This guy's got it right - could only be three SEC teams in the tourney

[Atlhogfan1]

Thought Tennessee made the E8 after being in the play in game.. won the same number of Tourney games as the F4 participants.. could be wrong and didn't feel like looking it up..

SW16  - Lost a close game to Michigan

It isn't the top 2-3 teams in the SEC.  It is the bottom 8-10 which is mediocre to dreadful.  This is where those teams 4-6 have their issues.  Stumbling means some not so good to bad losses.  Wins can add up but don't mean much to the resume.  That bottom half is what separates the SEC from the other major conferences.  The Big East and Big 12 benefit from having fewer teams and their RPIs can be inflated by playing each other twice. 

[Wisco Pig]

Thought Tennessee made the E8 after being in the play in game.. won the same number of Tourney games as the F4 participants.. could be wrong and didn't feel like looking it up..

UT lost to Michigan in the round of 16.   Kentucky then beat Michigan in the regional final.  This was in 2014.

[Dominicanhog]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/rpi/_/teamId/8

UPCOMING GAMES TIME
120 Jan. 21 LSU 8:30 PM
73 Jan. 24 @ Vanderbilt 8:30 PM
57 Jan. 28 @ Oklahoma State 4:00 PM
68 Feb. 1 Alabama 7:00 PM
258 Feb. 4 @ Missouri 6:00 PM
73 Feb. 7 Vanderbilt 8:30 PM
120 Feb. 11 @ LSU 8:30 PM
25 Feb. 15 @ South Carolina 6:30 PM
47 Feb. 18 Ole Miss 6:00 PM
96 Feb. 22 Texas A&M 8:30 PM
78 Feb. 25 @ Auburn 8:30 PM
3 Mar. 1 @ Florida 7:00 PM
39 Mar. 4 Georgia 2:00 PM

3 opportunities for Top 50 wins.

3 opportunities for bad losses.

The next 6 games will tell the tale... win 5 or 6 and your in great shape, lose more than 2 and we're in trouble...I could see 6-0 but hate to say I could also see 3-3...

[Hawg Red]

You can disagree, but don't act like there is "no reason for anyone to feel confident in more than 3 teams getting in."  Mississippi State and Georgia are getting hot at the right time.  Arkansas and Ole Miss did not have terrible nonconference schedules.

Those teams have competed well enough against Kentucky, South Carolina and Florida.  They've also beaten the teams they're supposed to.  That's enough "reason" to think they at least one of them can keep it up through the season.

I'd imagine Mississippi State, with an RPI of 116 and non-con losses to UCF, Lehigh, and East Tennessee State, is probably a ways off from the bubble. Arkansas is their best win. Their other two conference wins are bad teams in LSU and A&M. Why are we acting like they're a bubble team? Because they aren't terrible now?

These teams have competed well enough against Kentucky, Florida and South Carolina? Hmm. How's that? Kentucky is 3-0 against those teams with 2 blowouts. Florida is also 3-0 against those teams. South Carolina is 2-0 against the teams mentioned.

I never said the SEC wasn't going to get more than 3 teams in. But I think it shouldn't come as surprise to anyone if that does happen. The SEC is not very highly thought of with the committee right now. I mean, it's obvious, right? Should be, anyway, to anyone who has been paying attention the last few years. I hope 5 SEC teams get in because that means we're one of them, but I think 3 teams is more likely than 5 (which was the original statement I replied to).

[bhogs05]

I agree these next 6 games will really make or break us, in fact the next 2 road games could make or break us.  We need to do no worse than split those 2.  I think we need to get to at least 22 wins in the regular season.  We really need a signature win too b/c not trying to trash anything but we really don't have a signature win as of right now.  Beating SC or FL on the road would be that win though. 

[The_Iceman]

I'd imagine Mississippi State, with an RPI of 116 and non-con losses to UCF, Lehigh, and East Tennessee State, is probably a ways off from the bubble. Arkansas is their best win. Their other two conference wins are bad teams in LSU and A&M. Why are we acting like they're a bubble team? Because they aren't terrible now?

