Poll: Which method of building the football program best serves Arkansas?

Cheat like SMU and Ole Miss
- 14 (6.2%)
Hire and fire coaches every two years until we hit "The Next Big Thing"
- 7 (3.1%)
Build with a long term plan that may not come to fruition for 8-10 years
- 149 (65.6%)
Break the bank and hire Urban or Nick.  Pay them ANY amount of money to get them here.
- 57 (25.1%)

Total Members Voted: 227


Pages:
Actions
  • #101 by MuskogeeHogFan on 18 May 2017
  • ok. Let's see how these high powered offenses finish in comparative years to the defensive numbers that I posted.

    Total offense. National rank
    2011
    12. Missouri
    29. Arkansas
    31. Alabama
    39. Georgia
    84. Miss St.
    86. LSU
    98. Vandy
    100. Auburn
    104. Tenn
    105. Florida

    2016
    13. Missouri
    24. aTm
    26. Ole Miss
    34. Alabama
    40. Tenn
    42. Auburn
    44. Miss. St.
    54. Arkansas
    59. LSU
    61. Kentucky
    Marked improvement from 2011 to 2016 in how the sec finished in total offense.
    2011 there were 4 teams in top 50. 2016 7 teams cracked the top 50. No top 10 offenses in either year. 2 top 25 offenses in 2016 and 1 top 25 offense in 2011.

    These rankings show improvement by sec offenses but still not quite ranking among the nations leaders. So I guess high powered would be a relative term.  The decline in defense that the numbers show also reflects in the wins ( or lack thereof)  in big games and overall records.

    Rankings are not a good measure. It's easy to research, but it doesn't produce more measureable results. Revert back to my previous suggestion, or just continue to assert this line of thought that is less indicative of the change.
  • #102 by LRRandy on 18 May 2017
  • Rankings are not a good measure. It's easy to research, but it doesn't produce more measureable results. Revert back to my previous suggestion, or just continue to assert this line of thought that is less indicative of the change.
    haha. Yeah. It only measures offensive production for a season and shows you how you finished relative to the rest of college football. Haha. Yeah. "Dig deeper" to get the numbers that soothe the angst that must run through you. Too funny.

    What it does show me is that when the sec was dominating college football they had multiple teams playing good defense. Those teams ranked (even though it's not a good measure, lol) at the very top of college football. Now that only one team is relavent  that also correlates to fewer teams being ranked among the best defenses. While the teams ranking in offensive output has increased ( although not to the high levels that the defense attained during its dominance) the winning has diminished to a point that only one team won more than 8 games over the course of the most recent season. Spin those numbers.
  • #103 by bphi11ips on 18 May 2017
  • BTW ... Summer is a month away.  Enjoy Spring in the Ozarks. 
  • #104 by LRRandy on 18 May 2017
  • BTW ... Summer is a month away.  Enjoy Spring in the Ozarks.
    I was solving a very big issue.
  • #105 by gchamblee on 18 May 2017
  • Although it appears that it's not working out with him, even the hiring of CBB is proof that Arkansas is an appealing job for experienced P5 coaches.

    It says something about our program that a 3-time defending B10 Champ was willing to jump ship to come here. Of course $$$ had something to do with it, and he knew we had an AD dumb enough to give it to him...but still.

    That bolded statement right there is why I consider your opinion worth less than spit. It nullifies anything good you could accidentally ever post.
  • #106 by gchamblee on 18 May 2017
  • I think 5 years is a fair amount of time to determine whether a rebuild is working or not. For me the question is how to measure it. I use wins/losses as a standard, but I also look at why we won or lost. I don't give CBB credit for all losses, and I don't give him credit for all wins. The mizzou and VT losses I do not credit BB with, nor do I credit him for the Ole Miss wins. I'll know whether I am done with CBB after I see the results of this year.
  • #107 by LZH on 18 May 2017
  • I think 5 years is a fair amount of time to determine whether a rebuild is working or not. For me the question is how to measure it. I use wins/losses as a standard, but I also look at why we won or lost. I don't give CBB credit for all losses, and I don't give him credit for all wins. The mizzou and VT losses I do not credit BB with, nor do I credit him for the Ole Miss wins. I'll know whether I am done with CBB after I see the results of this year.

    Pick a side, dammit!   >:(
  • #108 by gchamblee on 18 May 2017
  • Pick a side, dammit!   >:(

    I have. I chose the rational side, not the microwave instant gratification side. Enjoy your 90 second popcorn when you get it.
  • #109 by LZH on 18 May 2017
  • I have. I chose the rational side, not the microwave instant gratification side. Enjoy your 90 second popcorn when you get it.

