QUALITY TEAMS WE PLAY PER YEAR) has risen tremendously since coming from the SWC to the SEC.

Us being in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days came from us playing 4 teams with winning records per year (in conference and out of conference), losing two, winning two, then beating all of the teams with losing records and HOLY COW....we're ranked in the top 10 going to our bowl game.  Which, by the way, we usually lost as well.

It's the same reason why WV and Louisville are ranked in the top 10 of most polls.  One of them beats the other and then they beat all of the other weaklings in the Big East and have a 10-2 or 11-1 record at the end of the season and are ranked in the top 10.  And because they are so rested from playing a bunch of pansies, they can even win their bowl games.  BUT, you put them smack dab in the middle of the SEC and they would have 1, 2, or 3 more losses per year more than likely (if for nothing else, because of lack of depth).  All of a sudden they go from a 10-2, 11-1 record in the Big East to a 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 record in the SEC.  Now they don't look as good as they did in the Big East and wouldn't be thought of as a "national power" anymore.  Get my drift?

[RazorsEdge]

1968 was used as an example earlier.
In that year Arkansas beat undefeated SEC Champ Georgia in the Sugar Bowl
Texas beat one loss Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl and
SMU defeated Auburn in the regular season. 

I realize this was one year, but the top 3 teams in the SWC were usually in the top 20. 

The bottom line is Arkansas used to be a better football school than it is now. 

No, it didn't.  It is just perceived to be that way by naiive fans who think that because we won in the SWC (a weaker conference), we should automatically do the same or better in the SEC (the strongest conference in the nation, and always has been).

I guess the AP voters were naive enough to put Arkansas in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days.  The point I am trying to get across is "okay the SEC was a better conference top to bottom, but at the top the SWC was as good as any other conference's top."  The SEC is better than the PAC-10, but we forgot to tell USC the last couple of years.

How do you explain Georgia being AP23 last year with one big SEC victory?  The SEC is tough and the voters know that.  Why didn't undefeated Boise St. win the National Championship last year?  Conference.  You can lose games in the SEC and still be ranked, you couldn't get that same respect in the SWC. 

I'm not saying the SEC isn't the toughest conference.  If you win this conference you have a good chance to play for the National Championship.  I am saying Arkansas is not the top 20 program it once was.  Our end of the season ranking bears that out.  If we could go .500 or better in conference and win our bowl game we would be in the top 25

And the point I'm trying to make is:  We played MAYBE 3 teams per year in the SWC with WINNING RECORDS, now we play 5,6, or 7.  Yeah, the top of the SWC (Texas) could play with anyone in the country, but that's only ONE team per year that we played that was the caliber of LSU, Tenn, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, and Alabama.  So, instead of playing ONE or MAYBE two top-caliber teams per year, we now play AT LEAST 3 or 4 per year and most years, 5,6, or even 7.  That makes it MUCH TOUGHER to have a HIGHER WIN %, which in turn, makes naiive fans think that our football program has "fallen" to this "lower level".  When, in fact, our program hasn't fallen at all...the competition (the NUMBER OF QUALITY TEAMS WE PLAY PER YEAR) has risen tremendously since coming from the SWC to the SEC.

Us being in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days came from us playing 4 teams with winning records per year (in conference and out of conference), losing two, winning two, then beating all of the teams with losing records and HOLY COW....we're ranked in the top 10 going to our bowl game.  Which, by the way, we usually lost as well.

If the SWC was as weak as you seem to think it was, it would be like the WAC is now.  How do you explain Ken Hatfield being 5-0-1 against Ole Miss?  Please explain Georgia's AP23 last year.

[RazorsEdge]

It's the same reason why WV and Louisville are ranked in the top 10 of most polls.  One of them beats the other and then they beat all of the other weaklings in the Big East and have a 10-2 or 11-1 record at the end of the season and are ranked in the top 10.  And because they are so rested from playing a bunch of pansies, they can even win their bowl games.  BUT, you put them smack dab in the middle of the SEC and they would have 1, 2, or 3 more losses per year more than likely (if for nothing else, because of lack of depth).  All of a sudden they go from a 10-2, 11-1 record in the Big East to a 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 record in the SEC.  Now they don't look as good as they did in the Big East and wouldn't be thought of as a "national power" anymore.  Get my drift?