These teams have competed well enough against Kentucky, Florida and South Carolina? Hmm. How's that? Kentucky is 3-0 against those teams with 2 blowouts. Florida is also 3-0 against those teams. South Carolina is 2-0 against the teams mentioned.

I never said the SEC wasn't going to get more than 3 teams in. But I think it shouldn't come as surprise to anyone if that does happen. The SEC is not very highly thought of with the committee right now. I mean, it's obvious, right? Should be, anyway, to anyone who has been paying attention the last few years. I hope 5 SEC teams get in because that means we're one of them, but I think 3 teams is more likely than 5 (which was the original statement I replied to).

Yes, however some of Mississippi States losses came without Weatherspoon. The committee will take that into account if the finish strong in conference.

[Hawg Red]

Yes, however some of Mississippi States losses came without Weatherspoon. The committee will take that into account if the finish strong in conference.

Only the Leigh loss. He played 35 and 32 minutes, respectively, against UCF and ETSU.

[hogsanity]

sec only got 3 in last year, and the 3rd was as an 11 seed in a play in game for the round of 64. It is truly hard to comprehend how bad the sec is unless you watch a lot of college bball from the "mid majors" conferences. The most notable thing is how fundamentally poor most sec teams are.

[rude1]

If they leave us out then screw them...I don't care what you think about the SEC but I don't see some of these weak ass conferences being better. We win 23 and finish 12-6/11-7 in conference with our road wins we damn well better make it in.

Here is the issue, what if we go 12-6 finish fourth behind Ky, Fl, and SC, with our losses  being 1 to Ky, 2 to SC, 2 to FL and 1 to Mstate? Is the committee going to view that favorably with no wins against the  top three of the conference ?

[code red]

12-6 in conference is not far fetched.  Miss st was a bit of a shocker but so was the positive wins on the road to both tamu and Tennessee.  Unlike you I can see us going on a tear down the stretch.

The shocker was how much better they were than last year.  Miss State didn't just have a good night....MSU is good.

[ShadowHawg]

Their failure to make the NCAA Tournament that season is still a more egregious failure to me than the 16-16 season last year.

Right.  Being a bubble team fundamentally means you need to make your case in the conference tournament.  Win a game or two and you're probably in.  Lose and you're out.  It's especially true in the SEC with it lacking in marquee games.

Why?

The thing I have noticed is that many here act like there wasn't a culture of losing when MA took over. The upper classmen on that team had never sniffed post season prior to that and weren't even leaders to boot.

Culture of winning is a big deal. That culture is slowly changing under MA like it or not. There are actually guys on this team who have stepped up and took leadership roles and it shows. It's a big deal and a huge reason why this team has shown to be mentally tough to this point in the season.

[daprospecta]

You will get no complaint from me. My standard is NCAA or Fired. Doesn't matter how we get it or what we do, just get in.

The only problem with this standard is you will most likely have the same standard next year even if we do make it this year. I want to see progress. Year 4 was progress, year 5 was a step back but for obvious reasons. Year 6 is most certainly progress.  When was the last time we were playing to stay in the tourney at this point in the season? We are tourney bound barring a collapse, WINNING ROAD GAMES, we have great recruits coming in for the next few years and we are playing hard even when the shots don't fall. You don't fire a coach under those pretenses.

[swinesation]

Their failure to make the NCAA Tournament that season is still a more egregious failure to me than the 16-16 season last year.

Why?? We're not that talented.

[swinesation]

The only problem with this standard is you will most likely have the same standard next year even if we do make it this year. I want to see progress. Year 4 was progress, year 5 was a step back but for obvious reasons. Year 6 is most certainly progress.  When was the last time we were playing to stay in the tourney at this point in the season? We are tourney bound barring a collapse, WINNING ROAD GAMES, we have great recruits coming in for the next few years and we are playing hard even when the shots don't fall. You don't fire a coach under those pretenses.

Look, I'm all for keeping Mike because of the recruiting he's done lately. However, it is totally wrong to say we are in barring a collapse. We've been a bubble team all season. We're 3-3 in the SEC, 1-2 at home. Miss State beat us at home. If we keep playing like we've been playing, which we probably will, we will not make the tournament. I'm thinking we'll probably beat LSU, then lose 2 of the next three games. And so it goes.