    I did, 2 min 30 sec..........movie theater butter.
  • #110 by BigE_23 on 18 May 2017
  • That bolded statement right there is why I consider your opinion worth less than spit. It nullifies anything good you could accidentally ever post.

    I'm really tore up about that...exactly who are you again?
  • #111 by gchamblee on 19 May 2017
  • I did, 2 min 30 sec..........movie theater butter.

    Goes great with some makers
  • #112 by MuskogeeHogFan on 19 May 2017
  • haha. Yeah. It only measures offensive production for a season and shows you how you finished relative to the rest of college football. Haha. Yeah. "Dig deeper" to get the numbers that soothe the angst that must run through you. Too funny.

    What it does show me is that when the sec was dominating college football they had multiple teams playing good defense. Those teams ranked (even though it's not a good measure, lol) at the very top of college football. Now that only one team is relavent  that also correlates to fewer teams being ranked among the best defenses. While the teams ranking in offensive output has increased ( although not to the high levels that the defense attained during its dominance) the winning has diminished to a point that only one team won more than 8 games over the course of the most recent season. Spin those numbers.

    Rankings are not the most effective way to compare data over a longer period of time because being #10 and yielding 385 yards this year certainly isn't the same as yielding 435 yards next season and still being #10. I apologize, I gave you credit for being able to realize that. My mistake.

    That's why using the actual numbers is a better way of demonstrating representative change even if there may be many ways to interpret that data.

    Here's just two examples:

                                   Total O      Scoring O   Off Plays        Total D    Scoring D     Def Plays
    LSU    2002-2006         391.1           30.1         67.5            261.1         14.6            62.2
             2007-2011         365.7           32.5         66.0            300.2         17.8            65.5
             2012-2016         415.5           30.9         66.2            325.3         19.4            66.9

    A&M   2002-2006         408.8           28.5         68.6            384.6          27.6           71.2
             2007-2011         427.2           31.2         75.8            409.3          29.4           74.1
             2012-2016         488.8           37.3         74.7            427.7          25.7           75.1

    Rankings alone wouldn't give you that view of the actual numbers based on averages of 5 year periods of time during which, you can actually see change taking place.     
  • #113 by LRRandy on 19 May 2017
  • Rankings are not the most effective way to compare data over a longer period of time because being #10 and yielding 385 yards this year certainly isn't the same as yielding 435 yards next season and still being #10. I apologize, I gave you credit for being able to realize that. My mistake.

    That's why using the actual numbers is a better way of demonstrating representative change even if there may be many ways to interpret that data.

    Here's just two examples:

                                   Total O      Scoring O   Off Plays        Total D    Scoring D     Def Plays
    LSU    2002-2006         391.1           30.1         67.5            261.1         14.6            62.2
             2007-2011         365.7           32.5         66.0            300.2         17.8            65.5
             2012-2016         415.5           30.9         66.2            325.3         19.4            66.9

    A&M   2002-2006         408.8           28.5         68.6            384.6          27.6           71.2
             2007-2011         427.2           31.2         75.8            409.3          29.4           74.1
             2012-2016         488.8           37.3         74.7            427.7          25.7           75.1

    Rankings alone wouldn't give you that view of the actual numbers based on averages of 5 year periods of time during which, you can actually see change taking place.     
    nobody can read that garbled up crap when you post it. The columns don't stay in order. I'll give you that rankings aren't the total picture. They do show the real numbers and how teams stack up. It also shows a difference between the defenses in 2011 and 2016.
  • #114 by MuskogeeHogFan on 19 May 2017
  • nobody can read that garbled up crap when you post it. The columns don't stay in order. I'll give you that rankings aren't the total picture. They do show the real numbers and how teams stack up. It also shows a difference between the defenses in 2011 and 2016.

    Try using something other than your phone. It is aligned properly on a desk top and should be on a lap top as well, maybe also on an IPad.
  • #115 by Hogs-n-Roses on 19 May 2017
  • I love the numbers. I think they do paint a great pic but at the same time you must get outside that box and see the big pic.Numbers are for the coaches really as a tool to motivate/improve their teams. By outside the box I mean,use common sense.Not done to much by the name callers on here.

    Common sense you say. Well I'd be happy to explain. Common sense tells me that although my defense dropped from #2 or 3 in the nation to #16 and my offense went from #16 to #39, I still won my conference and wound up #4 in the nation and had a 10-3 record.(totally hypothetical).Reality is they had a very good football team and a content fanbase and all is well in this teams world. No glaring problems.This is a good football team and a solid program.