With a 9-3 or 8-4 record in the SEC, they would still probably be a top 25 team.  (see Georgia '06)

[RazorsEdge]

It's the same reason why WV and Louisville are ranked in the top 10 of most polls.  One of them beats the other and then they beat all of the other weaklings in the Big East and have a 10-2 or 11-1 record at the end of the season and are ranked in the top 10.  And because they are so rested from playing a bunch of pansies, they can even win their bowl games.  BUT, you put them smack dab in the middle of the SEC and they would have 1, 2, or 3 more losses per year more than likely (if for nothing else, because of lack of depth).  All of a sudden they go from a 10-2, 11-1 record in the Big East to a 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 record in the SEC.  Now they don't look as good as they did in the Big East and wouldn't be thought of as a "national power" anymore.  Get my drift?

Did you include Kentucky and Mississippi State as the pansies Louisville and WV played last year?  Did WV beat Georgia in the '06 Sugar Bowl ('05 season)?  Did Louisville and WV beat the ACC Champ and runner up in their bowls last season?

[FWF79]

I have two statements to make.
Our AD is so old his SS# is 1
To have a competent passing game, you have to have coaches that believe in it and actually spend more time on it in practice.

[Biggus Piggus]

Try this for comparisons Best Teams by Decade:

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1970-1979
1970's SWC 5(#6,10,16,21,22) in top 25 SEC  6(#1,11,12,14,17,24) in top 25

Anyone want to counter this?  The SWC NEVER compared to the SEC.

You say that, then there in the 1970s, the decade when the SWC peaked, the two conferences are listed neck and neck.  You just see what you want to see.  How old are you?  Did you actually watch any of those games?  If not, STFU.

And why did you twist this argument into SEC vs. SWC, when it was actually about whether the SWC was one of the top football conferences, and whether we should respect Arkansas's past success or disregard it.  You are chasing your own tail.

[Hogginitall]

Try this for comparisons Best Teams by Decade:

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1970-1979
1970's SWC 5(#6,10,16,21,22) in top 25 SEC  6(#1,11,12,14,17,24) in top 25

Anyone want to counter this?  The SWC NEVER compared to the SEC.

You say that, then there in the 1970s, the decade when the SWC peaked, the two conferences are listed neck and neck.  You just see what you want to see.  How old are you?  Did you actually watch any of those games?  If not, STFU.

And why did you twist this argument into SEC vs. SWC, when it was actually about whether the SWC was one of the top football conferences, and whether we should respect Arkansas's past success or disregard it.  You are chasing your own tail.

Wow, that's a good argument.  STFU is always a good counterpoint.  I'm not twisting the argument into anything.  The point that I'm contending is true is that the success that we had in the SWC was actually not as good as A LOT of Arkansas fans contend.  I think it is due to playing in a weak league.  And now the "dropoff" that we've had from then compared to now is not actually a "dropoff", it is a natural correction that occurred due to a move to a MUCH HARDER CONFERENCE.

[Hogginitall]

It's the same reason why WV and Louisville are ranked in the top 10 of most polls.  One of them beats the other and then they beat all of the other weaklings in the Big East and have a 10-2 or 11-1 record at the end of the season and are ranked in the top 10.  And because they are so rested from playing a bunch of pansies, they can even win their bowl games.  BUT, you put them smack dab in the middle of the SEC and they would have 1, 2, or 3 more losses per year more than likely (if for nothing else, because of lack of depth).  All of a sudden they go from a 10-2, 11-1 record in the Big East to a 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 record in the SEC.  Now they don't look as good as they did in the Big East and wouldn't be thought of as a "national power" anymore.  Get my drift?

Did you include Kentucky and Mississippi State as the pansies Louisville and WV played last year?  Did WV beat Georgia in the '06 Sugar Bowl ('05 season)?  Did Louisville and WV beat the ACC Champ and runner up in their bowls last season?