[LR_Matt]

Here is the issue, what if we go 12-6 finish fourth behind Ky, Fl, and SC, with our losses  being 1 to Ky, 2 to SC, 2 to FL and 1 to Mstate? Is the committee going to view that favorably with no wins against the  top three of the conference ?

No, not favorably at all.... wonder how non-conf weighs out. Ours seems really weak to me compared with the top schools in the conf.

[rzrbackramsfan]

Check it out, but don't compare it to ours. Yikes!

Huh? 

[realistichog]

I believe a lot of wishful thinking is going on. 21 or 22 wins is probably tops for us. We will have to get to the finals of SEC tourny to get on the bubble.

[Razorbackers]

This year -- our fanbase  has the potential to do something no other fanbase has done before. And that's bitch about our team actually making the NCAA tournament. I think we just might. I think we're that loco enough.

*cracks knuckles*

let's get to work

[maxhog5]

The SEC is considered a mid-major conference in basketball at this time.  If Arkansas' best win is Texas-Arlington or Houston then hello NIT no matter the win total.

[hogsanity]

The SEC is considered a mid-major conference in basketball at this time.  If Arkansas' best win is Texas-Arlington or Houston then hello NIT no matter the win total.

If they win 25+ they are in, probably as a 7 or 8 seed. 24, in as a 8-10 seed. It is if they win 23 or less where is gets dicey. Now, I am talking before the sect. If they get to 24 by winning a game or games in the sect, that is a different story.

[riccoar]

If you count the games that we should be favored to win, and really have no excuse to lose, we would have 24 wins going into SECT.  The Arkansas team that played in the first half of the Kentucky game could win out the rest of this schedule.  The team that showed up against Miss State would be lucky to beat Missouri at Missouri.  And Missouri is awful.

[hogsanity]

If you count the games that we should be favored to win, and really have no excuse to lose, we would have 24 wins going into SECT.  The Arkansas team that played in the first half of the Kentucky game could win out the rest of this schedule.  The team that showed up against Miss State would be lucky to beat Missouri at Missouri.  And Missouri is awful.

which is why no one an get a read on them. Is the defense that let LSu score 78 going to show up? Is the O that only scored 62 at A&m going to show up? What if both those show up on the same night?

IMO, if they get to 24 wins before the sect they are in the ncaat.

[The_Iceman]

Huh?

http://mississippistate.247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/Commits
http://mississippistate.247sports.com/Season/2015-Basketball/Commits

Vs.

http://arkansas.247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/Commits
http://arkansas.247sports.com/Season/2015-Basketball/Commits

[rzrbackramsfan]

http://mississippistate.247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/Commits
http://mississippistate.247sports.com/Season/2015-Basketball/Commits

Vs.

http://arkansas.247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/Commits
http://arkansas.247sports.com/Season/2015-Basketball/Commits

Yes, someone said it was a shocker that we lost to Mississippi State, so I said, hey go look at their recruiting rankings.  Then you said don't compare their recruiting rankings to ours.  I thought you said that because we have higher rated recruits, so, it is indeed a shocker we lost to them.

When in fact, you were agreeing, they have recruited better than us over the past two year stretch. 

Moral of the story, a lot of these SEC teams that we will finish higher than in the SEC standings, have recruited better than Arkansas.  Not all of that blame goes on CMA, either.  We also shouldn't be shocked when Ms. St., Auburn or Alabama beat us either.  However, Arkansas has out performed recruiting rankings since he has been here, and if that trend continues, we could be looking at some very solid finishes the next two-three years (And maybe even this year).   

[JayBell]

If they win 25+ they are in, probably as a 7 or 8 seed. 24, in as a 8-10 seed. It is if they win 23 or less where is gets dicey. Now, I am talking before the sect. If they get to 24 by winning a game or games in the sect, that is a different story.

I'm usually right there with you, but these numbers don't make sense to me.  The 2014-15 team finished the regular season 24-7.  Their marquee wins were Dayton and SMU.  That's better than Houston and UT-Arlington, but not that much better.  They still lost to Kentucky.  They still lost to Florida.