    Our program is as far from this as it can be. We have issues from top to bottom from the team to the PTB, from the one the field, to the off the field from the AD to the waterboy. That is an adult observation to those Will now come on here and say something weak like "Us adults understand and the rest of you and your keyboards are stupid. "

    Poll prolly shud have had an option like(for #1 n#2 instead of the ones offered)Are we just a bad program right now but there's hope. or have we gone to far to recover,ie Frito pie.

    Please keep posting the numbers.You guys do a great job with it.
  • #116 by bphi11ips on 19 May 2017
  • I love the numbers. I think they do paint a great pic but at the same time you must get outside that box and see the big pic.Numbers are for the coaches really as a tool to motivate/improve their teams. By outside the box I mean,use common sense.Not done to much by the name callers on here.

    Common sense you say. Well I'd be happy to explain. Common sense tells me that although my defense dropped from #2 or 3 in the nation to #16 and my offense went from #16 to #39, I still won my conference and wound up #4 in the nation and had a 10-3 record.(totally hypothetical).Reality is they had a very good football team and a content fanbase and all is well in this teams world. No glaring problems.This is a good football team and a solid program.

    Our program is as far from this as it can be. We have issues from top to bottom from the team to the PTB, from the one the field, to the off the field from the AD to the waterboy. That is an adult observation to those Will now come on here and say something weak like "Us adults understand and the rest of you and your keyboards are stupid. "

    Poll prolly shud have had an option like(for #1 n#2 instead of the ones offered)Are we just a bad program right now but there's hope. or have we gone to far to recover,ie Frito pie.

    Please keep posting the numbers.You guys do a great job with it.

    My common sense doesn't tell me there are problems with the program from top to bottom.  It does tell me the image of the program on a national basis based upon success over time (a/k/a "tradition") has eroded over time to the extent there is no actual memory in the minds of recruits of a time when the Razorbacks were considered a program on par with the LSUs, Auburns, etc., of the world.  Even Arkansas athletes have grown up viewing the Razorbacks as a lower tier SEC team.

    Common sense tells me Arkansas will have to run together a number of good years, maybe decades, before it ever recaptures the image it once had.  Chances are it never will.  The key could be the right coach, but even Nick Saban may not be enough to overcome the challenges now facing the program. 

    Common sense does not dictate giving any coach 8-10 years to build a program without regard to progress towards that goal.  Common sense dictates that every coach must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  It also dictates that this particular coach is still in the evaluation period.  We'll know more by December 1 at the latest.   
  • #117 by MuskogeeHogFan on 19 May 2017
  • My common sense doesn't tell me there are problems with the program from top to bottom.  It does tell me the image of the program on a national basis based upon success over time (a/k/a "tradition") has eroded over time to the extent there is no actual memory in the minds of recruits of a time when the Razorbacks were considered a program on par with the LSUs, Auburns, etc., of the world.  Even Arkansas athletes have grown up viewing the Razorbacks as a lower tier SEC team.

    Common sense tells me Arkansas will have to run together a number of good years, maybe decades, before it ever recaptures the image it once had.  Chances are it never will.  The key could be the right coach, but even Nick Saban may not be enough to overcome the challenges now facing the program. 

    Common sense does not dictate giving any coach 8-10 years to build a program without regard to progress towards that goal.  Common sense dictates that every coach must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  It also dictates that this particular coach is still in the evaluation period.  We'll know more by December 1 at the latest.   

    I don't think it would require a decade for a return to consideration and promotion of the national thought process that Arkansas is one of the top programs in the SEC. What it would take is not looking inept by getting our doors blown off in any game, playing every game competitively and down to the wire and about 3 seasons in a row of 10 or more wins so that the national media talks us up and runs our highlights over and over on national t.v. You know how it is, it isn't just what you do, it is also about how you are perceived. Now you do have to maintain that level success once it gets going to the extent that single digit win seasons are more the exception than the norm, but initially I think that is all it would require.
  • #118 by runninhog on 19 May 2017
  • You obviously want Bielema to be given 8-10 years to build his program,  since the other options are off the wall ridiculous.

    Actually all of the options are not good

    Agreed.
  • #119 by runninhog on 19 May 2017
  • My common sense doesn't tell me there are problems with the program from top to bottom.  It does tell me the image of the program on a national basis based upon success over time (a/k/a "tradition") has eroded over time to the extent there is no actual memory in the minds of recruits of a time when the Razorbacks were considered a program on par with the LSUs, Auburns, etc., of the world.  Even Arkansas athletes have grown up viewing the Razorbacks as a lower tier SEC team.

