New cut at an old argument

[Hogginitall]

When the top half of our conference is in the top 25, I think we should be in the top 25.  You guys seem to think that is too much to ask. 

Hogginitall, when you play in a weak conference it is held against you in the final poll.  That is why last year we were ranked above three teams with more wins than we had.  Get it?  Show me a team that went .500 in another conference and still made the top 25.

bearcathog, some seasons we could beat one 8 or 9 win team and be ranked, but we sure couldn't lose 4 conference games and be ranked.  We can now!  How would you compare last years season to that 77 team?

At any rate, I see you guys are very excited for the program to be where it is under Houston Nutt.  You guys act like last year was the greatest season in the history of the Hogs.  It wasn't.  Sure it is tougher now, Frank chose to leave a crumbling SWC and join the toughest conference in football.  We are now running with the big dogs but we need to run a little bit faster.

Let me make sure you get it.  Yes, it is true that SEC teams are cut some slack for having lost some games, but they also are playing against usually 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation.  Like us last year, for example, we ended up losing to the #1, #3, #4, and #5 teams in the nation in the final poll.  Of course if those are your only losses, you're team is going to be ranked higher than a Big East team who had losses to the #20, #45, and #48 ranked teams.

HERE IS THE HARD PART FOR YOU:  It is ALSO easier to win more games when you only play 3 or 4 teams with winning records in the entire year.  So, it is just as easy to be ranked coming from the Big East or ACC as it is the SEC.

In the SEC, a team (Arkansas) with a 10-4 record (losing to #1, #3, #4, and #5 ranked teams in the final poll) gets you a #15 ranking.  Arkansas beat #8 Auburn and #23 Tennessee.

In the Big East, a team (West Virginia) with an 11-2 record (losing to #7 and an unranked South Florida team) gets you a #10 ranking.  All they had to do is beat ONE ranked team, Rutgers (#12 at the end of the year).

See how it kind of evens out.

[RazorsEdge]

That West Virginia team also won their bowl game against ACC runner up GaTech didn't they?  In '05, I think they beat SEC champ Georgia didn't they?  I guess they forgot they were supposed to fold up after conference play.

Tell me how SEC teams play against 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation.  What are the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation that we play this year?    Maybe that is the part I am missing.

Do you think Arkansas' #15 ranking was a fair assessment last year (considering that they played in the SEC and everything)?  I think we deserved to be where we were.  We were the highest ranked team with 4 losses (we play in the SEC, get it)  We were ranked well ahead of 11-2 TCU because they play in a weak conference. 

The voters know who we play and how we play them and we are ranked accordingly.  Six SEC teams in the top 25.

[bearcathog]

At any rate, I see you guys are very excited for the program to be where it is under Houston Nutt.  You guys act like last year was the greatest season in the history of the Hogs.  It wasn't.  Sure it is tougher now, Frank chose to leave a crumbling SWC and join the toughest conference in football.  We are now running with the big dogs but we need to run a little bit faster.

Don't paint me in that picture, I'm discussing History, not the "Dork".

However, I am excited to be ranked again, last year was great especially compared to where we were in 2004 and 2005.

[Hogginitall]

That West Virginia team also won their bowl game against ACC runner up GaTech didn't they?  In '05, I think they beat SEC champ Georgia didn't they?  I guess they forgot they were supposed to fold up after conference play.

Tell me how SEC teams play against 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation.  What are the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation that we play this year?    Maybe that is the part I am missing.

Do you think Arkansas' #15 ranking was a fair assessment last year (considering that they played in the SEC and everything)?  I think we deserved to be where we were.  We were the highest ranked team with 4 losses (we play in the SEC, get it)  We were ranked well ahead of 11-2 TCU because they play in a weak conference. 

The voters know who we play and how we play them and we are ranked accordingly.  Six SEC teams in the top 25.

Could be Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina this year.  If we play in the SECCG, could be Georgia, Florida, Tennessee again, or South Carolina again.  If we make it to the Sugar Bowl or Capital One Bowl, could be Michigan, Ohio St, Wisconsin, Louisville, or West Virginia.

Again, stop misdefining my argument.  I'm not saying that West Virginia should "fold up" when they play a good team (and I'm not convinced that Georgia Tech was that good of a team, Maryland either).  They can play with anybody in a one-game series.

What I've been saying is that they don't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season as Arkansas does.  Just like Arkansas didn't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season when they played in the SWC as the SEC teams did.

Yes I think we were ranked correctly at the end of the season.  And I also think we deserved to be ranked higher than a 2-loss TCU team.  They lost to BYU (11-2) and Utah (8-5), but only beat two teams with winning records the ENTIRE SEASON.  They beat Texas Tech (8-5) and Northern Illinois (7-6).  So, yes Arkansas was ranked ahead of a 2-loss TCU team, but it was because they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC.

[RazorsEdge]

That West Virginia team also won their bowl game against ACC runner up GaTech didn't they?  In '05, I think they beat SEC champ Georgia didn't they?  I guess they forgot they were supposed to fold up after conference play.

Tell me how SEC teams play against 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation.  What are the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation that we play this year?    Maybe that is the part I am missing.

Do you think Arkansas' #15 ranking was a fair assessment last year (considering that they played in the SEC and everything)?  I think we deserved to be where we were.  We were the highest ranked team with 4 losses (we play in the SEC, get it)  We were ranked well ahead of 11-2 TCU because they play in a weak conference. 

The voters know who we play and how we play them and we are ranked accordingly.  Six SEC teams in the top 25.

Could be Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina this year.  If we play in the SECCG, could be Georgia, Florida, Tennessee again, or South Carolina again.  If we make it to the Sugar Bowl or Capital One Bowl, could be Michigan, Ohio St, Wisconsin, Louisville, or West Virginia.

Again, stop misdefining my argument.  I'm not saying that West Virginia should "fold up" when they play a good team (and I'm not convinced that Georgia Tech was that good of a team, Maryland either).  They can play with anybody in a one-game series.

What I've been saying is that they don't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season as Arkansas does.  Just like Arkansas didn't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season when they played in the SWC as the SEC teams did.

Yes I think we were ranked correctly at the end of the season.  And I also think we deserved to be ranked higher than a 2-loss TCU team.  They lost to BYU (11-2) and Utah (8-5), but only beat two teams with winning records the ENTIRE SEASON.  They beat Texas Tech (8-5) and Northern Illinois (7-6).  So, yes Arkansas was ranked ahead of a 2-loss TCU team, but it was because they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC.

There are a lot of could be's in that.  And I didn't think we were talking about post season, otherwise it could be endless.  You said SEC teams were "playing against usually 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation."  While the SEC usually has 6 teams in the top 25 we thankfully don't play everyone in conference.  Who were the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation we played last year (scheduled conference games)?  LSU, Auburn and Tenn

"they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC."  So you are clearly saying Arkansas was overrated when we were ranked while playing in the SWC.  How old are you, I asked earlier?  It must be hard being a Hog fan and feeling like our past was inflated and we weren't as good as the national media polls indicate.

I would like to add, I find your lack of respect for the accomplishments of past Razorback teams sickening.  I suppose you feel like the players who made All-American or All-Conference didn't achieve as much since it was against such far inferior competition.  I may not feel like our current head coach is the right guy to lead this team, but I will never get on here and argue that our teams didn't deserve every ounce of recognition they received.  I have been a fan all my life and believe me, when we were in the SWC our most frequent complaint was not getting the respect we deserved in the polls.  Had I only known that a few Arkansas fans in the future would be saying we were overrated in order to justify the current coach's record.

[Hogginitall]

That West Virginia team also won their bowl game against ACC runner up GaTech didn't they?  In '05, I think they beat SEC champ Georgia didn't they?  I guess they forgot they were supposed to fold up after conference play.

Tell me how SEC teams play against 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation.  What are the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation that we play this year?    Maybe that is the part I am missing.

Do you think Arkansas' #15 ranking was a fair assessment last year (considering that they played in the SEC and everything)?  I think we deserved to be where we were.  We were the highest ranked team with 4 losses (we play in the SEC, get it)  We were ranked well ahead of 11-2 TCU because they play in a weak conference. 

The voters know who we play and how we play them and we are ranked accordingly.  Six SEC teams in the top 25.

Could be Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina this year.  If we play in the SECCG, could be Georgia, Florida, Tennessee again, or South Carolina again.  If we make it to the Sugar Bowl or Capital One Bowl, could be Michigan, Ohio St, Wisconsin, Louisville, or West Virginia.

Again, stop misdefining my argument.  I'm not saying that West Virginia should "fold up" when they play a good team (and I'm not convinced that Georgia Tech was that good of a team, Maryland either).  They can play with anybody in a one-game series.

What I've been saying is that they don't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season as Arkansas does.  Just like Arkansas didn't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season when they played in the SWC as the SEC teams did.

Yes I think we were ranked correctly at the end of the season.  And I also think we deserved to be ranked higher than a 2-loss TCU team.  They lost to BYU (11-2) and Utah (8-5), but only beat two teams with winning records the ENTIRE SEASON.  They beat Texas Tech (8-5) and Northern Illinois (7-6).  So, yes Arkansas was ranked ahead of a 2-loss TCU team, but it was because they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC.

There are a lot of could be's in that.  And I didn't think we were talking about post season, otherwise it could be endless.  You said SEC teams were "playing against usually 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation."  While the SEC usually has 6 teams in the top 25 we thankfully don't play everyone in conference.  Who were the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation we played last year (scheduled conference games)?  LSU, Auburn and Tenn

"they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC."  So you are clearly saying Arkansas was overrated when we were ranked while playing in the SWC.  How old are you, I asked earlier?  It must be hard being a Hog fan and feeling like our past was inflated and we weren't as good as the national media polls indicate.