They did make it to the SECT final, but they went into the NCAAT as a No. 5 seed and you're saying Arkansas has to finish with a regular season record just as good to even make the tournament?  That doesn't make sense.

[JayBell]

Again, the difference between Arkansas' schedule this year and past years is the lack of bad teams dragging down their RPI and SOS.  Fort Wayne, UT-Arlington, Mount St. Mary's, North Florida, North Dakota State and Sam Houston State are all likely going to end up as relatively decent wins.  Arkansas has a lot more wins of that kind this season than they did in previous years when they just beat up on bad teams.

They still can't afford any bad losses in the SEC, obviously, and they probably need to make some noise in the SECT, but I just can't believe that they need at least the same amount of regular season wins just to make the tournament as a team two years ago had as a No. 5 seed.

[hogsanity]

I'm usually right there with you, but these numbers don't make sense to me.  The 2014-15 team finished the regular season 24-7.  Their marquee wins were Dayton and SMU.  That's better than Houston and UT-Arlington, but not that much better.  They still lost to Kentucky.  They still lost to Florida.

They did make it to the SECT final, but they went into the NCAAT as a No. 5 seed and you're saying Arkansas has to finish with a regular season record just as good to even make the tournament?  That doesn't make sense.

The SEC is worse, and the ooc schedule, while it looked decent before the season started, has turned out to be not very good at all.

[JayBell]

The SEC is worse, and the ooc schedule, while it looked decent before the season started, has turned out to be not very good at all.

Not very good at all?  There's no marquee games, but half of the teams on there will finish at or near the top of their own conferences.  Also, none of them are at the bottom, except for Texas, and at least they were a P5 opponent.  It's very average, not terrible.

[hogsanity]

Not very good at all?  There's no marquee games, but half of the teams on there will finish at or near the top of their own conferences.  Also, none of them are at the bottom, except for Texas, and at least they were a P5 opponent.  It's very average, not terrible.

Also have to take into account the rise of teams like St Mary's, Creighton ( they have been pretty good for a while ), and teams also receiving top 25 votes like UNc Willmington, Northwestern, V-Tech. There are just a lot of average basketball teams, and the sec gets no respect.

20 years ago, if a SEC team was looking at having 24 regular season wins, they'd be a lock for a to be a top 16 seed.

As for the non conf schedule, still has 3 or 4 teams with really really bad rpi's.

[riccoar]

Again, the difference between Arkansas' schedule this year and past years is the lack of bad teams dragging down their RPI and SOS.  Fort Wayne, UT-Arlington, Mount St. Mary's, North Florida, North Dakota State and Sam Houston State are all likely going to end up as relatively decent wins.  Arkansas has a lot more wins of that kind this season than they did in previous years when they just beat up on bad teams.

They still can't afford any bad losses in the SEC, obviously, and they probably need to make some noise in the SECT, but I just can't believe that they need at least the same amount of regular season wins just to make the tournament as a team two years ago had as a No. 5 seed.

20 wins is no longer the benchmark to get you over the hump.  I say we get the 23-24 we should get because the pundits are all clamoring about only 4 SEC teams should get in.  That many wins and we should easily be in the 4 slot.

[yocdaddy]

I think there is an outside chance of getting 5 teams into the dance.  When it is done, you should compare Arkansas, Georgia, Vandy, Tennessee, and Miss St.  Vandy has a win over Florida, so we really need to split at worst.  Miss St. beat us at home, so we have to clearly have the better resume.  We play Georgia at home, which is probably a good thing.  We have already beaten Tennessee on the road.  If we get only 4 into the NCAA tournament, I don't like our chances against Vandy or Miss St.  If we get 5 in, we might be that squad.  It's too early to tell.

[The_Iceman]

Yes, someone said it was a shocker that we lost to Mississippi State, so I said, hey go look at their recruiting rankings.  Then you said don't compare their recruiting rankings to ours.  I thought you said that because we have higher rated recruits, so, it is indeed a shocker we lost to them.

When in fact, you were agreeing, they have recruited better than us over the past two year stretch. 