    Common sense tells me Arkansas will have to run together a number of good years, maybe decades, before it ever recaptures the image it once had.  Chances are it never will.  The key could be the right coach, but even Nick Saban may not be enough to overcome the challenges now facing the program. 

    Common sense does not dictate giving any coach 8-10 years to build a program without regard to progress towards that goal.  Common sense dictates that every coach must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  It also dictates that this particular coach is still in the evaluation period.  We'll know more by December 1 at the latest.

    Yeah, except we are a second tier team no one really wants to play. Arkansas is always seen as "trouble game" by every SEC team except for probably Alabama. We can beat any other team in the conference. We just don't do it consistently.
    Our earlier reputation was built on the back of SWC weakness. Now we're in a meat grinder, and it's a whole different game.
    I think our choices are break the bank on the big name (if there is one) or go with a younger, less proven but really dynamic guy like Herman or even a guy like Helton at USC.
  • #120 by Hogs-n-Roses on 19 May 2017
  • My common sense doesn't tell me there are problems with the program from top to bottom.  It does tell me the image of the program on a national basis based upon success over time (a/k/a "tradition") has eroded over time to the extent there is no actual memory in the minds of recruits of a time when the Razorbacks were considered a program on par with the LSUs, Auburns, etc., of the world.  Even Arkansas athletes have grown up viewing the Razorbacks as a lower tier SEC team.

    Common sense tells me Arkansas will have to run together a number of good years, maybe decades, before it ever recaptures the image it once had.  Chances are it never will.  The key could be the right coach, but even Nick Saban may not be enough to overcome the challenges now facing the program. 

    Common sense does not dictate giving any coach 8-10 years to build a program without regard to progress towards that goal.  Common sense dictates that every coach must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  It also dictates that this particular coach is still in the evaluation period.  We'll know more by December 1 at the latest.   
    Nice response. Thank you. Have you seen anything to this point to lead you to believe our program is better(this case(JL/BB) or headed in the direction of the Razorback history you mentioned. And what is your eval of the giving of this 8-10 year rebuild(ie BB contract)
  • #121 by MuskogeeHogFan on 19 May 2017
  • Yeah, except we are a second tier team no one really wants to play. Arkansas is always seen as "trouble game" by every SEC team except for probably Alabama. We can beat any other team in the conference. We just don't do it consistently.
    Our earlier reputation was built on the back of SWC weakness. Now we're in a meat grinder, and it's a whole different game.
    I think our choices are break the bank on the big name (if there is one) or go with a younger, less proven but really dynamic guy like Herman or even a guy like Helton at USC.


    We wouldn't get a guy like Herman for several reasons (JMO). At Ohio State he had a name to recruit to. At Houston, the vast majority of his recruiting could be done in a 30 mile radius. At Texas, no matter how far they have fallen off in terms of wins, they have continued to sign highly ranked classes out of the state of Texas and that tells you that no matter what, there are still a whole bunch of good players who want to attend what is still viewed as "THE" state school. Everyone can't go to A&M these days. So what do all of these stops have in common for Herman...easy to recruit. Arkansas is a different challenge.

    And if I were Clay Helton, with the established national name that USC has and the ability to float that name and graze on all of the talent in California, why would I make my own job more difficult by coming to a school like Arkansas and having to compete against the likes of our conference members in recruiting and then have to face them on the field every year? He can have a lot more success at USC.

    You might be able to hire a big name guy for a zillion dollars who is just looking for one more challenge but I would bet that those coaches look at what Bielema has gone through here (and don't kid yourself, Bielema is well respected) and might say, no thank you.
  • #122 by Tiredofhogssucking on 19 May 2017
  • Those are the four views I see expressed on the board most often, in a nutshell.  Which do you prefer?  Which makes the most sense for Arkansas.

    Our current coach is a CEO type.  And just like other CEOs they do not get 8-10 years for their turnaround plan to show signs of working.  The arguement could be made that our CEO let back to back 9+ win seasons slip if you find a way to beat Toledo in 2015 and force Texas Tech to at least punt a couple of times, or actually block the game winning field goal against Miss. St.  Then in 2016, we squander leads to Missouri and Va Tech. 