Yes, I did include Kentucky and Miss St.  They are consistently at the bottom of the SEC.  I don't know what these points have to do with anything.  It's kind of like whoever it was saying, "what does this do to your argument seeing as how Arkansas beat Georgia in the 1968 Sugar Bowl?".  It does nothing to my argument because take a look at our record against the SEC in bowl games overall.  Anyone can catch lightning in a bottle once or twice.

[Hogginitall]

It's the same reason why WV and Louisville are ranked in the top 10 of most polls.  One of them beats the other and then they beat all of the other weaklings in the Big East and have a 10-2 or 11-1 record at the end of the season and are ranked in the top 10.  And because they are so rested from playing a bunch of pansies, they can even win their bowl games.  BUT, you put them smack dab in the middle of the SEC and they would have 1, 2, or 3 more losses per year more than likely (if for nothing else, because of lack of depth).  All of a sudden they go from a 10-2, 11-1 record in the Big East to a 9-3, 8-4, 7-5 record in the SEC.  Now they don't look as good as they did in the Big East and wouldn't be thought of as a "national power" anymore.  Get my drift?

With a 9-3 or 8-4 record in the SEC, they would still probably be a top 25 team.  (see Georgia '06)

What's your point?  Are you just throwing all of these "points" out there to divert attention from what I'm saying?  All I'm saying is that it was easier to post a 10-1, 9-2 record against SWC competition than it is against current SEC competition.  I'm contending that Arkansas' football program is not at a lower level than it was back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, it's just a matter of stiffer competition.

[Hogginitall]

1968 was used as an example earlier.
In that year Arkansas beat undefeated SEC Champ Georgia in the Sugar Bowl
Texas beat one loss Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl and
SMU defeated Auburn in the regular season. 

I realize this was one year, but the top 3 teams in the SWC were usually in the top 20. 

The bottom line is Arkansas used to be a better football school than it is now. 

No, it didn't.  It is just perceived to be that way by naiive fans who think that because we won in the SWC (a weaker conference), we should automatically do the same or better in the SEC (the strongest conference in the nation, and always has been).

I guess the AP voters were naive enough to put Arkansas in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days.  The point I am trying to get across is "okay the SEC was a better conference top to bottom, but at the top the SWC was as good as any other conference's top."  The SEC is better than the PAC-10, but we forgot to tell USC the last couple of years.

How do you explain Georgia being AP23 last year with one big SEC victory?  The SEC is tough and the voters know that.  Why didn't undefeated Boise St. win the National Championship last year?  Conference.  You can lose games in the SEC and still be ranked, you couldn't get that same respect in the SWC. 

I'm not saying the SEC isn't the toughest conference.  If you win this conference you have a good chance to play for the National Championship.  I am saying Arkansas is not the top 20 program it once was.  Our end of the season ranking bears that out.  If we could go .500 or better in conference and win our bowl game we would be in the top 25

And the point I'm trying to make is:  We played MAYBE 3 teams per year in the SWC with WINNING RECORDS, now we play 5,6, or 7.  Yeah, the top of the SWC (Texas) could play with anyone in the country, but that's only ONE team per year that we played that was the caliber of LSU, Tenn, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, and Alabama.  So, instead of playing ONE or MAYBE two top-caliber teams per year, we now play AT LEAST 3 or 4 per year and most years, 5,6, or even 7.  That makes it MUCH TOUGHER to have a HIGHER WIN %, which in turn, makes naiive fans think that our football program has "fallen" to this "lower level".  When, in fact, our program hasn't fallen at all...the competition (the NUMBER OF QUALITY TEAMS WE PLAY PER YEAR) has risen tremendously since coming from the SWC to the SEC.

Us being in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days came from us playing 4 teams with winning records per year (in conference and out of conference), losing two, winning two, then beating all of the teams with losing records and HOLY COW....we're ranked in the top 10 going to our bowl game.  Which, by the way, we usually lost as well.