Moral of the story, a lot of these SEC teams that we will finish higher than in the SEC standings, have recruited better than Arkansas.  Not all of that blame goes on CMA, either.  We also shouldn't be shocked when Ms. St., Auburn or Alabama beat us either.  However, Arkansas has out performed recruiting rankings since he has been here, and if that trend continues, we could be looking at some very solid finishes the next two-three years (And maybe even this year).   

I couldn't disagree more with your assessment. Our recruiting rankings being worse are Mike Anderson's fault.

How many 4-star recruits has Mike landed that did not have strong Arkansas ties? How many of them were high school kids?

Look at Mississippi states 2016 class. How many of them were from Mississippi? Mike has not been going into Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Memphis and landing 4 star recruits. He has coached in Alabama and Missouri, and hasn't landed big recruits from their either (except Whitt, who transferred).

[Hawg Red]

I couldn't disagree more with your assessment. Our recruiting rankings being worse are Mike Anderson's fault.

How many 4-star recruits has Mike landed that did not have strong Arkansas ties? How many of them were high school kids?

Look at Mississippi states 2016 class. How many of them were from Mississippi? Mike has not been going into Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Memphis and landing 4 star recruits. He has coached in Alabama and Missouri, and hasn't landed big recruits from their either (except Whitt, who transferred).

Deserves any and all criticism and praise for our recruiting rankings. If our ranking is not up to par, it's definitely on him because it's his job to get good players in here and be able to sell good recruits on our program. Likewise, if he puts together good classes like he has lined up and a couple of the previous classes while here, he get totally gets that credit.

Mike and staff are not strong recruiters. I'd love to see someone argue that. That's a negative about the staff. They have managed to turn the tide in the state of Arkansas here recently with native Arkansans or players with strong Arkansas ties. Do not expect them to be able to have the same type of success with national players with no connections. It's just not going to happen. Our success is going to be almost completely reliant on in-state talent or players with Arkansas ties. That's going to lead to some uneven recruiting rankings, most likely. If Mike can keep it going year in and year out in-state, we'll might be alright most years (assuming this level of talent keeps up). If not, we'll see more of what we've seen most of his 6 years here because he's very much a coach that is as good as his talent. He isn't going to coach lesser-talented players up to great heights. He has to receive them as already being very good. Not say there won't be development but that is what history has shown us.

[JayBell]

Also have to take into account the rise of teams like St Mary's, Creighton ( they have been pretty good for a while ), and teams also receiving top 25 votes like UNc Willmington, Northwestern, V-Tech. There are just a lot of average basketball teams, and the sec gets no respect.

20 years ago, if a SEC team was looking at having 24 regular season wins, they'd be a lock for a to be a top 16 seed.

As for the non conf schedule, still has 3 or 4 teams with really really bad rpi's.

20 wins is no longer the benchmark to get you over the hump.  I say we get the 23-24 we should get because the pundits are all clamoring about only 4 SEC teams should get in.  That many wins and we should easily be in the 4 slot.

I could definitely be wrong, but it's not like the SEC just started to fall out of favor this year.  It's been a bad decade for SEC basketball.  I just don't think the situation is so drastically different from 2-3 years ago.

[TexArkHogFan]

The SEC has no respect, not even in the polls.  The latest AP poll has four teams with 4 losses and two with five losses.  SC and Florida are two of those teams.  The Hogs do not even have one single vote in those receiving votes.  We have same number of losses as Duke and   Louisville, while Xavier and Florida has five losses.  Are we as good as those teams.  Not even close. 

[ErieHog]

I could definitely be wrong, but it's not like the SEC just started to fall out of favor this year.  It's been a bad decade for SEC basketball.  I just don't think the situation is so drastically different from 2-3 years ago.

Not a bad decade; a bad several decades.   

We're 20 years removed from the league being more than 2 or 3 teams deep.

That said, the league is in much better shape than most of the naysayers offer.   Its a 5 bid or 4 bid league, depending on how the ACC/B10 races shake out.

[swinesation]

http://mississippistate.247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/Commits
http://mississippistate.247sports.com/Season/2015-Basketball/Commits

Vs.

http://arkansas.247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/Commits
http://arkansas.247sports.com/Season/2015-Basketball/Commits

Holy crap, Miss State's 2016 class is amazing! I didn't know they had brought in such a haul!