    Your poll options, I assuming, are a joke trying to poke at the forum.   
  • #123 by bphi11ips on 19 May 2017
  • Nice response. Thank you. Have you seen anything to this point to lead you to believe our program is better(this case(JL/BB) or headed in the direction of the Razorback history you mentioned. And what is your eval of the giving of this 8-10 year rebuild(ie BB contract)

    I don't think you're being sarcastic.  The answer is "I don't know".  I think I said above that I don't think 8-10 years is reasonable for any coach that isn't showing steady improvement.  For the most part, I believe Bielema's teams have shown steady improvement, but the last half of 2016 was definitely a step backwards.  It's not so much the record as the way we lost at Auburn and then to Missouri and Va. Tech. 

    I do believe that Bielema's philosophy based upon the old Nebraska model is still viable, especially at a school with Arkansas's location and history of fundamentally sound football teams.  If he were competing in the Big 12 or Big 10 I believe he could get us there much quicker than he can in the SEC West.  I'm not sure you can build lines anymore with 4th and 5th year studs because of early entry in the draft.  But until Arkansas can land two deep 4 and 5 star talent, which has never happened and which there's no reason to believe ever will happen, I don't know that he has much choice.  I'd rather take his approach than the Petrino/Baylor/TCU approach.  I'd rather go 8-4 in the SEC West than 10-2 in the Big 12, and I think we'll be a better team year-in-and-year out with Bielema's approach.  It is sustainable once it's in place.

    To be fair to Bielema, he's been snakebit to some extent at the skill positions, especially running back.  My biggest problem with him has been his game management.  If Arkansas loses games again it shouldn't, which has been a pattern, and if this team finishes under .500, which is certainly possible, then I think common sense dictates that Jeff Long will have some serious thinking to do at the end of the year about the direction of the program under Brett Bielema.  Right now I just hope we beat TCU and get on a roll.  That's possible, too.       
  • #124 by hogcard1964 on 19 May 2017
  • I don't think it would require a decade for a return to consideration and promotion of the national thought process that Arkansas is one of the top programs in the SEC. What it would take is not looking inept by getting our doors blown off in any game, playing every game competitively and down to the wire and about 3 seasons in a row of 10 or more wins so that the national media talks us up and runs our highlights over and over on national t.v. You know how it is, it isn't just what you do, it is also about how you are perceived. Now you do have to maintain that level success once it gets going to the extent that single digit win seasons are more the exception than the norm, but initially I think that is all it would require.

    The fact remains since we've been participating in the SEC, we're a bottom tier team.  Aside from 3 to 5 years over a 25 year period we've been mediocre to pretty bad.
  • #125 by MuskogeeHogFan on 19 May 2017
  • The fact remains since we've been participating in the SEC, we're a bottom tier team.  Aside from 3 to 5 years over a 25 year period we've been mediocre to pretty bad.

    But that wasn't what we were discussing.
  • #126 by hogcard1964 on 19 May 2017
  • But that wasn't what we were discussing.

    I thought we were discussing us (Razorback football) being viewed as something we're really not?
  • #127 by hogsanity on 19 May 2017
  • But that wasn't what we were discussing.

    It is part of the conversation pertaining to the topic the op started. Arkansas, since joining the SEC has never been close to a perennial 9+ win team, yet in the last year or two many people here have been acting like the program is exactly that. Not saying you have been that way, you have been and are one of the more level headed posters here.
  • #128 by MuskogeeHogFan on 19 May 2017
  • My common sense doesn't tell me there are problems with the program from top to bottom.  It does tell me the image of the program on a national basis based upon success over time (a/k/a "tradition") has eroded over time to the extent there is no actual memory in the minds of recruits of a time when the Razorbacks were considered a program on par with the LSUs, Auburns, etc., of the world.  Even Arkansas athletes have grown up viewing the Razorbacks as a lower tier SEC team.

    Common sense tells me Arkansas will have to run together a number of good years, maybe decades, before it ever recaptures the image it once had.  Chances are it never will.  The key could be the right coach, but even Nick Saban may not be enough to overcome the challenges now facing the program. 

    Common sense does not dictate giving any coach 8-10 years to build a program without regard to progress towards that goal.  Common sense dictates that every coach must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  It also dictates that this particular coach is still in the evaluation period.  We'll know more by December 1 at the latest.   

    I don't think it would require a decade for a return to consideration and promotion of the national thought process that Arkansas is one of the top programs in the SEC. What it would take is not looking inept by getting our doors blown off in any game, playing every game competitively and down to the wire and about 3 seasons in a row of 10 or more wins so that the national media talks us up and runs our highlights over and over on national t.v. You know how it is, it isn't just what you do, it is also about how you are perceived. Now you do have to maintain that level success once it gets going to the extent that single digit win seasons are more the exception than the norm, but initially I think that is all it would require.

