Quote from: TheGrove68 on Today at 01:38:07 amFirst off let me say I don't believe there is any metric on gauging if a team Has Mailed it in or quit or is not playing hard from start to finish. With 80+ schollie players and a host of coaches it's near impossible to develop any measuring system to determine if the TEAM has checked out, from the stands or watching on TV.

You seem to believe you can tell this with measurable analytics based on common opponents etc.. I say it's near impossible to measure it using any of those components you mentioned.  How many Players quit on the Ark. squad that played the majority of the snaps? All of them, 3 of them, 4 of them, maybe only the offense quit or the defense? This is just a contrived assumption to explain away a better team beating the hogs on the regular.

Again, you are reading things that I have never posted. I swear, hogville and the internet at large I think merges different parallel universes together or something.

I absolutely believe that one can provide objective evidence of a difference in motivation. That's a far cry from proving or gauging the exact level of quit.

Further, you keep taking words, exaggerating them, and then pretending I said your exaggeration rather than my actual words. I do ask you to stop doing that. Where are you getting 'quit' from? My example has always been the Ark-LSU rivalry, but with a closer talent gap. LSU absolutely should be 90-100% wins against us, and for the most part, they are closer to 50. That doesn't mean that LSU players 'quit' during our game.

It means that there's rivalry magic where we tend to play one our best games of the season against them year in and year out while LSU does not. Similarly with Ark vs Mizzou. From the 'metrics', we should probably be 6-4 against them rather than 2-8, but the rivalry effect where Mizzou often plays their best game of the year, and voila, we lose.

QuoteNow as far as the NFL/Pro day analysis as I said that is a PUSH. That means Ark. and Mizzou top flight difference makers are basically Equal in talent.  My assertion is that our non-drafted talent is better, because GP/Drink do a better job at finding hidden gems and then maximizing their potential and those players are what has put us over the top versus Ark.  It's not that complicated to figure out. Our bottom in talent performs at a higher level than Ark. and does it most seasons. 

This is funny to me. You dismiss the pro-day analysis and then go on to say the bolded line. It's like saying "I hate water and prefer to drink liquid ice..." What the heck do you think pro day stuff is all about? It's about the NON-DRAFTED players. That's where you get to quantify the depth guy's athleticism and prove the recruiting rankings wrong and what not. You know who participates in pro days? The third string seniors, the backup seniors, the seniors who started but didn't get to go to the combine (which is what I would have mentioned if I was only interested in the top end players).

QuoteThe LA tech analogy is like comparing Apples to Kiwi Fruit..... LA tech doesn't have Ark or Mizzou talent that is taking a extreme view point of what I was saying. Ark. is in the SEC and Recruits at a higher Level than any G5 program. They are built for the rigors of the West and should be up to the task. Using the West as a excuse for a poor performance yearly versus Mizzou is just that a excuse. It's not like Mizzou is playing in the Mountain West.

Man, you are soooo close to getting it. Yes, it is comparing apples to kiwis, but the point of the comparison is that they are both fruits.

And you are right at the nose. You recognize that the magnitude of the difference is important. Yes! It is. Yet, you continue to say that wear and tear should balance out between ark in the west and mizz in the east. But go back to the lesson you picked up on with LaTech. It's all about the relative differences. The difference in talent b/w Mizzou and most of the East is a lot smaller than the difference in talent b/w arkansas and most of the west. 

QuoteI'm not sure what you don't get about my premise that Mizzou would wear down at least equally in the East as Ark. in the West do to the difference in physical talent if you take the Recruiting rankings as valid which you do because you site them a lot to point out Ark. is a head of Mizzou talent wise. Mizzou is usually a 30-40 in the team rankings closer to the back end of the P5 squads than the front end... Ark is usually in the 20's closer to the top end. Now I don't buy that the Rankings are valid after the top 15 teams or at least are not that accurate. But you again appear to think Ark. has more talent and therefore should win more games based on the rankings.  You are the one pointing out the rankings not me.

I love that you somehow think the recruiting ranking are the cherry on top of the argument you started off making.

Again, see above. The gap b/w mizzou's talent and the east is smaller than the talent gap b/w arkansas and the west. Arkansas's direct recruiting compared to mizzou's doesn't change that.

Let's do a quick, shallow glance to see if any numbers back that up. In the most recent draft, Arkansas' west opponents had 31 total draft picks. Mizzou's east opponent's had only 20 draft picks. How about the 2023 recruiting cycle that started off last season? Looking at the overall 247 ranking (including transfers)  there were 4 west teams in the top 7, and 3 of the top 4 teams were from the west. Rankings don't mean to much if the difference b/w them is small. I agree with you there. The recruiting points for Ark's west opponents adds up to 1660.66 points. Mizzou's east opponents adds up to 1574.14. That's a pretty big difference, especially when you add that up over an entire roster. Well, if we look at 247's talent composite rating which looks at the teams entire roster, Ark's west opponents tally up to 5109.69. Mizzou's east opponents tally up to 4784.27.