[rzrbackramsfan]

Holy crap, Miss State's 2016 class is amazing! I didn't know they had brought in such a haul!

Can you imagine how bad we'd be freaking out if we had that kind of talent and couldn't break the top half of the SEC? 

[rzrbackramsfan]

I couldn't disagree more with your assessment. Our recruiting rankings being worse are Mike Anderson's fault.

How many 4-star recruits has Mike landed that did not have strong Arkansas ties? How many of them were high school kids?

Look at Mississippi states 2016 class. How many of them were from Mississippi? Mike has not been going into Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Memphis and landing 4 star recruits. He has coached in Alabama and Missouri, and hasn't landed big recruits from their either (except Whitt, who transferred).

Deserves any and all criticism and praise for our recruiting rankings. If our ranking is not up to par, it's definitely on him because it's his job to get good players in here and be able to sell good recruits on our program. Likewise, if he puts together good classes like he has lined up and a couple of the previous classes while here, he get totally gets that credit.

Mike and staff are not strong recruiters. I'd love to see someone argue that. That's a negative about the staff. They have managed to turn the tide in the state of Arkansas here recently with native Arkansans or players with strong Arkansas ties. Do not expect them to be able to have the same type of success with national players with no connections. It's just not going to happen. Our success is going to be almost completely reliant on in-state talent or players with Arkansas ties. That's going to lead to some uneven recruiting rankings, most likely. If Mike can keep it going year in and year out in-state, we'll might be alright most years (assuming this level of talent keeps up). If not, we'll see more of what we've seen most of his 6 years here because he's very much a coach that is as good as his talent. He isn't going to coach lesser-talented players up to great heights. He has to receive them as already being very good. Not say there won't be development but that is what history has shown us.

First years recruiting was getting committed players to stay on board, check.

Second year was qualls, bell, and williams.  All in all, not a good recruiting class, but I argue that that's not really his fault.  Our program was still crap, and we had no practice facility and APR problems. 

Third year - bobby portis and moses kingsley - that was a good recruiting year! 

Fourth year - beard and thompson - that was an alright recruiting year, they swung out on some transfers, but still no practice facility.   However, if that is the worst recruiting gets it's fine. 

Fifth year - whitt and thomas.... no excuses for this one.  If we don't make the tournament this year, go ahead and point to this years recruiting class as the reason why.  -The practice facility still wasn't open for recruits, they just knew it was going to be ready when they got there.

Sixth year - a pretty good recruiting year.  Fifth in the SEC I believe - practice facility was used for recruiting, thurman replaced zimmerman, CMA is more established at arkansas. 

And then of course '17's class is better than '16s class and 18's class is better than '17's. 

So I'd agree, the beginning years with no practice facility the recruiting was poor but it was no surprise really.  So you point at Alabama, Ms. St. and Auburn who have out recruited us, I'd argue a. they're in more fertile recruiting grounds.... yes yes yes i know, we've had players choose Kentucky over us, but what Arkansas really needs is like 4, 4 stars in the top 100 that aren't good enough to go to UK but will choose us.  We haven't really had that, however, since the practice facility, we've done a great job with those players. 

Also, who cares if they have Arkansas ties or not.  If that's the base of the recruits and you smatter in a Reggie Perry, Jaylen Barford, Courtney Ramey, Rodgerick Brown, Jimmy Whitt, Adrio Bailey, CJ Jones, etc... that's fine. 

Lastly, while I admit that Bama, Auburn, and Ms. St., have out recruited our coach since they've gotten their new coach, I think we're the better team right now to all of them, and were even last year when the roster was in very bad shape.  So I definitely wouldn't want to trade a coach that does more with less (CMA) for a coach that does less with more (Pearl, Howland (doesn't he have a cheating rep anyways) Johnson).  Because for them to get better, they have to get EVEN better players, and for them to step up their recruiting, they have to get elite players.  I believe based on the way CMA's teams have out performed their recruiting rankings, that if they can get Ms. St. level players year after year (3rd-5th best classes) than this could be an elite squad. 