    I thought we were discussing us (Razorback football) being viewed as something we're really not?

    I'll give you a free refresher just because you rarely have anything good to say.
  • #129 by Hogs-n-Roses on 19 May 2017
  • I don't think you're being sarcastic.  The answer is "I don't know".  I think I said above that I don't think 8-10 years is reasonable for any coach that isn't showing steady improvement.  For the most part, I believe Bielema's teams have shown steady improvement, but the last half of 2016 was definitely a step backwards.  It's not so much the record as the way we lost at Auburn and then to Missouri and Va. Tech. 

    I do believe that Bielema's philosophy based upon the old Nebraska model is still viable, especially at a school with Arkansas's location and history of fundamentally sound football teams.  If he were competing in the Big 12 or Big 10 I believe he could get us there much quicker than he can in the SEC West.  I'm not sure you can build lines anymore with 4th and 5th year studs because of early entry in the draft.  But until Arkansas can land two deep 4 and 5 star talent, which has never happened and which there's no reason to believe ever will happen, I don't know that he has much choice.  I'd rather take his approach than the Petrino/Baylor/TCU approach.  I'd rather go 8-4 in the SEC West than 10-2 in the Big 12, and I think we'll be a better team year-in-and-year out with Bielema's approach.  It is sustainable once it's in place.

    To be fair to Bielema, he's been snakebit to some extent at the skill positions, especially running back.  My biggest problem with him has been his game management.  If Arkansas loses games again it shouldn't, which has been a pattern, and if this team finishes under .500, which is certainly possible, then I think common sense dictates that Jeff Long will have some serious thinking to do at the end of the year about the direction of the program under Brett Bielema.  Right now I just hope we beat TCU and get on a roll.  That's possible, too.       
    I was not being sarcastic,just wanted to be clear on that issue.I agree with the assessment of last season also.In a shocking revelation to most. I don't blame Bielema at all. Young aggressive coach wants to make a statement and also build something of his own.I get it or atleast that's my perspective. Which gets me to my disagreement with you about problems from top to bottom.An AD who thinks big ten football (with our resourses) will fly in our conference. And those in power who were part of and approved these hires and trains of thought.
  • #130 by hogcard1964 on 19 May 2017
  • I'll give you a free refresher just because you rarely have anything good to say.

    I'm being honest.  If that's "not good", I'm sorry.
  • #131 by daBoar on 19 May 2017
  • There should at least be one more alternative:  Hire a head coach who has already built a program with some measure of success. 
  • #132 by MuskogeeHogFan on 19 May 2017
  • I'm being honest.  If that's "not good", I'm sorry.

    My mistake, I meant to say, "nothing positive". In any case, there is what we were discussing.
  • #133 by bphi11ips on 19 May 2017
  • Yeah, except we are a second tier team no one really wants to play. Arkansas is always seen as "trouble game" by every SEC team except for probably Alabama. We can beat any other team in the conference. We just don't do it consistently.
    Our earlier reputation was built on the back of SWC weakness. Now we're in a meat grinder, and it's a whole different game.
    I think our choices are break the bank on the big name (if there is one) or go with a younger, less proven but really dynamic guy like Herman or even a guy like Helton at USC.


    Your statement highlighted in bold has become mantra here and is the reason I spent as much time as I did on Reply 69 above.  Yes, the SWC was not the meatgrinder the SEC is today.  But in the 60s, 70, and 80s, it was not the weak conference that many believe it to have been, either. 

    Not to be disrespectful, but did you live through the last three decades of the SWC, or have you simply read and heard about it?  Seven of the nine members (Houston joined in the 70s) are now members of P5 conferences.  Houston is P5 caliber.

    Arkansas would probably not have won as many games in the SEC as it did in the SWC, but the Razorbacks' "reputation" was not built on the back of SWC weakness.  It was built upon fielding nationally competitive football teams for 30 years.   
  • #134 by hogcard1964 on 19 May 2017
  • My mistake, I meant to say, "nothing positive". In any case, there is what we were discussing.

    Sorry

    We haven't had a lot t positive about over the past 5 years.
  • #135 by BigE_23 on 19 May 2017
  • I don't think you're being sarcastic.  The answer is "I don't know".  I think I said above that I don't think 8-10 years is reasonable for any coach that isn't showing steady improvement.  For the most part, I believe Bielema's teams have shown steady improvement, but the last half of 2016 was definitely a step backwards.  It's not so much the record as the way we lost at Auburn and then to Missouri and Va. Tech. 