If the SWC was as weak as you seem to think it was, it would be like the WAC is now.  How do you explain Ken Hatfield being 5-0-1 against Ole Miss?  Please explain Georgia's AP23 last year.

Ole Miss was weak in the 80's.  No, I think the SWC back then was like the Big East is now.  Why do you keep bringing up Georgia's ranking last year?  It has nothing to do with anything.

[bearcathog]

Try this for comparisons Best Teams by Decade:

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/decade_team_rankings.php?period=1970-1979
1970's SWC 5(#6,10,16,21,22) in top 25 SEC  6(#1,11,12,14,17,24) in top 25

Anyone want to counter this?  The SWC NEVER compared to the SEC.

You say that, then there in the 1970s, the decade when the SWC peaked, the two conferences are listed neck and neck.  You just see what you want to see.  How old are you?  Did you actually watch any of those games?  If not, STFU.

And why did you twist this argument into SEC vs. SWC, when it was actually about whether the SWC was one of the top football conferences, and whether we should respect Arkansas's past success or disregard it.  You are chasing your own tail.

Yes in the 70's, the SWC made amove which put most of the SWC teams on probation in the 80's.

But If I put just top 20 it changes significantly:

1970's SWC 3(#6,10,16) in top 25 SEC  5(#1,11,12,14,17) in top 20

SWC for a few years in the last 70's when Houston and SMU had good teams.

Especially SMU, with Dickerson and James in the backfield:  But what happened?

The one and only "Death Penalty" ever given by the NCAA.

[Hogginitall]

1968 was used as an example earlier.
In that year Arkansas beat undefeated SEC Champ Georgia in the Sugar Bowl
Texas beat one loss Tennessee in the Cotton Bowl and
SMU defeated Auburn in the regular season. 

I realize this was one year, but the top 3 teams in the SWC were usually in the top 20. 

The bottom line is Arkansas used to be a better football school than it is now. 

No, it didn't.  It is just perceived to be that way by naiive fans who think that because we won in the SWC (a weaker conference), we should automatically do the same or better in the SEC (the strongest conference in the nation, and always has been).

I guess the AP voters were naive enough to put Arkansas in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days.  The point I am trying to get across is "okay the SEC was a better conference top to bottom, but at the top the SWC was as good as any other conference's top."  The SEC is better than the PAC-10, but we forgot to tell USC the last couple of years.

How do you explain Georgia being AP23 last year with one big SEC victory?  The SEC is tough and the voters know that.  Why didn't undefeated Boise St. win the National Championship last year?  Conference.  You can lose games in the SEC and still be ranked, you couldn't get that same respect in the SWC. 

I'm not saying the SEC isn't the toughest conference.  If you win this conference you have a good chance to play for the National Championship.  I am saying Arkansas is not the top 20 program it once was.  Our end of the season ranking bears that out.  If we could go .500 or better in conference and win our bowl game we would be in the top 25

And the point I'm trying to make is:  We played MAYBE 3 teams per year in the SWC with WINNING RECORDS, now we play 5,6, or 7.  Yeah, the top of the SWC (Texas) could play with anyone in the country, but that's only ONE team per year that we played that was the caliber of LSU, Tenn, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, and Alabama.  So, instead of playing ONE or MAYBE two top-caliber teams per year, we now play AT LEAST 3 or 4 per year and most years, 5,6, or even 7.  That makes it MUCH TOUGHER to have a HIGHER WIN %, which in turn, makes naiive fans think that our football program has "fallen" to this "lower level".  When, in fact, our program hasn't fallen at all...the competition (the NUMBER OF QUALITY TEAMS WE PLAY PER YEAR) has risen tremendously since coming from the SWC to the SEC.

Us being in the top 25 on a consistent basis in those days came from us playing 4 teams with winning records per year (in conference and out of conference), losing two, winning two, then beating all of the teams with losing records and HOLY COW....we're ranked in the top 10 going to our bowl game.  Which, by the way, we usually lost as well.

If the SWC was as weak as you seem to think it was, it would be like the WAC is now.  How do you explain Ken Hatfield being 5-0-1 against Ole Miss?  Please explain Georgia's AP23 last year.