So I ask you, do you want the coach that might be elite with a lot of 4 stars, or the coach that needs elite players to be elite?  Which one sounds more feasible at Arkansas? 

[Hawg Red]

Second year was qualls, bell, and williams.  All in all, not a good recruiting class, but I argue that that's not really his fault.  Our program was still crap, and we had no practice facility and APR problems.

Right off the bat, you are making excuses and lower expectations. That was a solid recruiting class, though. But those excuses are garbage.

Third year - bobby portis and moses kingsley - that was a good recruiting year!

It was, but you also leave out the important about how they went hard after a guard all year to replace B.J. and completely whiffed and did not sign a single one. Like, no one.

Fourth year - beard and thompson - that was an alright recruiting year, they swung out on some transfers, but still no practice facility.   However, if that is the worst recruiting gets it's fine.

How hard is to just say they didn't get it done in recruiting?

So I'd agree, the beginning years with no practice facility the recruiting was poor but it was no surprise really.  So you point at Alabama, Ms. St. and Auburn who have out recruited us, I'd argue a. they're in more fertile recruiting grounds.... yes yes yes i know, we've had players choose Kentucky over us, but what Arkansas really needs is like 4, 4 stars in the top 100 that aren't good enough to go to UK but will choose us.  We haven't really had that, however, since the practice facility, we've done a great job with those players.

We lost Monk after the practice facility was open. That's a pretty big fish, and we know from your reasoning that that is the only reason we don't recruit well.

Also, who cares if they have Arkansas ties or not.  If that's the base of the recruits and you smatter in a Reggie Perry, Jaylen Barford, Courtney Ramey, Rodgerick Brown, Jimmy Whitt, Adrio Bailey, CJ Jones, etc... that's fine.

First off, you can re-direct Reggie Perry into the group of players with Arkansas ties. He's originally from Arkansas and plays for the Hawks. Second, it matters because you can't win big in basketball just relying on in-state or out-of-state recruits unless you're Kentucky or a blue blood program. Anderson doesn't bring in bad players. His worst players have been late period scrambles to just fill a spot. Otherwise, I have confidence that we're getting at worst an okay player. We have just had too many okay players and not enough really good players. It's the coach's job to make that happen.

Also, guys like Jones and Bailey haven't accomplished much yet. Are you really trying to point to them as recruiting gems already? They weren't highly-rated, either.

Lastly, while I admit that Bama, Auburn, and Ms. St., have out recruited our coach since they've gotten their new coach, I think we're the better team right now to all of them, and were even last year when the roster was in very bad shape.  So I definitely wouldn't want to trade a coach that does more with less (CMA) for a coach that does less with more (Pearl, Howland (doesn't he have a cheating rep anyways) Johnson).  Because for them to get better, they have to get EVEN better players, and for them to step up their recruiting, they have to get elite players.  I believe based on the way CMA's teams have out performed their recruiting rankings, that if they can get Ms. St. level players year after year (3rd-5th best classes) than this could be an elite squad.

Anderson has been here for 6 years now. Johnson and Howland are in their 2nd year. Pearl is in 3rd year. And I love you are calling Bruce Pearl (3 Sweet 16s and an Elite and Ben Howland (2 Sweet 16s, 2 Final 4s, one runner up) coaches who do less with more. That's comical. But I bet Anderson's Sweet 16 at UAB and Elite 8 at Missouri are informing your trust in him as a coach.

How can you say that Anderson's classes have really outperformed recruiting rankings when we're sitting at one NCAA tournament appearance out of 5 years? That's a reach. And a really low bar.

So I ask you, do you want the coach that might be elite with a lot of 4 stars, or the coach that needs elite players to be elite?  Which one sounds more feasible at Arkansas?

A coach that needs elite players to be elite describes Mike Anderson's best-case scenario, honestly. Coaches like Pearl and Howland, I think can be elite with a lot of 4 stars (probably have been in the past).

[Hawg Red]

To further my point about Howland and Pearl being able to be elite without elite players, here are their recruiting finishes at UCLA and Tennessee, respectively.