    I do believe that Bielema's philosophy based upon the old Nebraska model is still viable, especially at a school with Arkansas's location and history of fundamentally sound football teams.  If he were competing in the Big 12 or Big 10 I believe he could get us there much quicker than he can in the SEC West.  I'm not sure you can build lines anymore with 4th and 5th year studs because of early entry in the draft.  But until Arkansas can land two deep 4 and 5 star talent, which has never happened and which there's no reason to believe ever will happen, I don't know that he has much choice.  I'd rather take his approach than the Petrino/Baylor/TCU approach.  I'd rather go 8-4 in the SEC West than 10-2 in the Big 12, and I think we'll be a better team year-in-and-year out with Bielema's approach.  It is sustainable once it's in place.

    To be fair to Bielema, he's been snakebit to some extent at the skill positions, especially running back.  My biggest problem with him has been his game management. If Arkansas loses games again it shouldn't, which has been a pattern, and if this team finishes under .500, which is certainly possible, then I think common sense dictates that Jeff Long will have some serious thinking to do at the end of the year about the direction of the program under Brett Bielema.  Right now I just hope we beat TCU and get on a roll.  That's possible, too.       

    I agree 100% and this was the knock on him from Wisconsin fans as well.
  • #136 by bphi11ips on 19 May 2017
  • I was not being sarcastic,just wanted to be clear on that issue.I agree with the assessment of last season also.In a shocking revelation to most. I don't blame Bielema at all. Young aggressive coach wants to make a statement and also build something of his own.I get it or atleast that's my perspective. Which gets me to my disagreement with you about problems from top to bottom.An AD who thinks big ten football (with our resourses) will fly in our conference. And those in power who were part of and approved these hires and trains of thought.

    Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee have been playing "Big 10 football" forever and still do.  Steve Spurrier was successful with it at South Carolina, and if you want to see a template for building a program over six years, look at the progression of his tenure there.  Can Arkansas do it?  I don't know.  If we can stop shooting ourselves in the foot, maybe.  We've not been that far off in a lot of games with the big boys.  We've crammed it down LSU's, Florida's and Ole Miss's throats with it.  We've beaten Tennessee and should have beaten Alabama once. 

    Maybe the only way Arkansas can compete is with an Oregon/Baylor approach, but I'd like to wait a couple more years and see what will happen with the Bielema experiment.  I believe it's sustainable and has greater upside.     
  • #137 by runninhog on 19 May 2017
  • We wouldn't get a guy like Herman for several reasons (JMO). At Ohio State he had a name to recruit to. At Houston, the vast majority of his recruiting could be done in a 30 mile radius. At Texas, no matter how far they have fallen off in terms of wins, they have continued to sign highly ranked classes out of the state of Texas and that tells you that no matter what, there are still a whole bunch of good players who want to attend what is still viewed as "THE" state school. Everyone can't go to A&M these days. So what do all of these stops have in common for Herman...easy to recruit. Arkansas is a different challenge.

    And if I were Clay Helton, with the established national name that USC has and the ability to float that name and graze on all of the talent in California, why would I make my own job more difficult by coming to a school like Arkansas and having to compete against the likes of our conference members in recruiting and then have to face them on the field every year? He can have a lot more success at USC.

    You might be able to hire a big name guy for a zillion dollars who is just looking for one more challenge but I would bet that those coaches look at what Bielema has gone through here (and don't kid yourself, Bielema is well respected) and might say, no thank you.

    I didn't mean to suggest we'd get either of those guys. There's zero chance of that happening. I meant someone along those lines.
  • #138 by runninhog on 19 May 2017
  • Your statement highlighted in bold has become mantra here and is the reason I spent as much time as I did on Reply 69 above.  Yes, the SWC was not the meatgrinder the SEC is today.  But in the 60s, 70, and 80s, it was not the weak conference that many believe it to have been, either. 

    Not to be disrespectful, but did you live through the last three decades of the SWC, or have you simply read and heard about it?  Seven of the nine members (Houston joined in the 70s) are now members of P5 conferences.  Houston is P5 caliber.

    Arkansas would probably not have won as many games in the SEC as it did in the SWC, but the Razorbacks' "reputation" was not built on the back of SWC weakness.  It was built upon fielding nationally competitive football teams for 30 years.

    I'll be 55 this year, so I saw enough.  SMU and A&M were solid programs, and obviously Texas, but top to bottom, that conference was never anywhere close to the SEC.