Hatfield went 5-0-1 against Ole Miss teams with these records:

1984:  4-6-1 (T)
1985:  4-6-1
1986:  8-3-1
1987:  3-8
1988:  5-6
1989:  8-4

Combined record of 32-33-3 and only 2 winning seasons out of the 6.

Also, in the 30 year period I mentioned earlier (60's, 70's and 80's---Arkansas' "hayday"), Arkansas went 3-8 against SEC teams in bowls.  So, that kind of shoots a hole in your "the top of the SWC was just as good as the top of the SEC or any other league in the nation" theory.

[RazorsEdge]

Of course it is harder to run the table in the SEC now than possibly any conference in history.  My point is you don't have to win all your games in this conference to be in the top 25.  (see Georgia '06)  I am not saying we are in a weaker conference now, I don't think anyone is.  I am saying we had a better program then.  If can seriously say we are a better program now than we were in the 60's (Nationally #4) we are through discussing it.

  As you pointed out, the SEC has bottom feeders as well as any conference.  If you beat the bottom half teams and get one quality conference win you have a good chance to be in the top 25.  Look at Arkansas last year, who did we beat that had a good team?  Auburn and Tennessee.

If you think this is high tide for Arkansas football, I feel sorry for you.  You missed out on some great teams.  Is it harder to win the conference now?  Yes.   Does that mean any team that won a weaker conference can't be good?  No, see USC.  Check out those powerhouse Miami teams from the past.  Did being in the Big East make them weak?

[Biggus Piggus]

The point that I'm contending is true is that the success that we had in the SWC was actually not as good as A LOT of Arkansas fans contend.  I think it is due to playing in a weak league.

What matters is how objectively good was the team regardless of schedule strength, and you don't have a clue, because you weren't there.

[RazorsEdge]

Hatfield went 5-0-1 against Ole Miss teams with these records:

1984:  4-6-1 (T)
1985:  4-6-1
1986:  8-3-1
1987:  3-8
1988:  5-6
1989:  8-4

Combined record of 32-33-3 and only 2 winning seasons out of the 6.

Also, in the 30 year period I mentioned earlier (60's, 70's and 80's---Arkansas' "hayday"), Arkansas went 3-8 against SEC teams in bowls.  So, that kind of shoots a hole in your "the top of the SWC was just as good as the top of the SEC or any other league in the nation" theory.

Take out the Arkansas games and the record becomes 32-28-2.  How about that team that went 8-3-1?  They went 8-2-1 in the SEC  and other non-con and lost to Arkansas?   What does Arkansas bowl record now speak for the SEC?  I guess the Big 10 is a better conference than the SEC, look at Arkansas bowl record against them.

[RazorsEdge]

The point that I'm contending is true is that the success that we had in the SWC was actually not as good as A LOT of Arkansas fans contend.  I think it is due to playing in a weak league.

What matters is how objectively good was the team regardless of schedule strength, and you don't have a clue, because you weren't there.

I think you are right.  I think we have an 18 year old on our hands here.

[Hogginitall]

Of course it is harder to run the table in the SEC now than possibly any conference in history.  My point is you don't have to win all your games in this conference to be in the top 25.  (see Georgia '06)  I am not saying we are in a weaker conference now, I don't think anyone is.  I am saying we had a better program then.  If can seriously say we are a better program now than we were in the 60's (Nationally #4) we are through discussing it.

  As you pointed out, the SEC has bottom feeders as well as any conference.  If you beat the bottom half teams and get one quality conference win you have a good chance to be in the top 25.  Look at Arkansas last year, who did we beat that had a good team?  Auburn and Tennessee.

If you think this is high tide for Arkansas football, I feel sorry for you.  You missed out on some great teams.  Is it harder to win the conference now?  Yes.   Does that mean any team that won a weaker conference can't be good?  No, see USC.  Check out those powerhouse Miami teams from the past.  Did being in the Big East make them weak?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.  It's like I said earlier, there's a certain faction of fans that think because we went 10-2 every year in the SWC, that we should still do that in the SEC.  And if we don't, it's because our football program has "slipped".  It's just not true.  You will never convince me of that.  It slipped in the early 90's, yes.  But, right now, I think our program is right on par with all of our "great" teams from the 60's, 70's, and 80's.  The major difference from that is the league we play in is 10X harder than the one we played in during those years.