UCLA
2003: 64
2004: 6
2005: 20
2006: 37
2007: 25
2008: 1

* UCLA was able to recruit the #1 recruiting AFTER three straight Final 4 appearances, including a national runner-up.

2009: 9
2010: 24
2011: 69
2012: 2

Tennessee
2005: 39
2006: 10
2007: 66
2008: 5

* Tennessee was able to get a top 5 recruiting class AFTER back-to-back Sweet 16s.

2009: 120
2010: 9

Pearl and Howland are both good recruiters, but they did not see their best recruiting success until after they overachieved with less-than-stellar recruiting classes. But I would not say they were getting elite talent year in and year out like Kentucky, Kansas, Duke and UNC usually do. To call them "less with more" coaches is insane to me. Now, they do have their faults for sure, which is why they are even at the jobs they're at now.

[NWAHog479]

SEC has a lot of good players and coaches but not many great teams. We are capable of finishing second in this conference this year. I am not saying that is what I think will happen, but I do see us anywhere from 2-4.

[JayBell]

Not a bad decade; a bad several decades.   

We're 20 years removed from the league being more than 2 or 3 teams deep.

That said, the league is in much better shape than most of the naysayers offer.   Its a 5 bid or 4 bid league, depending on how the ACC/B10 races shake out.

The SEC actually wasn't bad from 1999-2008.  According to http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2017/1/16/14283076/ncaa-tournament-2017-sec-bids-kentucky-florida-south-carolina, "the SEC averaged 5.8 tournament bids per season, and never did worse than five bids in a given year."  In the eight years since then, "the SEC has averaged 3.75 NCAA Tournament bids per season and the conference has never gotten more than five bids in a single year over that stretch."

So they went from averaging almost half of the conference making the tournament every year to less than a third.  That's a marked drop and an eight-year trend, not something that's just changed in the last two or three years.

[Hawg Red]

The SEC actually wasn't bad from 1999-2008.  According to http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2017/1/16/14283076/ncaa-tournament-2017-sec-bids-kentucky-florida-south-carolina, "the SEC averaged 5.8 tournament bids per season, and never did worse than five bids in a given year."  In the eight years since then, "the SEC has averaged 3.75 NCAA Tournament bids per season and the conference has never gotten more than five bids in a single year over that stretch."

So they went from averaging almost half of the conference making the tournament every year to less than a third.  That's a marked drop and an eight-year trend, not something that's just changed in the last two or three years.

Bid-wise, the 2000s were the best decade for the SEC since Arkansas has been a member. The 2010s have been the worse. Went from the high straight to the low.

[Dominicanhog]

To further my point about Howland and Pearl being able to be elite without elite players, here are their recruiting finishes at UCLA and Tennessee, respectively.

UCLA
2003: 64
2004: 6
2005: 20
2006: 37
2007: 25
2008: 1

* UCLA was able to recruit the #1 recruiting AFTER three straight Final 4 appearances, including a national runner-up.

2009: 9
2010: 24
2011: 69
2012: 2

Tennessee
2005: 39
2006: 10
2007: 66
2008: 5

* Tennessee was able to get a top 5 recruiting class AFTER back-to-back Sweet 16s.

2009: 120
2010: 9

Pearl and Howland are both good recruiters, but they did not see their best recruiting success until after they overachieved with less-than-stellar recruiting classes. But I would not say they were getting elite talent year in and year out like Kentucky, Kansas, Duke and UNC usually do. To call them "less with more" coaches is insane to me. Now, they do have their faults for sure, which is why they are even at the jobs they're at now.

IMO, both are very good coaches.. never been sure of Pearl's character but a he11 of a coach.. it's why I don't like the game at AU..  I think both will field some pretty good teams over the next few years.. both are good for the conference.. 

[ShadowHawg]

To call them "less with more" coaches is insane to me. Now, they do have their faults for sure, which is why they are even at the jobs they're at now.

I wouldn't ever say that about Pearl, but there is a case for Howland in there, albeit a weak one.

His best teams were loaded with NBA players. When you look at his best run, it's almost negligence that he didn't get at least one NC out of that group. But Howland can also be described as having been an over achiever as well. Very Dr. Jeckyl and Mr Hyde'ish.