I would like to add, I find your lack of respect for the accomplishments of past Razorback teams sickening.  I suppose you feel like the players who made All-American or All-Conference didn't achieve as much since it was against such far inferior competition.  I may not feel like our current head coach is the right guy to lead this team, but I will never get on here and argue that our teams didn't deserve every ounce of recognition they received.  I have been a fan all my life and believe me, when we were in the SWC our most frequent complaint was not getting the respect we deserved in the polls.  Had I only known that a few Arkansas fans in the future would be saying we were overrated in order to justify the current coach's record.

I include everybody that a team plays.  It just so happens that if you play in the SEC you are going to have to play against MORE OF THE TOP TEAMS than if you play in some other conference.  That's just the way it is.  In conference last year, we played against Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU in the regular season.  Then, since we have a championship game now, we played against the eventual national champions in that.  So that's 4 teams that we played from the top 25 at the end of the season.  Also, OOC we played USC and Wisconsin.  I have been including the postseason games in ALL of the stats that I have been providing, unless I specified otherwise.

"There are a lot of could be's in that"----What do you want me to do, be a fortune teller?  I don't know which teams will be ranked highly out of the SEC, or any other league for that matter, but those are the teams that have the best shot in my opinion.

"I would like to add, I find your lack of respect for the accomplishments of past Razorback teams sickening.  I suppose you feel like the players who made All-American or All-Conference didn't achieve as much since it was against such far inferior competition."-----I have disrespected no one by telling the truth.  I am not taking anything away from past teams.  I am, however, trying to show that NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, it is much harder to have a high win % in the current SEC than it was to have one back in the old SWC.  If you want to take it as being disrespectful or lacking respect for Arkansas' teams that played during that era, fine.  But, it is the truth.

"I have been a fan all my life and believe me, when we were in the SWC our most frequent complaint was not getting the respect we deserved in the polls.  Had I only known that a few Arkansas fans in the future would be saying we were overrated in order to justify the current coach's record."----Wonder why we didn't get the "respect we deserved"?  I know why, I'm just waiting on you and others like you to figure it out.  It's because the SWC was NOT THAT STRONG OF A CONFERENCE.

[RazorsEdge]

That West Virginia team also won their bowl game against ACC runner up GaTech didn't they?  In '05, I think they beat SEC champ Georgia didn't they?  I guess they forgot they were supposed to fold up after conference play.

Tell me how SEC teams play against 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation.  What are the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation that we play this year?    Maybe that is the part I am missing.

Do you think Arkansas' #15 ranking was a fair assessment last year (considering that they played in the SEC and everything)?  I think we deserved to be where we were.  We were the highest ranked team with 4 losses (we play in the SEC, get it)  We were ranked well ahead of 11-2 TCU because they play in a weak conference. 

The voters know who we play and how we play them and we are ranked accordingly.  Six SEC teams in the top 25.

Could be Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina this year.  If we play in the SECCG, could be Georgia, Florida, Tennessee again, or South Carolina again.  If we make it to the Sugar Bowl or Capital One Bowl, could be Michigan, Ohio St, Wisconsin, Louisville, or West Virginia.

Again, stop misdefining my argument.  I'm not saying that West Virginia should "fold up" when they play a good team (and I'm not convinced that Georgia Tech was that good of a team, Maryland either).  They can play with anybody in a one-game series.

What I've been saying is that they don't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season as Arkansas does.  Just like Arkansas didn't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season when they played in the SWC as the SEC teams did.

Yes I think we were ranked correctly at the end of the season.  And I also think we deserved to be ranked higher than a 2-loss TCU team.  They lost to BYU (11-2) and Utah (8-5), but only beat two teams with winning records the ENTIRE SEASON.  They beat Texas Tech (8-5) and Northern Illinois (7-6).  So, yes Arkansas was ranked ahead of a 2-loss TCU team, but it was because they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC.

There are a lot of could be's in that.  And I didn't think we were talking about post season, otherwise it could be endless.  You said SEC teams were "playing against usually 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation."  While the SEC usually has 6 teams in the top 25 we thankfully don't play everyone in conference.  Who were the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation we played last year (scheduled conference games)?  LSU, Auburn and Tenn

"they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC."  So you are clearly saying Arkansas was overrated when we were ranked while playing in the SWC.  How old are you, I asked earlier?  It must be hard being a Hog fan and feeling like our past was inflated and we weren't as good as the national media polls indicate.

I would like to add, I find your lack of respect for the accomplishments of past Razorback teams sickening.  I suppose you feel like the players who made All-American or All-Conference didn't achieve as much since it was against such far inferior competition.  I may not feel like our current head coach is the right guy to lead this team, but I will never get on here and argue that our teams didn't deserve every ounce of recognition they received.  I have been a fan all my life and believe me, when we were in the SWC our most frequent complaint was not getting the respect we deserved in the polls.  Had I only known that a few Arkansas fans in the future would be saying we were overrated in order to justify the current coach's record.

I include everybody that a team plays.  It just so happens that if you play in the SEC you are going to have to play against MORE OF THE TOP TEAMS than if you play in some other conference.  That's just the way it is.  In conference last year, we played against Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU in the regular season.  Then, since we have a championship game now, we played against the eventual national champions in that.  So that's 4 teams that we played from the top 25 at the end of the season.  Also, OOC we played USC and Wisconsin.  I have been including the postseason games in ALL of the stats that I have been providing, unless I specified otherwise.

"There are a lot of could be's in that"----What do you want me to do, be a fortune teller?  I don't know which teams will be ranked highly out of the SEC, or any other league for that matter, but those are the teams that have the best shot in my opinion.

"I would like to add, I find your lack of respect for the accomplishments of past Razorback teams sickening.  I suppose you feel like the players who made All-American or All-Conference didn't achieve as much since it was against such far inferior competition."-----I have disrespected noone by telling the truth.  I am not taking anything away from past teams.  I am, however, trying to show that NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, it is much harder to have a high win % in the current SEC than it was to have one back in the old SWC.  If you want to take it as being disrespectful or lacking respect for Arkansas' teams that played during that era, fine.  But, it is the truth.

"I have been a fan all my life and believe me, when we were in the SWC our most frequent complaint was not getting the respect we deserved in the polls.  Had I only known that a few Arkansas fans in the future would be saying we were overrated in order to justify the current coach's record."----Wonder why we didn't get the "respect we deserved"?  I know why, I'm just waiting on you and others like you to figure it out.  It's because the SWC was NOT THAT STRONG OF A CONFERENCE.

How old are you?

[311Hog]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

I'm not dumping on anything, I'm stating facts.  Arkansas had it much easier in the SWC than we have it now.  It was much easier to APPEAR to be a "premeire program" in the SWC than it is in the SEC (due to not being able to post gaudy records as easily).

The football program under Houston Nutt is no lower than it was under Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield.  It just appears to be that way due to the increased competition within the conference that we are now associated with.

End of story, period.

this is the most dellusional post i have ever read BROYLES WON A PHUCKING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DO YOU THINK HOUSTON NUTT CAN EVEN SPELL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?

I DONT CARE IF BROYLES PLAYED NAIA SCHOOLS HE STILL WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

I dare you to ask ANYONE even Rick Shaffer himself will laugh in your face if you brought out this garbage.

[311Hog]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

Leave the "Dork" out of this argument.

Revisionist history doesn't change the facts.

Answer this:  How many times has UA ever been Ranked #1 or #2 in a National Poll since 1970?

i can tell you how many times we have been ranked #1 or #2 in a national poll since HDN took over as head coach.

[Hogginitall]

That West Virginia team also won their bowl game against ACC runner up GaTech didn't they?  In '05, I think they beat SEC champ Georgia didn't they?  I guess they forgot they were supposed to fold up after conference play.

Tell me how SEC teams play against 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation.  What are the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation that we play this year?    Maybe that is the part I am missing.

Do you think Arkansas' #15 ranking was a fair assessment last year (considering that they played in the SEC and everything)?  I think we deserved to be where we were.  We were the highest ranked team with 4 losses (we play in the SEC, get it)  We were ranked well ahead of 11-2 TCU because they play in a weak conference. 

The voters know who we play and how we play them and we are ranked accordingly.  Six SEC teams in the top 25.

Could be Auburn, LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, or South Carolina this year.  If we play in the SECCG, could be Georgia, Florida, Tennessee again, or South Carolina again.  If we make it to the Sugar Bowl or Capital One Bowl, could be Michigan, Ohio St, Wisconsin, Louisville, or West Virginia.

Again, stop misdefining my argument.  I'm not saying that West Virginia should "fold up" when they play a good team (and I'm not convinced that Georgia Tech was that good of a team, Maryland either).  They can play with anybody in a one-game series.

What I've been saying is that they don't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season as Arkansas does.  Just like Arkansas didn't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season when they played in the SWC as the SEC teams did.

Yes I think we were ranked correctly at the end of the season.  And I also think we deserved to be ranked higher than a 2-loss TCU team.  They lost to BYU (11-2) and Utah (8-5), but only beat two teams with winning records the ENTIRE SEASON.  They beat Texas Tech (8-5) and Northern Illinois (7-6).  So, yes Arkansas was ranked ahead of a 2-loss TCU team, but it was because they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC.

There are a lot of could be's in that.  And I didn't think we were talking about post season, otherwise it could be endless.  You said SEC teams were "playing against usually 4,5,6 of the best teams in the nation."  While the SEC usually has 6 teams in the top 25 we thankfully don't play everyone in conference.  Who were the 4,5,6 best teams in the nation we played last year (scheduled conference games)?  LSU, Auburn and Tenn

"they played a bunch of nobodies the entire season and lost to the only 2 decent teams they played.......LIKE ARKANSAS USED TO DO WHEN WE WERE IN THE SWC."  So you are clearly saying Arkansas was overrated when we were ranked while playing in the SWC.  How old are you, I asked earlier?  It must be hard being a Hog fan and feeling like our past was inflated and we weren't as good as the national media polls indicate.