    We won 13 SWC championships. We haven't won a single SEC title.
    From 1960 onward, we had 16 seasons with 9 or more wins in the SWC (32 years).  We've had six season with 9 or more wins since 1992. (25 years)
  • #139 by bphi11ips on 19 May 2017
  • I'll be 55 this year, so I saw enough.  SMU and A&M were solid programs, and obviously Texas, but top to bottom, that conference was never anywhere close to the SEC.

    We won 13 SWC championships. We haven't won a single SEC title.
    From 1960 onward, we had 16 seasons with 9 or more wins in the SWC (32 years).  We've had six season with 9 or more wins since 1992. (25 years)

    Fair enough.  We're the same age.  The first season I remember clearly is 1967, and that's only because I come from a rabid Razorbacks family who took me to games before I could walk.  I agree the SEC was the stronger conference in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but I disagree with the broad statement in your earlier post.
  • #140 by hogcard1964 on 19 May 2017
  • I'll be 55 this year, so I saw enough.  SMU and A&M were solid programs, and obviously Texas, but top to bottom, that conference was never anywhere close to the SEC.

    We won 13 SWC championships. We haven't won a single SEC title.
    From 1960 onward, we had 16 seasons with 9 or more wins in the SWC (32 years).  We've had six season with 9 or more wins since 1992. (25 years)

    We're close to the same age.  I actually remember when TCU was pretty solid as well.  ....before they became a SWC doormat with Rice.
  • #141 by Pigsknuckles on 19 May 2017
  • I'm reminded of the line in the movie Life of Pi where the shipwreck survivor asks the writer, "what story do you prefer?"
  • #142 by gchamblee on 19 May 2017
  • nobody can read that garbled up crap when you post it. The columns don't stay in order. I'll give you that rankings aren't the total picture. They do show the real numbers and how teams stack up. It also shows a difference between the defenses in 2011 and 2016.

    looks great on my screen
  • #143 by Wildhog on 19 May 2017
  • Life's too short to wait 8-10 years for a football coach to get it done. 
  • #144 by DLUXHOG on 19 May 2017
  • nobody can read that garbled up crap when you post it. The columns don't stay in order. I'll give you that rankings aren't the total picture. They do show the real numbers and how teams stack up. It also shows a difference between the defenses in 2011 and 2016.

    mine showed up perfectly.... (You might want to consider replacing your Radio Shack TRS80)
  • #145 by bphi11ips on 19 May 2017
  • I'm reminded of the line in the movie Life of Pi where the shipwreck survivor asks the writer, "what story do you prefer?"

    And I'm reminded of George Orwell's quote, "History belongs to those who write it." 
  • #146 by LRRandy on 19 May 2017
  • looks great on my screen
    muskogee is right. I'm looking at it on a phone and it jumbles all up.
  • #147 by Deep Shoat on 19 May 2017
  • Life's too short to wait 8-10 years for a football coach to get it done.
    I hope you're prepared to wait a lot longer.  Other than pure, blind luck, constancy with a proven, good coach is our only hope.  And Bielema is a good coach, no matter the opinion of Hogville's best.  He proved it at Wisconsin.
  • #148 by Wildhog on 19 May 2017
  • I hope you're prepared to wait a lot longer.  Other than pure, blind luck, constancy with a proven, good coach is our only hope.  And Bielema is a good coach, no matter the opinion of Hogville's best.  He proved it at Wisconsin.

    Give me a flash in the pan that'll give us a couple of good years and then bolt/get fired/whatever.  I'd much rather take 1-2 good seasons now over never seeing them.
  • #149 by Deep Shoat on 19 May 2017
  • For everyone complaining about the poll options, what SHOULD they be?
  • #150 by Hogs-n-Roses on 19 May 2017
  • Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee have been playing "Big 10 football" forever and still do.  Steve Spurrier was successful with it at South Carolina, and if you want to see a template for building a program over six years, look at the progression of his tenure there.  Can Arkansas do it?  I don't know.  If we can stop shooting ourselves in the foot, maybe.  We've not been that far off in a lot of games with the big boys.  We've crammed it down LSU's, Florida's and Ole Miss's throats with it.  We've beaten Tennessee and should have beaten Alabama once. 

    Maybe the only way Arkansas can compete is with an Oregon/Baylor approach, but I'd like to wait a couple more years and see what will happen with the Bielema experiment.  I believe it's sustainable and has greater upside.     
    Maybe its symantics n not an argument. I always looked at those programs as power running systems and not a big ten thing. I'd throw in the old Texas n OK teams as well and yes I know they were option at times.
Pages:
Actions