You seem to go off on tangents sometimes.  I have not once said that a team that wins a weaker conference can't be good.  You are correct in pointing out Miami teams from the past, but the Big East THEN was A LOT stronger than it is now.  My point is:  take ANY team that has good records in lesser conferences (i.e.  USC, WVU, Louisville, Miami, Wake Forest from last year, etc) and have them switch conferences to the SEC, and just see how quickly their football program "slips".

[311Hog]

10-2 or 10-4 it is the same thing i hope you realize. So on the one hand you wanna parade around a "10 win season" when it is really not that "special" when looked at from an objective point of view.

The simple fact that you and so many others dismiss so many things in your comparasion the least of which is the massive amount of time in between them, college football is alot different now.

It is safe to say that in the SWC and in that era Arkansas Football was respected even considered "Top 10", but now we are middle of the pack in our Conference and a joke nationally for the most part.


I dont care if the "SEC is tougher", we aren't.

[Hogginitall]

The point that I'm contending is true is that the success that we had in the SWC was actually not as good as A LOT of Arkansas fans contend.  I think it is due to playing in a weak league.

What matters is how objectively good was the team regardless of schedule strength, and you don't have a clue, because you weren't there.

I think you are right.  I think we have an 18 year old on our hands here.

You guys don't have a clue how old I am.  I've seen both leagues.  I have watched Arkansas play both SWC opponents and SEC opponents, and there is NO CONTEST which one is better.

Hatfield went 5-0-1 against Ole Miss teams with these records:

1984:  4-6-1 (T)
1985:  4-6-1
1986:  8-3-1
1987:  3-8
1988:  5-6
1989:  8-4

Combined record of 32-33-3 and only 2 winning seasons out of the 6.

Also, in the 30 year period I mentioned earlier (60's, 70's and 80's---Arkansas' "hayday"), Arkansas went 3-8 against SEC teams in bowls.  So, that kind of shoots a hole in your "the top of the SWC was just as good as the top of the SEC or any other league in the nation" theory.

Take out the Arkansas games and the record becomes 32-28-2.  How about that team that went 8-3-1?  They went 8-2-1 in the SEC  and other non-con and lost to Arkansas?   What does Arkansas bowl record now speak for the SEC?  I guess the Big 10 is a better conference than the SEC, look at Arkansas bowl record against them.

These were supposed to be the best years in Arkansas football history, though.

[Hogginitall]

10-2 or 10-4 it is the same thing i hope you realize. So on the one hand you wanna parade around a "10 win season" when it is really not that "special" when looked at from an objective point of view.

The simple fact that you and so many others dismiss so many things in your comparasion the least of which is the massive amount of time in between them, college football is alot different now.

It is safe to say that in the SWC and in that era Arkansas Football was respected even considered "Top 10", but now we are middle of the pack in our Conference and a joke nationally for the most part.


I dont care if the "SEC is tougher", we aren't.

I haven't been parading anything around about last year's season.  I think it was a good season, not great.  We should've won more games than we did.  The way we ended the season was very disappointing.  However, I think 7-1 in the SEC is pretty impressive.

We can just agree to disagree about this issue...

[Albert Einswine]

The point that I'm contending is true is that the success that we had in the SWC was actually not as good as A LOT of Arkansas fans contend.  I think it is due to playing in a weak league.

What matters is how objectively good was the team regardless of schedule strength, and you don't have a clue, because you weren't there.

This is the bottom line.  In the latter half of the Nutt regime it has become popular for "fans" to denigrate and diminish the Razorbacks past accomplishments to prove that Houston is doing a swell job.  You see, we were really never that good anyway, so Houston has us doing just as well or better than we ever did.

In fact he does more with less than any coach in the country and we should be proud here in poor lil' 'ol Arkansas, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..................................................