I would like to add, I find your lack of respect for the accomplishments of past Razorback teams sickening.  I suppose you feel like the players who made All-American or All-Conference didn't achieve as much since it was against such far inferior competition.  I may not feel like our current head coach is the right guy to lead this team, but I will never get on here and argue that our teams didn't deserve every ounce of recognition they received.  I have been a fan all my life and believe me, when we were in the SWC our most frequent complaint was not getting the respect we deserved in the polls.  Had I only known that a few Arkansas fans in the future would be saying we were overrated in order to justify the current coach's record.

I include everybody that a team plays.  It just so happens that if you play in the SEC you are going to have to play against MORE OF THE TOP TEAMS than if you play in some other conference.  That's just the way it is.  In conference last year, we played against Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU in the regular season.  Then, since we have a championship game now, we played against the eventual national champions in that.  So that's 4 teams that we played from the top 25 at the end of the season.  Also, OOC we played USC and Wisconsin.  I have been including the postseason games in ALL of the stats that I have been providing, unless I specified otherwise.

"There are a lot of could be's in that"----What do you want me to do, be a fortune teller?  I don't know which teams will be ranked highly out of the SEC, or any other league for that matter, but those are the teams that have the best shot in my opinion.

"I would like to add, I find your lack of respect for the accomplishments of past Razorback teams sickening.  I suppose you feel like the players who made All-American or All-Conference didn't achieve as much since it was against such far inferior competition."-----I have disrespected noone by telling the truth.  I am not taking anything away from past teams.  I am, however, trying to show that NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, it is much harder to have a high win % in the current SEC than it was to have one back in the old SWC.  If you want to take it as being disrespectful or lacking respect for Arkansas' teams that played during that era, fine.  But, it is the truth.

"I have been a fan all my life and believe me, when we were in the SWC our most frequent complaint was not getting the respect we deserved in the polls.  Had I only known that a few Arkansas fans in the future would be saying we were overrated in order to justify the current coach's record."----Wonder why we didn't get the "respect we deserved"?  I know why, I'm just waiting on you and others like you to figure it out.  It's because the SWC was NOT THAT STRONG OF A CONFERENCE.

How old are you?

68, what does it matter?

[Hogginitall]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

I'm not dumping on anything, I'm stating facts.  Arkansas had it much easier in the SWC than we have it now.  It was much easier to APPEAR to be a "premeire program" in the SWC than it is in the SEC (due to not being able to post gaudy records as easily).

The football program under Houston Nutt is no lower than it was under Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield.  It just appears to be that way due to the increased competition within the conference that we are now associated with.

End of story, period.

this is the most dellusional post i have ever read BROYLES WON A PHUCKING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DO YOU THINK HOUSTON NUTT CAN EVEN SPELL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?

I DONT CARE IF BROYLES PLAYED NAIA SCHOOLS HE STILL WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

I dare you to ask ANYONE even Rick Shaffer himself will laugh in your face if you brought out this garbage.

And take a look at that schedule:

1964-Arkansas (SWC)

9/19 vs. Oklahoma State (4-6) W 14 10 @ Little Rock, AR
9/26 vs. Tulsa (9-2) W 31 22
10/3 @ *Texas Christian (4-6) W 29 6
10/10 vs. *Baylor (5-5) W 17 6 @ Little Rock, AR
10/17 @ *Texas (10-1) W 14 13
10/24 vs. Wichita State (4-6) W 17 0 @ Little Rock, AR
10/31 @ *Texas A&M (1-9) W 17 0
11/7 vs. *Rice (4-5-1) W 21 0
11/14 vs. *Southern Methodist (1-9) W 44 0
11/21 @ *Texas Tech (6-4-1) W 17 0
1/1 vs. Nebraska (9-2) W 10 7 @ Dallas, TX Cotton Bowl
  11-0-0
   231 64

We played FOUR teams with winning record!!!

[311Hog]

"What I've been saying is that they don't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season as Arkansas does.  Just like Arkansas didn't play as many quality teams throughout the entire season when they played in the SWC as the SEC teams did."



This is where your argument fails.  You are trying to compare an era (SWC) saying there werent as many quality teams, compared to the (SEC) of today.

<<<NEWS FLASH>>>

THAT IS A FACT FOR ALL SCHOOLS THAT PLAYED IN THIS ERA. It is a simple fact that during this time period there were no "power conferences" that contained 6 to 9 "quality" teams. Every conference in the country during that time period had 2 to 3 strong programs and the rest were fodder.

This is why no one is listening to your point, is because they know that back in the Day there were only 25 LEGIT PROGRAMS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, where as today you could make an argument for 50 or more programs being so close to each other it is indistinguishable.

[311Hog]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

I'm not dumping on anything, I'm stating facts.  Arkansas had it much easier in the SWC than we have it now.  It was much easier to APPEAR to be a "premeire program" in the SWC than it is in the SEC (due to not being able to post gaudy records as easily).

The football program under Houston Nutt is no lower than it was under Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield.  It just appears to be that way due to the increased competition within the conference that we are now associated with.

End of story, period.

this is the most dellusional post i have ever read BROYLES WON A PHUCKING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DO YOU THINK HOUSTON NUTT CAN EVEN SPELL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?

I DONT CARE IF BROYLES PLAYED NAIA SCHOOLS HE STILL WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

I dare you to ask ANYONE even Rick Shaffer himself will laugh in your face if you brought out this garbage.

And take a look at that schedule:

1964-Arkansas (SWC)

9/19 vs. Oklahoma State (4-6) W 14 10 @ Little Rock, AR
9/26 vs. Tulsa (9-2) W 31 22
10/3 @ *Texas Christian (4-6) W 29 6
10/10 vs. *Baylor (5-5) W 17 6 @ Little Rock, AR
10/17 @ *Texas (10-1) W 14 13
10/24 vs. Wichita State (4-6) W 17 0 @ Little Rock, AR
10/31 @ *Texas A&M (1-9) W 17 0
11/7 vs. *Rice (4-5-1) W 21 0
11/14 vs. *Southern Methodist (1-9) W 44 0
11/21 @ *Texas Tech (6-4-1) W 17 0
1/1 vs. Nebraska (9-2) W 10 7 @ Dallas, TX Cotton Bowl
  11-0-0
   231 64

We played FOUR teams with winning record!!!

I DONT CARE IF WE PLAYED NO TEAMS WITH A WINNING RECORD A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IS UNDISPUTABLE.

Here is Houston Nutt - no championships

Here is Frank Broyles - 1 national championship

THEY ARENT EVEN IN THE SAME BALL PARK.

[Hogginitall]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

I'm not dumping on anything, I'm stating facts.  Arkansas had it much easier in the SWC than we have it now.  It was much easier to APPEAR to be a "premeire program" in the SWC than it is in the SEC (due to not being able to post gaudy records as easily).

The football program under Houston Nutt is no lower than it was under Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield.  It just appears to be that way due to the increased competition within the conference that we are now associated with.

End of story, period.

this is the most dellusional post i have ever read BROYLES WON A PHUCKING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DO YOU THINK HOUSTON NUTT CAN EVEN SPELL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?

I DONT CARE IF BROYLES PLAYED NAIA SCHOOLS HE STILL WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

I dare you to ask ANYONE even Rick Shaffer himself will laugh in your face if you brought out this garbage.

And take a look at that schedule:

1964-Arkansas (SWC)

9/19 vs. Oklahoma State (4-6) W 14 10 @ Little Rock, AR
9/26 vs. Tulsa (9-2) W 31 22
10/3 @ *Texas Christian (4-6) W 29 6
10/10 vs. *Baylor (5-5) W 17 6 @ Little Rock, AR
10/17 @ *Texas (10-1) W 14 13
10/24 vs. Wichita State (4-6) W 17 0 @ Little Rock, AR
10/31 @ *Texas A&M (1-9) W 17 0
11/7 vs. *Rice (4-5-1) W 21 0
11/14 vs. *Southern Methodist (1-9) W 44 0
11/21 @ *Texas Tech (6-4-1) W 17 0
1/1 vs. Nebraska (9-2) W 10 7 @ Dallas, TX Cotton Bowl
  11-0-0
   231 64

We played FOUR teams with winning record!!!

I DONT CARE IF WE PLAYED NO TEAMS WITH A WINNING RECORD A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IS UNDISPUTABLE.

Here is Houston Nutt - no championships

Here is Frank Broyles - 1 national championship

THEY ARENT EVEN IN THE SAME BALL PARK.

I know you don't and that's where we differ. 

[311Hog]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

I'm not dumping on anything, I'm stating facts.  Arkansas had it much easier in the SWC than we have it now.  It was much easier to APPEAR to be a "premeire program" in the SWC than it is in the SEC (due to not being able to post gaudy records as easily).

The football program under Houston Nutt is no lower than it was under Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield.  It just appears to be that way due to the increased competition within the conference that we are now associated with.

End of story, period.

this is the most dellusional post i have ever read BROYLES WON A PHUCKING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DO YOU THINK HOUSTON NUTT CAN EVEN SPELL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?

I DONT CARE IF BROYLES PLAYED NAIA SCHOOLS HE STILL WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

I dare you to ask ANYONE even Rick Shaffer himself will laugh in your face if you brought out this garbage.

And take a look at that schedule:

1964-Arkansas (SWC)

9/19 vs. Oklahoma State (4-6) W 14 10 @ Little Rock, AR
9/26 vs. Tulsa (9-2) W 31 22
10/3 @ *Texas Christian (4-6) W 29 6
10/10 vs. *Baylor (5-5) W 17 6 @ Little Rock, AR
10/17 @ *Texas (10-1) W 14 13
10/24 vs. Wichita State (4-6) W 17 0 @ Little Rock, AR
10/31 @ *Texas A&M (1-9) W 17 0
11/7 vs. *Rice (4-5-1) W 21 0
11/14 vs. *Southern Methodist (1-9) W 44 0
11/21 @ *Texas Tech (6-4-1) W 17 0
1/1 vs. Nebraska (9-2) W 10 7 @ Dallas, TX Cotton Bowl
  11-0-0
   231 64

We played FOUR teams with winning record!!!