But wait, I said it's all about the relative difference, no? Mizzou's average east opponent has about 47 more total team points than them. That's well less than a 10% difference. Mizzou outright ranked higher than 2 of it's east bretheren and was within 100 points of every other team than UGA. In contrast, Ark's opponents averaged over 120 points more than them. We ranked ahead of nobody in the west, and only 3 teams were within 100 points of us. See the difference? Even with the East being objectively weaker, the hogs have a bigger gap. Also, note that this is was one of the seasons where Mizzou actually ranks above the hogs in team talent composite.

QuoteAlso it does appear that you are now walking back from some of your belief that Ark. isn't SO dominate in most metrics. Tradition, talent, etc.   You have pointed that out that Ark. has the Dominance in most Categories over Mizzou and that the Reason for the on field disparity is that Ark. has just mailed it in and checked out versus Mizzou. Coupled with Reasons like the overwhelming West schedule has brutally beat you down while Mizzou has caked walked through a Easy Breezy East schedule. 

Not walking back, my statements have been consistent. You are the one turning 'mizzou plays harder this game' into Arkansas players outright quit. You are turning 'arkansas is ahead in most metrics' to 'arkansas absolutely dominates by a bajillion points'...

Further, I'm not arguing that arkansas players simply mail it in. I'm saying Mizzou players play extra harder this game than most others in the same way we play harder against LSU than almost any other team on our schedule.

And yes, our schedule is a factor. Look at seasons like 2014. You were a good team no doubt, but Allen was injured and could barely throw the ball that game and it took a 15 point late game heroics after our defense wore out due to our offense being unable to sustain drives due to an injured qb for you to win. That doesn't take away the fact that you won, but, if BA wasn't injured, what are the odds you make a 15 point swing at the end of the game and prevent us from scoring at all in the 2nd half? Not zero, but much lower.

QuoteI'm just trying to get a handle on what your do believe? And to what degree NOW you think the Hogs are better than Mizzou. Because if you read your posts you seem to be saying that Ark. should dominate Mizzou with a Metric advantage in most categories. I've never seen you say that Mizzou and Ark. should be  about equal in Win's and Losses 5-5 over a decade or even a 6 to 4 split in the Hog favor. I do recall a host of posters in multiple threads saying that Ark. should beat Mizzou 8 or 9 times out of ten once the Hogs get it right. I can't recall if you are one of them but from the tone of your post that is what I garnered from your analysis.

Then that's a failure of reading on your part and at best a projection of other posters onto me, or at worst, you not liking my more nuanced posts and thus turning them into exaggerations in your head to twist my words into something more easily winnable.

QuoteI was just pointing out that I don't buy that the Hogs quit or that the Hogs schedule was so brutal that it demoralized the Hogs to the point Mizzou had a stroll in the park game every year. I also made my case that I think that using Drafted players in the NFL doesn't tell the whole story at all in the overall talent of both teams.

Hey, we are literally in 100% agreement here! I've not made any of those arguments either, and will die on that hill right beside you against anybody who would.

I do think Arkansas has suffered more crucial injuries than Mizzou as a result of our schedule. I think that Arkansas players don't play extra hard in this game and that Mizzou players do play extra hard. I think that drafted players in the NFL is a good proxy for overall talent and one of the better single metrics, but have never claimed that it tells the whole story.

QuoteBecause between Mizzou and the Hogs that is a push NFL wise. It's the bottom talent that has made a difference. Same goes for the Recruiting rankings that analytic is flawed to a Great degree once you get past the Blue Bloods.

Cool, so do some pro day analysis! Prove your point!

Quote from: KalenTheBoar on Yesterday at 08:50:54 amhttps://thespun.com/more/top-stories/lsu-coach-brian-kelly-were-not-in-the-market-of-buying-players

I like what he said, no just paid guns, if you want to be at a good program you can get paid, but we aren't paying you just to show up

Otis said pretty much when he left campus we had no shot

Quote from: Johnnie5 on Today at 08:41:00 amSali commit probably means slim to none

Arkansas needs two DTs. We'd definitely take both.

He's blown up. LSU just offered. Probably nil.

Has anyone seen or have any footage on Hugo?

Quote from: CDBHawg on Today at 09:57:53 amThat sounds good and all, but I'll believe we will only have 9 or 10 scholarship players when it happens.

That's not what I said. I said that's what we do. I also said times are changing.