I DONT CARE IF WE PLAYED NO TEAMS WITH A WINNING RECORD A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IS UNDISPUTABLE.

Here is Houston Nutt - no championships

Here is Frank Broyles - 1 national championship

THEY ARENT EVEN IN THE SAME BALL PARK.

I know you don't and that's where we differ. 

Undefeated season, point to me one season in which HDN didnt lose at least 4 games?

National Championship DIVISION ONE, point to me where HDN has won a championship of any kind.

The program isnt even in the same galaxy as it once was.

[Hogginitall]

Looks like there were plenty of "dominant" teams in the SEC at that time.

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]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

I'm not dumping on anything, I'm stating facts.  Arkansas had it much easier in the SWC than we have it now.  It was much easier to APPEAR to be a "premeire program" in the SWC than it is in the SEC (due to not being able to post gaudy records as easily).

The football program under Houston Nutt is no lower than it was under Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield.  It just appears to be that way due to the increased competition within the conference that we are now associated with.

End of story, period.

this is the most dellusional post i have ever read BROYLES WON A PHUCKING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DO YOU THINK HOUSTON NUTT CAN EVEN SPELL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?

I DONT CARE IF BROYLES PLAYED NAIA SCHOOLS HE STILL WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

I dare you to ask ANYONE even Rick Shaffer himself will laugh in your face if you brought out this garbage.

And take a look at that schedule:

1964-Arkansas (SWC)

9/19 vs. Oklahoma State (4-6) W 14 10 @ Little Rock, AR
9/26 vs. Tulsa (9-2) W 31 22
10/3 @ *Texas Christian (4-6) W 29 6
10/10 vs. *Baylor (5-5) W 17 6 @ Little Rock, AR
10/17 @ *Texas (10-1) W 14 13
10/24 vs. Wichita State (4-6) W 17 0 @ Little Rock, AR
10/31 @ *Texas A&M (1-9) W 17 0
11/7 vs. *Rice (4-5-1) W 21 0
11/14 vs. *Southern Methodist (1-9) W 44 0
11/21 @ *Texas Tech (6-4-1) W 17 0
1/1 vs. Nebraska (9-2) W 10 7 @ Dallas, TX Cotton Bowl
  11-0-0
   231 64

We played FOUR teams with winning record!!!

I DONT CARE IF WE PLAYED NO TEAMS WITH A WINNING RECORD A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IS UNDISPUTABLE.

Here is Houston Nutt - no championships

Here is Frank Broyles - 1 national championship

THEY ARENT EVEN IN THE SAME BALL PARK.

I know you don't and that's where we differ. 

Undefeated season, point to me one season in which HDN didnt lose at least 4 games?

National Championship DIVISION ONE, point to me where HDN has won a championship of any kind.

The program isnt even in the same galaxy as it once was.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!  It's because we actually have to play a few teams with a winning record, unlike the days gone by in the SWC.  All you had to do was beat 3 good teams back then to win a national championship.  Beat Texas, the one other team that was good in the SWC that year, and then your bowl game.

[RazorsEdge]

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

[311Hog]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

I'm not dumping on anything, I'm stating facts.  Arkansas had it much easier in the SWC than we have it now.  It was much easier to APPEAR to be a "premeire program" in the SWC than it is in the SEC (due to not being able to post gaudy records as easily).

The football program under Houston Nutt is no lower than it was under Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield.  It just appears to be that way due to the increased competition within the conference that we are now associated with.

End of story, period.

this is the most dellusional post i have ever read BROYLES WON A PHUCKING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DO YOU THINK HOUSTON NUTT CAN EVEN SPELL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?

I DONT CARE IF BROYLES PLAYED NAIA SCHOOLS HE STILL WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

I dare you to ask ANYONE even Rick Shaffer himself will laugh in your face if you brought out this garbage.

And take a look at that schedule:

1964-Arkansas (SWC)

9/19 vs. Oklahoma State (4-6) W 14 10 @ Little Rock, AR
9/26 vs. Tulsa (9-2) W 31 22
10/3 @ *Texas Christian (4-6) W 29 6
10/10 vs. *Baylor (5-5) W 17 6 @ Little Rock, AR
10/17 @ *Texas (10-1) W 14 13
10/24 vs. Wichita State (4-6) W 17 0 @ Little Rock, AR
10/31 @ *Texas A&M (1-9) W 17 0
11/7 vs. *Rice (4-5-1) W 21 0
11/14 vs. *Southern Methodist (1-9) W 44 0
11/21 @ *Texas Tech (6-4-1) W 17 0
1/1 vs. Nebraska (9-2) W 10 7 @ Dallas, TX Cotton Bowl
  11-0-0
   231 64

We played FOUR teams with winning record!!!

I DONT CARE IF WE PLAYED NO TEAMS WITH A WINNING RECORD A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP IS UNDISPUTABLE.

Here is Houston Nutt - no championships

Here is Frank Broyles - 1 national championship

THEY ARENT EVEN IN THE SAME BALL PARK.

I know you don't and that's where we differ. 

Undefeated season, point to me one season in which HDN didnt lose at least 4 games?

National Championship DIVISION ONE, point to me where HDN has won a championship of any kind.

The program isnt even in the same galaxy as it once was.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!  It's because we actually have to play a few teams with a winning record, unlike the days gone by in the SWC.  All you had to do was beat 3 good teams back then to win a national championship.  Beat Texas, the one other team that was good in the SWC that year, and then your bowl game.

What were the other programs around the country doing while Broyles Team "Beat 3 good teams" and won a national title?

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the PAC 10, ACC, Big 8, Big East, SEC all just sat back and watched or had play so many more "good teams" that they couldnt compete for the national title?

That is what you are saying isnt it? dont you realize how fracking stupid that sounds?


Here is all the example you need, the Hogs WON TEN GAMES OMG ......

and didnt even go to a bowl game one time during this era.

Edit: sorry i was wrong in 1970 they went 9-2 and no bowl game but still.

Back then there were what? 10 bowls total today there are 30 or more.

[bearcathog]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

Leave the "Dork" out of this argument.

Revisionist history doesn't change the facts.

Answer this:  How many times has UA ever been Ranked #1 or #2 in a National Poll since 1970?

i can tell you how many times we have been ranked #1 or #2 in a national poll since HDN took over as head coach.

I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS NUTT.

I AM Talking SWC in the 1970s and 1980s.

JESUS H CHRIST.

ARE YOU SO MORONIC YOU CAN NOT STAY ON SUBJECT?

[311Hog]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

I'm not dumping on anything, I'm stating facts.  Arkansas had it much easier in the SWC than we have it now.  It was much easier to APPEAR to be a "premeire program" in the SWC than it is in the SEC (due to not being able to post gaudy records as easily).

The football program under Houston Nutt is no lower than it was under Broyles, Holtz, or Hatfield.  It just appears to be that way due to the increased competition within the conference that we are now associated with.

End of story, period.

this is the most dellusional post i have ever read BROYLES WON A PHUCKING NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DO YOU THINK HOUSTON NUTT CAN EVEN SPELL NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?

I DONT CARE IF BROYLES PLAYED NAIA SCHOOLS HE STILL WON THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

I dare you to ask ANYONE even Rick Shaffer himself will laugh in your face if you brought out this garbage.

I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS NUTT.

I AM Talking SWC in the 1970s and 1980s.

JESUS H CHRIST.

ARE YOU SO MORONIC YOU CAN NOT STAY ON SUBJECT?

are you so moronic you cant even figure out i wasnt talking to you?

[razorback93]

A team can't time travel and play opponents from the past or future.  Comparing different era is pointless.  No one on here is saying Arkansas is Notre Dame, or USC, but at one time we were a much more consistent player on the national stage, especially in the 60's.  In the 60's, we were a top five program.  Throughout the 70's and 80's we were a frequent member of the top twenty.  It seems as if some people's memory doesn't go past 1990.  The SWC was a respectable conference from the 60's through the mid-80's, and Arkansas was consistently in the top 3 of that conference.  Most years it was us, texas, a&m, and then Houston, Baylor, TT, and SMU had decent teams at times.  Was it a powerhouse like the SEC?  Maybe not.  But it was not a league of pansies either.  At the same time, the Miami and OU games in the eighties exposed our lack of big time talent.   Those games proved we had a ways to go to play with the big boys.  Yes, it is harder to break through in SEC, but not impossible.  Anyway, that's the league we are in so we need to just do what we have to do to "Get bettah."

[bearcathog]

The point is you do not understand "context" and "situation".

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's we were ranked in the top 10 top 25 people around the nation considered the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

Now fast forward to today. THe hogs are not a top 10 or top 25 program, people around the nation do not consider the Hogs to be a "premier" program.

You can compare winning %'s across decades all you want but the above it the PURE FACTS of the matter.  They illustrate that yes even though the opponents got tougher relatively speaking in the 90's and today, the regard and over all perception of the program back in the 60's and 70's was much much much higher.

People now see Arkansas for what it truely is, a mediocre team in a great conference.

Well said!

for the 70s and 80s we finished unranked(45%)of the time that's premier.

For the '70s and '80s we were very often in the conversation when pundits were discussing who would be in the mix for the National Title at season's end.

What years were we in the mix at the end of the year?

The best I remember in 1978 we were #3(our highest year end ranking since 1964)after beating #1 Oklahoma and we were like 25 point underdogs.

I love it!  This is what it has come to.  Nutt supporters dumping all over our history to support the loser coach we have now! 

Awesome!  Did you do the same for Danny Ford and Jack Crowe?

Leave the "Dork" out of this argument.

Revisionist history doesn't change the facts.

Answer this:  How many times has UA ever been Ranked #1 or #2 in a National Poll since 1970?

^{i can tell you how many times we have been ranked #1 or #2 in a national poll since HDN took over as head coach.}

[/sup]
I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS NUTT.

I AM Talking SWC in the 1970s and 1980s.

JESUS H CHRIST.

ARE YOU SO MORONIC YOU CAN NOT STAY ON SUBJECT?

I was replying to your remark in red but was a moron my self and clicked the wrong damn quote:

Sorry, but several times today discussing the old days, they have to throw out Nutt, I don't give a rats ass about Nutt, especially when I am discussing something else.

[311Hog]

im talking to the poster that thinks the Razorback football program under Nutt is "the same as it was under Broyles, Holtz, and Hatfield"

[Hogginitall]

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

Well, you shouldn't be shocked.  I'm not 68.  I'm 26.  I don't think you should draw any automatic conclusions from that, though.  I know you're just going to try and write me off due to my age.  I was enamored with the teams of the past when I was a little kid, especially the National Championship team.  However, now that I've gotten older and looked at things more objectively, I realized that our "winning tradition" in the past has a lot to do with the competition.  That's not to say I'm still not impressed or that they weren't good teams. 

I just hate hearing people try and say that our program has fallen a tremendous amount (especially without admitting that the current SEC is a lot tougher than the old SWC) and if we're ever going to get back to the level we once were, we're going to have to get rid of Nutt.  We did fall in the early 90's....but we're bouncing back and last year was proof that we're almost there (at least for me).

It's just silly to try and say that it was just as tough to win a national championship or conference championship in the old SWC as it is now in the SEC.  It's just not true.

[311Hog]

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

Well, you shouldn't be shocked.  I'm not 68.  I'm 26.  I don't think you should draw any automatic conclusions from that, though.  I know you're just going to try and write me off due to my age.  I was enamored with the teams of the past when I was a little kid, especially the National Championship team.  However, now that I've gotten older and looked at things more objectively, I realized that our "winning tradition" in the past has a lot to do with the competition.  That's not to say I'm still not impressed or that they weren't good teams. 

I just hate hearing people try and say that our program has fallen a tremendous amount (especially without admitting that the current SEC is a lot tougher than the old SWC) and if we're ever going to get back to the level we once were, we're going to have to get rid of Nutt.  We did fall in the early 90's....but we're bouncing back and last year was proof that we're almost there (at least for me).

It's just silly to try and say that it was just as tough to win a national championship or conference championship in the old SWC as it is now in the SEC.  It's just not true.

and it is silly to try and compare anything that happend before cable tv to a time after cable tv.

this knife cuts both ways. You are the type of person that "beats your chest" over SEC hype and SEC strength, and then turns around and whines and complains because the "SEC is so hard" it is so tough in the SEC. You cant have it both ways you take the good with the bad and you do your best.

The Reality is that yes as a program we have fallen, for the simple fact that no one around the country gives a rats a$$ about us. They care about Dmac, and when Dmac is gone so will we.

[Hogginitall]

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

Well, you shouldn't be shocked.  I'm not 68.  I'm 26.  I don't think you should draw any automatic conclusions from that, though.  I know you're just going to try and write me off due to my age.  I was enamored with the teams of the past when I was a little kid, especially the National Championship team.  However, now that I've gotten older and looked at things more objectively, I realized that our "winning tradition" in the past has a lot to do with the competition.  That's not to say I'm still not impressed or that they weren't good teams. 

I just hate hearing people try and say that our program has fallen a tremendous amount (especially without admitting that the current SEC is a lot tougher than the old SWC) and if we're ever going to get back to the level we once were, we're going to have to get rid of Nutt.  We did fall in the early 90's....but we're bouncing back and last year was proof that we're almost there (at least for me).

It's just silly to try and say that it was just as tough to win a national championship or conference championship in the old SWC as it is now in the SEC.  It's just not true.

and it is silly to try and compare anything that happend before cable tv to a time after cable tv.

this knife cuts both ways. You are the type of person that "beats your chest" over SEC hype and SEC strength, and then turns around and whines and complains because the "SEC is so hard" it is so tough in the SEC. You cant have it both ways you take the good with the bad and you do your best.

The Reality is that yes as a program we have fallen, for the simple fact that no one around the country gives a rats a$$ about us. They care about Dmac, and when Dmac is gone so will we.

I haven't "whined" about anything.  Not one thing.  It is a fact----THE SEC IS THE TOUGHEST CONFERENCE IN THE NATION.  I'm realistic when I say that the move to the SEC has kept us at a perceived "lower level" than where we were in the SWC BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PLAY SO MANY MORE QUALITY TEAMS THAN WE DID IN THE SWC.

[311Hog]

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

Well, you shouldn't be shocked.  I'm not 68.  I'm 26.  I don't think you should draw any automatic conclusions from that, though.  I know you're just going to try and write me off due to my age.  I was enamored with the teams of the past when I was a little kid, especially the National Championship team.  However, now that I've gotten older and looked at things more objectively, I realized that our "winning tradition" in the past has a lot to do with the competition.  That's not to say I'm still not impressed or that they weren't good teams. 

I just hate hearing people try and say that our program has fallen a tremendous amount (especially without admitting that the current SEC is a lot tougher than the old SWC) and if we're ever going to get back to the level we once were, we're going to have to get rid of Nutt.  We did fall in the early 90's....but we're bouncing back and last year was proof that we're almost there (at least for me).

It's just silly to try and say that it was just as tough to win a national championship or conference championship in the old SWC as it is now in the SEC.  It's just not true.

and it is silly to try and compare anything that happend before cable tv to a time after cable tv.

this knife cuts both ways. You are the type of person that "beats your chest" over SEC hype and SEC strength, and then turns around and whines and complains because the "SEC is so hard" it is so tough in the SEC. You cant have it both ways you take the good with the bad and you do your best.

The Reality is that yes as a program we have fallen, for the simple fact that no one around the country gives a rats a$$ about us. They care about Dmac, and when Dmac is gone so will we.

I haven't "whined" about anything.  Not one thing.  It is a fact----THE SEC IS THE TOUGHEST CONFERENCE IN THE NATION.  I'm realistic when I say that the move to the SEC has kept us at a perceived "lower level" than where we were in the SWC BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PLAY SO MANY MORE QUALITY TEAMS THAN WE DID IN THE SWC.

I disagree the move to the SEC is the only reason we are relevant at all on the National scene.  The fact is we as a program didnt recognize what the rest of the football world did. And that was the the systematic change in era's from when the SWC died to the creation of the Big 12 and the "new" SEC.


Usher in the age of the "power conference", the death of the independant.  We were not prepared in any aspect of the game for this change. We werent prepared financially, facilities, players, philosophies, nothing.

It isnt because the "SEC is so tough" it is because we were ignorant and lazy.

[Albert Einswine]

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

Well, you shouldn't be shocked.  I'm not 68.  I'm 26.  I don't think you should draw any automatic conclusions from that, though.  I know you're just going to try and write me off due to my age.  I was enamored with the teams of the past when I was a little kid, especially the National Championship team.  However, now that I've gotten older and looked at things more objectively, I realized that our "winning tradition" in the past has a lot to do with the competition.  That's not to say I'm still not impressed or that they weren't good teams. 

I just hate hearing people try and say that our program has fallen a tremendous amount (especially without admitting that the current SEC is a lot tougher than the old SWC) and if we're ever going to get back to the level we once were, we're going to have to get rid of Nutt.  We did fall in the early 90's....but we're bouncing back and last year was proof that we're almost there (at least for me).

It's just silly to try and say that it was just as tough to win a national championship or conference championship in the old SWC as it is now in the SEC.  It's just not true.

Your argument about the old SWC has to directly correlate to the old Big 8 and Pac 8 as well.  Oklahoma and Nebraska as well as USC and UCLA must necessarily have been overrated back in their day.

Especially OU and Neb.  It was them and 6 total doormats.  The Big 8 sucked so OU and Nebraska really don't have all that history.

[Hogginitall]

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

Well, you shouldn't be shocked.  I'm not 68.  I'm 26.  I don't think you should draw any automatic conclusions from that, though.  I know you're just going to try and write me off due to my age.  I was enamored with the teams of the past when I was a little kid, especially the National Championship team.  However, now that I've gotten older and looked at things more objectively, I realized that our "winning tradition" in the past has a lot to do with the competition.  That's not to say I'm still not impressed or that they weren't good teams. 

I just hate hearing people try and say that our program has fallen a tremendous amount (especially without admitting that the current SEC is a lot tougher than the old SWC) and if we're ever going to get back to the level we once were, we're going to have to get rid of Nutt.  We did fall in the early 90's....but we're bouncing back and last year was proof that we're almost there (at least for me).

It's just silly to try and say that it was just as tough to win a national championship or conference championship in the old SWC as it is now in the SEC.  It's just not true.

Your argument about the old SWC has to directly correlate to the old Big 8 and Pac 8 as well.  Oklahoma and Nebraska as well as USC and UCLA must necessarily have been overrated back in their day.

Especially OU and Neb.  It was them and 6 total doormats.  The Big 8 sucked so OU and Nebraska really don't have all that history.

Probably so.

[Albert Einswine]

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

Well, you shouldn't be shocked.  I'm not 68.  I'm 26.  I don't think you should draw any automatic conclusions from that, though.  I know you're just going to try and write me off due to my age.  I was enamored with the teams of the past when I was a little kid, especially the National Championship team.  However, now that I've gotten older and looked at things more objectively, I realized that our "winning tradition" in the past has a lot to do with the competition.  That's not to say I'm still not impressed or that they weren't good teams. 

I just hate hearing people try and say that our program has fallen a tremendous amount (especially without admitting that the current SEC is a lot tougher than the old SWC) and if we're ever going to get back to the level we once were, we're going to have to get rid of Nutt.  We did fall in the early 90's....but we're bouncing back and last year was proof that we're almost there (at least for me).

It's just silly to try and say that it was just as tough to win a national championship or conference championship in the old SWC as it is now in the SEC.  It's just not true.

Your argument about the old SWC has to directly correlate to the old Big 8 and Pac 8 as well.  Oklahoma and Nebraska as well as USC and UCLA must necessarily have been overrated back in their day.

Especially OU and Neb.  It was them and 6 total doormats.  The Big 8 sucked so OU and Nebraska really don't have all that history.

Probably so.

Well that was easy!

[Albert Einswine]

Hogginitall,  it appears you're more of an SEC fan and Nutt fan than you are a Razorback fan.  At least it appears that the SEC and the defense of Nutt is your passion.

[Albert Einswine]

Hogginitall, and others who poo poo our past, please explain this composite.

How is it that LSU, Georgia, Auburn and Tennessee all rank below us for the decade of the '70s?

Bear in mind this composite isn't my opinion, it's the opinions of sportswriters and coaches who voted on the polls every year.

[biggiepiggie]

Some people like to claim that Arkansas's never been exceptionally good at football for very long, so we shouldn't have very high expectations, know our lot in life, etc.

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%

Arkansas did sustain a higher winning percentage from 1970-89 when most of that time the SWC was one of the top three conferences in the country.

But that alone is not what irks many Hog fans.  Why was Ken Hatfield disliked by so many despite his obvious success?  Because when his Hogs did lose, it had a lot to do with three recurrent factors:

1) His recruiting approach left the team chronically thin on depth and heavily dependent on a few anchor stars.
2) His passing game was anachronistic in its simplicity, his offense fatally limited by predictability, and he turned severely conservative in many big games arguably turning possible victory into defeat.
3) His special teams deteriorated until they were inferior to those of his predecessors.

Razorback fans have been waiting since the 1970s to see their team move back toward college football's offensive mainstream, instead of lying out on the conservative fringe.  Jack Crowe was overpromoted in a Broylesean panic, but the old head coach seemed to indict all modernism for that failure.  Danny Ford was a massive swing back to thudball.  Four years of that, and Broyles was so keen on getting back to the future, he forced a wildass CFL offensive coach onto Ford's back.

Houston Nutt was supposed to be the guy who added the blend of old and new to the Arkansas offensive stables.  For three years, he did just that.  But he never recruited for it, and when Ford's skill players were gone we had mostly pluggers to go with some huge run-blockers, fine tailbacks and a running QB.

Nutt's fateful mistake in his early seasons as Arkansas coach was his failure to stock up the passing game.  In some cases, he and recruiting coordinator Fitz Hill were hoodwinked on player evaluation.  In others, they whiffed in pursuing blue-chips.  When it came to QBs in particular, Nutt was slow to recognize the urgency of his situation.  Ford had loaded the roster with a long list of what would turn out to be duds.  Robbie Hampton transferred in, and Gary Brashears got Parade hullabaloo.

On top of all this, Hill left for a head coaching job late in recruiting the 2001 crop, which was good but would have been awesome had Hill managed to land the stud receivers he was chasing.  When Hill left, Nutt hired George Pugh in order to sign Ahmad Carroll.  The offensive side of the class largely poofed, and Pugh turned out to be a serious liability as chief of recruiting.

It's not often that a coach gets a second chance to revolutionize the offense of a major college football program.  Credibility is the main problem: Even Joe Paterno had trouble persuading prospects that he was going to modernize the offense, after years of staidness.

Eight years in, Nutt was recruiting for his career, yet he was prepared to walk away from most of the Springdale 5, including the hottest in-state QB recruit in generations, Mitch Mustain.  Key boosters forced Nutt to hire Springdale coach Gus Malzahn and allow him to bring in his blue-chip stars, Mustain, Damian Williams and Ben Cleveland.

The big disconnect here is that Nutt no longer was committed to modernizing the Razorback offense, but many fans had lived through this many times before.  It's such a simple dream, to never lose another game for want of a timing pattern.

When Malzahn, Mustain, Williams, Cleveland and Andrew Norman came in, most Razorback fans thought the long-awaited revolution was at hand.  Little did they know the circumstances of Malzahn's hiring, that their head coach and most of his staff were aligned against the intruders, that this bloc viewed the Springdale intrusion as an anti-Nutt conspiracy from the "North."

It has been a very, very long time since Arkansas was significant on the college football horizon.  For once, just once, I'd like to see someone in Fayetteville try building toward an offense that is within earshot of state of the football art.  One more lip service effort won't ever be viewed as credible.

And this is not to speak of 1960-64 = 76%, and 1965-69 = 78%.

[Albert Einswine]

In the decade of the '60s the pollsters thought more of Arkansas than Ole Miss, LSU, Florida, Tennessee and Auburn.

How can this be?

[Albert Einswine]

In the decade of the '80s Georgia, Auburn and Alabama were rated more favorably, but still we rated above LSU and Tennessee.

Again I say, this is how others perceived us. 


Notice how Alabama had fallen after the retirement and subsequent death of Bear Bryant.

[Hogginitall]

In the decade of the '80s Georgia, Auburn and Alabama were rated more favorably, but still we rated above LSU and Tennessee.

Again I say, this is how others perceived us. 


Notice how Alabama had fallen after the retirement and subsequent death of Bear Bryant.

BUT, how many SEC schools compared to SWC were in those rankings for each decade?  My point is not to say that Arkansas was not looked at by many national pundits as a "power".  My point is to show that ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS for this is that we played in a fairly weak conference that allowed us to post gaudy W-L records.

My ONE AND ONLY POINT is that if you put those same Arkansas teams from the 60's, 70's, and 80's in the SEC instead of the SWC, we *more than likely, in my opinion* would not have posted such gaudy record....and in turn would not be considered as "powerful" as we were.

I'm not JUST an ardent supporter of Nutt and the SEC.  I just call it like I see it.  It could've been any coach at Arkansas for the past 9 seasons and I would say the same thing.  If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine.  But, you're not going to change my mind.  *In my opinion*, Arkansas had an easier time posting gaudy W-L records in the SWC than they do now in the SEC.  THUS, it was much easier to stay "relevant" in the national pundits' eyes.

I'm a HUGE HUGE HUGE Razorback fan.  And frankly, I don't appreciate you suggesting that I'm not.  I'm sorry you think that because I'm trying to point out what I see as the truth.  It's not flattering to our past teams, but I think it is accurate.

[RazorsEdge]

BUT, how many SEC schools compared to SWC were in those rankings for each decade?  My point is not to say that Arkansas was not looked at by many national pundits as a "power".  My point is to show that ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS for this is that we played in a fairly weak conference that allowed us to post gaudy W-L records.

My ONE AND ONLY POINT is that if you put those same Arkansas teams from the 60's, 70's, and 80's in the SEC instead of the SWC, we *more than likely, in my opinion* would not have posted such gaudy record....and in turn would not be considered as "powerful" as we were.

I'm not JUST an ardent supporter of Nutt and the SEC.  I just call it like I see it.  It could've been any coach at Arkansas for the past 9 seasons and I would say the same thing.  If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine.  But, you're not going to change my mind.  *In my opinion*, Arkansas had an easier time posting gaudy W-L records in the SWC than they do now in the SEC.  THUS, it was much easier to stay "relevant" in the national pundits' eyes.

I'm a HUGE HUGE HUGE Razorback fan.  And frankly, I don't appreciate you suggesting that I'm not.  I'm sorry you think that because I'm trying to point out what I see as the truth.  It's not flattering to our past teams, but I think it is accurate.

Nobody is suggesting the SWC was better than the SEC.  People are suggesting that the Arkansas Razorbacks were a more prestigious program in other decades than they are now.  Of course it was easier to put up "gaudy records" in the SWC and the AP  voters were well aware of that.  Lets look at 1964 as an example.  Why was undefeated Alabama ranked above Arkansas in the final AP poll?  Because they were in a tougher conference.  They then lost their bowl game to Texas (from the little ol' SWC) and we beat Nebraska in the Cotton Bowl.  The SEC has always been given plenty of respect in the polls.  Like I have said several times in this thread, last year Georgia was .500 in the conference (with losses to Vandy and Kentucky) and still finished AP23.  YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING THE AP VOTERS DON'T ALREADY KNOW!!

68, what does it matter?

If you really are 68, I am shocked.  I don't know many people who were Hog fans in the 60' and 70's who didn't love those teams.  I can't believe someone who watched the Hogs in that era wasn't thoroughly enamored with those teams.  So, in your decades of being a fan, how would you rank the Hogs  over the decades compared to the national competition?  I would say 60's, 70's, 80's, 00's and 90's.  I would say the AP polls have accurately reflected Arkansas strength over the years.  How will you rank them?

Well, you shouldn't be shocked.  I'm not 68.  I'm 26.  I don't think you should draw any automatic conclusions from that, though.  I know you're just going to try and write me off due to my age.  I was enamored with the teams of the past when I was a little kid, especially the National Championship team.  However, now that I've gotten older and looked at things more objectively, I realized that our "winning tradition" in the past has a lot to do with the competition.  That's not to say I'm still not impressed or that they weren't good teams. 

I just hate hearing people try and say that our program has fallen a tremendous amount (especially without admitting that the current SEC is a lot tougher than the old SWC) and if we're ever going to get back to the level we once were, we're going to have to get rid of Nutt.  We did fall in the early 90's....but we're bouncing back and last year was proof that we're almost there (at least for me).

It's just silly to try and say that it was just as tough to win a national championship or conference championship in the old SWC as it is now in the SEC.  It's just not true.

First off, let me thank you for telling the truth about your age.  I felt certain someone 68 years old would have a different perspective than you do.  Since you are 26, you were probably born in '81 (the year I graduated High School).  In the fall of '81 (my freshman year at UofA) Texas came into Fayetteville ranked #1, we were unranked (even though we were 4-1 and had a 27-13 win over Mississippi of the SEC)  Anyway, we proceeded to beat Texas 42-11.  The goalposts were torn down, Dickson street was blocked off and the place was bedlam.  The next week we lost to unranked Houston and later in the season we lost to #6 SMU (they had a pretty good team that year- Eric Dickerson) and fell out of the top 20.  Three losses in the SWC and out of the polls, even though  we were the only team that beat Texas that year and they finished up at #2 (they beat Oklahoma and Miami in the season and Bama in the Cotton Bowl).  SMU was #5 even though they only had one loss (Texas) they were punished for playing their three non-con games against Texas Arlington, North Texas and Grambling St.

I realize you feel like you have gotten a little older and a little more objective, but what you are really doing is looking for a way to rationalize your perspective.  Somehow you have yourself convinced that you know more about the football programs from eras before you were born than the sportswriters (who were AP voters) did.  Do you realize how ostentatious that sounds?  You are a bigger expert on the football programs of the 60's, 70's and 80's than the AP voters of that time.  Arkansas was consistently overrated because they played in a conference that wasn't the SEC, and somehow managed to keep it a secret from the voters that they were padding their stats against the Sisters of the Poor. 

Will you please rank Arkansas through the decades for me?  In the 60's we were in the top 10 seven times.  Since 2000 we have been in the top 25 once!  HOW DOES THAT COMPARE?  Nothing about winning percentages here, just polls.  Do you really think this era is high tide for Razorback football?  What is your earliest recollection of Arkansas Football.  I remember watching the "Shootout" in black and white, but I really don't remember much other than pulling for the Hogs, and that it was hard to remember which team was which since it was in black and white and I was five years old.  The '78 Orange bowl is the first game that really sticks out in my memory, and the '77 season was easily our greatest post-Frank season.  The first game I was able to attend was my freshman year in '81, so that Texas game really sticks out in my memory (even though it was the second Fayetteville game that year)

[Hogginitall]

"Nobody is suggesting the SWC was better than the SEC.  People are suggesting that the Arkansas Razorbacks were a more prestigious program in other decades than they are now.  Of course it was easier to put up "gaudy records" in the SWC and the AP  voters were well aware of that."-----You're proving my point, although I don't think you understand that you are.  What league are we in now?  What league is the strongest in the nation right now?  What league were we in when we were putting up gaudy records, causing Arkansas to be such a "prestigious program"?  What was the strongest league back then (hint:  it's the same as it is now)?  What do you think would've happened if you put those same Arkansas teams in the SEC at that time?  No doubt there would be more losses than we had, causing Arkansas to not be AS PRESTIGIOUS as we were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

That is the MAIN REASON WHY Arkansas has "slipped" to a "lower level". 

"I realize you feel like you have gotten a little older and a little more objective, but what you are really doing is looking for a way to rationalize your perspective."-----No, I can honestly say that I think had we been in the SEC during the 60's, 70's, and 80's, we would have been just like we are now.  We'd be a little above average most years, have a couple of bad years in between, and a couple of really good years every once in awhile.  I didn't start looking for a reason to "rationalize my perspective"....what would be the point of that?  I just call it how I see it.  If you see it differently, that's fine.  But, I think maybe you're the one that is trying to rationalize your perspective.  Those teams from the 60's, 70's, and 80's are more than likely special to you since you were growing up going to those games.  Put that together with (I'm assuming here) a desire to get rid of Houston Nutt (for whatever reasons, on the field or off) and then you get these comments like "our program has slipped" and "the only thing we're missing is coaching and leadership", etc.  I think maybe the people that grew up with those teams probably think they were extra special because the media at the time held Arkansas in such high regard.  When in actuality, if we were playing in a stronger league (like we are now), our teams wouldn't have looked AS STRONG and we probably wouldn't have been held in such high regard with the national media at the time.

As to your rankings (you really like to talk about this don't you, even though it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about), Arkansas was ranked in the top 10 so much in the 1960's for several reasons:

1.  As several of you have pointed out, there were only 25-30 major college programs at that time, Arkansas was one of them. 

2.  Because of reason #1, most everyone else we played had a losing record (because they weren't very good).

3.  Now you have, as someone posted earlier, AT LEAST 50 teams vying for a top 10 spot instead of 25-30 like back then.

4.  We played in the SWC instead of the SEC.  This allowed us to rack up wins against a bunch of weak teams, which made us look a lot better than maybe we actually were (take a look at our bowl record).

It's the same all the way up until we switched to the SEC in '92.

[311Hog]

"Nobody is suggesting the SWC was better than the SEC.  People are suggesting that the Arkansas Razorbacks were a more prestigious program in other decades than they are now.  Of course it was easier to put up "gaudy records" in the SWC and the AP  voters were well aware of that."-----You're proving my point, although I don't think you understand that you are.  What league are we in now?  What league is the strongest in the nation right now?  What league were we in when we were putting up gaudy records, causing Arkansas to be such a "prestigious program"?  What was the strongest league back then (hint:  it's the same as it is now)?  What do you think would've happened if you put those same Arkansas teams in the SEC at that time?  No doubt there would be more losses than we had, causing Arkansas to not be AS PRESTIGIOUS as we were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

That is the MAIN REASON WHY Arkansas has "slipped" to a "lower level". 

"I realize you feel like you have gotten a little older and a little more objective, but what you are really doing is looking for a way to rationalize your perspective."-----No, I can honestly say that I think had we been in the SEC during the 60's, 70's, and 80's, we would have been just like we are now.  We'd be a little above average most years, have a couple of bad years in between, and a couple of really good years every once in awhile.  I didn't start looking for a reason to "rationalize my perspective"....what would be the point of that?  I just call it how I see it.  If you see it differently, that's fine.  But, I think maybe you're the one that is trying to rationalize your perspective.  Those teams from the 60's, 70's, and 80's are more than likely special to you since you were growing up going to those games.  Put that together with (I'm assuming here) a desire to get rid of Houston Nutt (for whatever reasons, on the field or off) and then you get these comments like "our program has slipped" and "the only thing we're missing is coaching and leadership", etc.  I think maybe the people that grew up with those teams probably think they were extra special because the media at the time held Arkansas in such high regard.  When in actuality, if we were playing in a stronger league (like we are now), our teams wouldn't have looked AS STRONG and we probably wouldn't have been held in such high regard with the national media at the time.

As to your rankings (you really like to talk about this don't you, even though it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about), Arkansas was ranked in the top 10 so much in the 1960's for several reasons:

1.  As several of you have pointed out, there were only 25-30 major college programs at that time, Arkansas was one of them. 

2.  Because of reason #1, most everyone else we played had a losing record (because they weren't very good).

3.  Now you have, as someone posted earlier, AT LEAST 50 teams vying for a top 10 spot instead of 25-30 like back then.

4.  We played in the SWC instead of the SEC.  This allowed us to rack up wins against a bunch of weak teams, which made us look a lot better than maybe we actually were (take a look at our bowl record).

It's the same all the way up until we switched to the SEC in '92.

yeah that someone was me.

But i see your point like you see mine, the thing is i do not believe the SEC was the "strongest" conference back during those era's like you obviously do. I think they are today, but not back then I cannot clearly concede that, mainly because there appears to be a disconnect. The teams of the 60's and 70's appear to not be "elite conferences" but more of individual team dynasties, like Alabama and the Bear, and Texas etc wasnt so much about the conference as it was individual teams.

Most "experts" agree that the SEC is the strongest conference now in this era i dont think you will find the same "expert" opinion about the SEC of the 60's 70's and 80's.

[Albert Einswine]

"Nobody is suggesting the SWC was better than the SEC.  People are suggesting that the Arkansas Razorbacks were a more prestigious program in other decades than they are now.  Of course it was easier to put up "gaudy records" in the SWC and the AP  voters were well aware of that."-----You're proving my point, although I don't think you understand that you are.  What league are we in now?  What league is the strongest in the nation right now?  What league were we in when we were putting up gaudy records, causing Arkansas to be "prestigious program"?  What do you think would've happened if you put those same Arkansas teams in the SEC at that time?  No doubt there would be more losses than we had, causing Arkansas to not be AS PRESTIGIOUS as we were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

That is the MAIN REASON WHY Arkansas has "slipped" to a "lower level". 

"I realize you feel like you have gotten a little older and a little more objective, but what you are really doing is looking for a way to rationalize your perspective."-----No, I can honestly say that I think had we been in the SEC during the 60's, 70's, and 80's, we would have been just like we are now.  We'd be a little above average most years, have a couple of bad years in between, and a couple of really good years every once in awhile.  I didn't start looking for a reason to "rationalize my perspective"....what would be the point of that?  I just call it how I see it.  If you see it differently, that's fine.  But, I think maybe you're the one that is trying to rationalize your perspective.  Those teams from the 60's, 70's, and 80's are more than likely special to you since you were growing up going to those games.  Put that together with (I'm assuming here) a desire to get rid of Houston Nutt (for whatever reasons, on the field or off) and then you get these comments like "our program has slipped" and "the only thing we're missing is coaching and leadership", etc.  I think maybe the people that grew up with those teams probably think they were extra special because the media at the time held Arkansas in such high regard.  When in actuality, if we were playing in a stronger league (like we are now), our teams wouldn't have looked AS STRONG and we probably wouldn't have been held in such high regard with the national media at the time.

As to your rankings (you really like to talk about this don't you, even though it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about), Arkansas was ranked in the top 10 so much in the 1960's for several reasons:

1.  As several of you have pointed out, there were only 25-30 major college programs at that time, Arkansas was one of them. 

2.  Because of reason #1, most everyone else we played had a losing record (because they weren't very good).

3.  Now you have, as someone posted earlier, AT LEAST 50 teams vying for a top 10 spot instead of 25-30 like back then.

4.  We played in the SWC instead of the SEC.  This allowed us to rack up wins against a bunch of weak teams, which made us look a lot better than maybe we actually were (take a look at our bowl record).

It's the same all the way up until we switched to the SEC in '92.

You don't really understand the dynamics of the switch.  You think times got tough just because we made the switch to the SEC when in reality other forces were at work.

First, the SWC, because of it's geographical limitation (Texas and Arkansas) was losing out in a big way in television market share.  Couple that with all the schools on probation throughout the '80s and you have a steep decline in the quality of teams across the board.

The SWC, just like the Big-8, the Pac-10 and the Big-10, was always top heavy with Texas and Arkansas, Houston, Baylor and A&M alternating in and out as heavyweights to make up a big 3 at the top of the conference.  SMU by the early '80s had managed to grossly cheat their way to the top.  By the second half of the decade the conference was in freefall.

We didn't notice so much because we were always in the upper echelon of it.  In reality, we were falling behind more and more because Ken Hatfield refused to scrap the flexbone that he'd had success with at mid-major Air Force and his overall philosophy was akin to what you see today.  Play it close to the vest and try to pull it out late in the 4th quarter.

The problem with that philosophy is that you can't recruit stud players that want any part of it.  Ken didn't want a passing game and couldn't have recruited a quarterback and receivers to develop one even if he had wanted one.

By the time we wrapped up our 2nd straight loss in the Cotton Bowl, what little talent we had left was to be largely depleted by graduation or end of eligibility and Ken knew the jig was up.

Clemson offered and he didn't hesitate to get out of town.  Frank panicked and made a ridiculously hasty hire of Jack Crowe.  Jack didn't stand a chance.  We had no talent and were humiliated in the 1990 season by all the converted Run and Shoot teams in the conference. The '91 team competed hard, but couldn't overcome the season ending knee injury to Jason Allen in the Baylor game.  That team wound up 6-6 after a loss to Georgia in the Independence Bowl.

We entered the SEC at the worst possible time for our program.  We hadn't been that weak since the late '40s/early '50s.  We were decimated from a quality player/depth standpoint.  Frank exacerbated the problem by hiring burned out Danny Ford to replace inept Jack Crowe.

Go back to 1983.  If Frank had done the smart thing and hired Jimmy Johnson, we'd have moved into the future of college football and recruited the best players for the modern game.  We'd have been much better prepared to enter the SEC and compete. And it would've been a short trip to the upper echelon.

Frank franked it all up and continues to till this very day.

[EastexHawg]

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

The Colts run a wide open, pass happy offense, too.  How have they done lately?

On the other hand, Ken Hatfield's Rice squads ran the football the overwhelming majority of the time.  How did they do when they played top notch teams?

BTW...we aren't Texas Tech, just as we aren't Rice.  Just because those programs can't beat the big boys...doing whatever they are doing...does not mean that we should settle for mediocrity at Arkansas.

[Hogginitall]

"Nobody is suggesting the SWC was better than the SEC.  People are suggesting that the Arkansas Razorbacks were a more prestigious program in other decades than they are now.  Of course it was easier to put up "gaudy records" in the SWC and the AP  voters were well aware of that."-----You're proving my point, although I don't think you understand that you are.  What league are we in now?  What league is the strongest in the nation right now?  What league were we in when we were putting up gaudy records, causing Arkansas to be "prestigious program"?  What do you think would've happened if you put those same Arkansas teams in the SEC at that time?  No doubt there would be more losses than we had, causing Arkansas to not be AS PRESTIGIOUS as we were in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

That is the MAIN REASON WHY Arkansas has "slipped" to a "lower level". 

"I realize you feel like you have gotten a little older and a little more objective, but what you are really doing is looking for a way to rationalize your perspective."-----No, I can honestly say that I think had we been in the SEC during the 60's, 70's, and 80's, we would have been just like we are now.  We'd be a little above average most years, have a couple of bad years in between, and a couple of really good years every once in awhile.  I didn't start looking for a reason to "rationalize my perspective"....what would be the point of that?  I just call it how I see it.  If you see it differently, that's fine.  But, I think maybe you're the one that is trying to rationalize your perspective.  Those teams from the 60's, 70's, and 80's are more than likely special to you since you were growing up going to those games.  Put that together with (I'm assuming here) a desire to get rid of Houston Nutt (for whatever reasons, on the field or off) and then you get these comments like "our program has slipped" and "the only thing we're missing is coaching and leadership", etc.  I think maybe the people that grew up with those teams probably think they were extra special because the media at the time held Arkansas in such high regard.  When in actuality, if we were playing in a stronger league (like we are now), our teams wouldn't have looked AS STRONG and we probably wouldn't have been held in such high regard with the national media at the time.

As to your rankings (you really like to talk about this don't you, even though it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about), Arkansas was ranked in the top 10 so much in the 1960's for several reasons:

1.  As several of you have pointed out, there were only 25-30 major college programs at that time, Arkansas was one of them. 

2.  Because of reason #1, most everyone else we played had a losing record (because they weren't very good).

3.  Now you have, as someone posted earlier, AT LEAST 50 teams vying for a top 10 spot instead of 25-30 like back then.

4.  We played in the SWC instead of the SEC.  This allowed us to rack up wins against a bunch of weak teams, which made us look a lot better than maybe we actually were (take a look at our bowl record).

It's the same all the way up until we switched to the SEC in '92.

You don't really understand the dynamics of the switch.  You think times got tough just because we made the switch to the SEC when in reality other forces were at work.

First, the SWC, because of it's geographical limitation (Texas and Arkansas) was losing out in a big way in television market share.  Couple that with all the schools on probation throughout the '80s and you have a steep decline in the quality of teams across the board.

The SWC, just like the Big-8, the Pac-10 and the Big-10, was always top heavy with Texas and Arkansas, Houston, Baylor and A&M alternating in and out as heavyweights to make up a big 3 at the top of the conference.  SMU by the early '80s had managed to grossly cheat their way to the top.  By the second half of the decade the conference was in freefall.

We didn't notice so much because we were always in the upper echelon of it.  In reality, we were falling behind more and more because Ken Hatfield refused to scrap the flexbone that he'd had success with at mid-major Air Force and his overall philosophy was akin to what you see today.  Play it close to the vest and try to pull it out late in the 4th quarter.

The problem with that philosophy is that you can't recruit stud players that want any part of it.  Ken didn't want a passing game and couldn't have recruited a quarterback and receivers to develop one even if he had wanted one.

By the time we wrapped up our 2nd straight loss in the Cotton Bowl, what little talent we had left was to be largely depleted by graduation or end of eligibility and Ken knew the jig was up.

Clemson offered and he didn't hesitate to get out of town.  Frank panicked and made a ridiculously hasty hire of Jack Crowe.  Jack didn't stand a chance.  We had no talent and were humiliated in the 1990 season by all the converted Run and Shoot teams in the conference. The '91 team competed hard, but couldn't overcome the season ending knee injury to Jason Allen in the Baylor game.  That team wound up 6-6 after a loss to Georgia in the Independence Bowl.

We entered the SEC at the worst possible time for our program.  We hadn't been that weak since the late '40s/early '50s.  We were decimated from a quality player/depth standpoint.  Frank exacerbated the problem by hiring burned out Danny Ford to replace inept Jack Crowe.

Go back to 1983.  If Frank had done the smart thing and hired Jimmy Johnson, we'd have moved into the future of college football and recruited the best players for the modern game.  We'd have been much better prepared to enter the SEC and compete. And it would've been a short trip to the upper echelon.

Frank franked it all up and continues to till this very day.

That all makes sense.  I knew a lot of it, but that was a good read.  I'm not suggesting that the switch to the SEC was the ONLY reason as to why Arkansas didn't look as good back in the 1990's.  I know we were struggling the last couple of years in the SWC due to the reasons you have cited.  However, I think it is a BIG reason why our teams since 1992 aren't as "prestigious" as they used to "appear"...especially now.  Racking up the same winning % as our teams back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's in today's SEC is almost impossible, especially for Arkansas.

I agree with you about Jimmie Johnson.  I wish Frank would've given him a chance to coach here in the early 80's instead of hiring Hatfield.  Yeah Hatfield won, but it's for the reasons you stated, the SWC had gotten EXTREMELY WEAK.

Overall, I agree with your post.  I just think that the move to the SEC, even if we were going strong at the time (which we obviously weren't), made it much tougher to stay in the upper echelon of the college football rankings.  Where we were top 2 in the league we came from, put our teams from the 60's, 70's, and 80's up against the teams of the SEC during that same time period, and we'd be where we are now....middle of the pack in the SEC.  Again, it's all opinion and speculation.

[Albert Einswine]

Overall, I agree with your post.  I just think that the move to the SEC, even if we were going strong at the time (which we obviously weren't), made it much tougher to stay in the upper echelon of the college football rankings.  Where we were top 2 in the league we came from, put our numbers up against the teams of the SEC during that same time period, and we'd be where we are now....middle of the pack in the SEC.

If Frank had hired Jimmy Johnson in '83, made the switch to the SEC in '85 and retired in '87, we'd be taking our turn as SEC champions with Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU and Auburn and would be in the top 2 of our division perennially. 

You can count on that.

[Hogginitall]

Overall, I agree with your post.  I just think that the move to the SEC, even if we were going strong at the time (which we obviously weren't), made it much tougher to stay in the upper echelon of the college football rankings.  Where we were top 2 in the league we came from, put our numbers up against the teams of the SEC during that same time period, and we'd be where we are now....middle of the pack in the SEC.

If Frank had hired Jimmy Johnson in '83, made the switch to the SEC in '85 and retired in '87, we'd be taking our turn as SEC champions with Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU and Auburn and would be in the top 2 of our division perennially. 

You can count on that.

I guess we can dream.  But, he didn't, so it's all speculation.