Some are saying the 22 years in the SEC shows that we were doomed when we joined

[nextlevel]

Alabama, Tennessee, UGA, & LSU had a more successful programs than us when we joined the SEC, Florida was an awakening giant.

-Most of our wins against the Tigers were before 1930. Since 1930 we have 8 wins against LSU, that's over  9 decades, 35 games.

-Prior to joining the SEC we had never beaten Tennessee, by '92 the Vols had already won 17 bowl games vs. 9 bowl wins we had.

-UGA had twice had many top 5 finishes has we did, prior to us joining the SEC


We had a good program, but we joined a conference that had a few elite programs.

Arkansas would have been considered an elite program up to the time period the conference change occurred.

The thing I find fascinating is the period of competing on a very high level for Arkansas is all but forgotten, or largely ignored, while a myth of aTm being on an equal or great level than Arkansas during this time period has came to be regarded as "fact".

The SWC was dominated by Arkansas and Texas during the 60s, the year aTm won the SWC was the only year in the 60s that no SWC teams finished the year ranked in the AP poll.

Texas and Arkansas followed one another through highs and lows in the 70s, during the low periods you saw Baylor and Houston have more success in the conference than the aggys. During much of this decade aggy was third best behind Arkansas and Texas, but Houston bested them quite a few years.

The late 70s-early 80s saw a rise of the SMU program, for reasons we are all aware of, Arkansas and Texas were still major players in the conference, Houston again rose in the late 80s as well as aggy, but Arkansas bested both on the field of play.

For whatever reason Arkansas and Texas again followed each other into a low point in the early 90s, Arkansas went to the SEC, aggy dominated the shell of a conference in the SWC that had more to do with NCAA sanctions than anything else until the big12 was formed were aggy again fell to being 4th best in the conference at best most years.

But aggy is going to dominate because they are in the SEC now, aggy is a "traditional power", if you ignore history.

[LZH]

When it comes time to pick a college, these recruits are going to go where they are promised a spot on the offense, even if they have a better shot at making it in the NFL at LB/CB/S. So you will often find a guy settle for a lower tier school in the CUSA/Sunbelt to play offense when he is likely gifted enough to play in a power conference on defense.

My own personal experience aside - I can't imagine a kid, from anywhere, turning down an offer to play SS in the SEC so he could play RB in the Sunbelt....even though he probably played both in high school.

[Choctaw Hog]

At one point, LSU had a losing record to the school's in the big east, so I guess that would mean LSU couldn't compete in the big east.

Ole Miss hasn't won a SEC title since the 60s, Kentucky since the 70s, Ms. State since the 40s, Vandy since the early 20th century, Carolina has one conference championship in their programs history in the 60s.

GT was a powerhouse while in the SEC, they have not been a national power in the ACC for a while now, although they do have a MNC that is more recent than UGA, so I guess the ACC is stronger than the SEC.

The SEC gained a bowl record lead against the B1G just recently, in the past 5 years, the regular season record is in the B1G's favor, IIRC, so the B1G must be stronger than the SEC.

You can create all kinds of hyperboles and strawmen with the data out there. In Arkansas' case, it is more of a reflection of bad coaching and bad coaching staffs from 1992-2008, or the majority of our time in the conference, we have just recently entered the coaching arms race. LSU was god awful in the late 80s-2000 due to bad coach, Bama was greatly down in the 2000s due to bad coach and cheating, Florida has hit low points in the same time period under Zook and Muschamp, Carolina has only his a high with Spurrier, UGA has been consistent with Richt, not too low, but not too high. Tennessee is in a bad low in large part thanks to bad coaching.

If you really look at the low points of the above, you will see that it is bad coaching that puts them in a low point, a lack of continuity of more than 3 years by a staff keeps them there in the case of Tennessee.

Great post and spot on accurate.  Unfortunately, to the losers in life facts are beyond their ability to comprehend and they always look at things from a loser's perspective.  It's what losers do. 

[Westcoasthog]

   Arkansas is definitely no doomed in the SEC.  Houston Nutt should have been out of there in his 4th or 5th year. 

[Westcoasthog]

    Houston Nutt should have never been hired.  Jimmy Johnson would have taken Arkansas  to the promise land. Arkansas with Jimmy Johnson would have
had 3 or more National Titles.

[nextlevel]

    Houston Nutt should have never been hired.  Jimmy Johnson would have taken Arkansas  to the promise land. Arkansas with Jimmy Johnson would have
had 3 or more National Titles.

The time of Jimmy Johnson's coaching change from OSU was at a time Arkansas was in the SWC, had he been hired over Hatfield, Arkansas may have won a MNC, two or, three, but then Arkansas could have just as easily ended up on sanctions and vacated any awards with the close eye the NCAA had on the SWC at that time.

Of course, Arkansas was in a unique situation in that conference where you had 8 other schools you were directly recruiting with for every recruit, so they were always more vulnerable to being turned in for violations (IMO).

A better argument would be that Arkansas' current perception would be higher if Tuberville had been hired as the AD wanted instead of the committee hiring Nutt. While it isn't guaranteed he would have won the SEC or possibly some form of a MNC as he did in Auburn, it would be more of a guarantee that Arkansas would had been more consistent year and and out over the same decade. However, you could make the same argument that things would have been different if the Stoernover didn't happen or if they beat Ms. State for a rematch with Tennessee in 1998.

[Sweet Feet]

The minute you start thinking you'd be better off in the 2nd or 3rd best conference it's time  to run up the white flag.

Some people give up and settle for less. Others keep battling no matter how frustrating it gets.

Idk. Anytime you have kansas, kstate, texas tech, mizzou, ok st, amd almost baylor reaching the top 2 before arkansas in the past 6 years, then something must give. Arkansas has more prestige then all of them. they were in the higher position to play for a title than arkansas. Arkansas hasn been ranked in the top two in ages.

The SEC is the best conf no doubt with the national titles, but lets be real, 1, what pride is there constantly getting disappointed and beat to where u still havent won a conf title and 2, like 3 of those titles was due to help. Bama won 2 of its titles because a big 12 team lost one game as a top 2 team

[LZH]

The time of Jimmy Johnson's coaching change from OSU was at a time Arkansas was in the SWC, had he been hired over Hatfield, Arkansas may have won a MNC, two or, three, but then Arkansas could have just as easily ended up on sanctions and vacated any awards with the close eye the NCAA had on the SWC at that time.

Or who's to say that maybe he would have had the same kind of athletes he had at OSU (or maybe a little better) and would have had about the same record here....29-25-3.  He won NC's at Miami because he had talent.  Could he have gotten those kind of kids to play here?.....maybe, maybe not.

[Sweet Feet]

I could have been run over by a bus 15 times and I'd still feel the same.  I'd rather see these guys playing Alabama and LSU every year because sooner or later Arkansas is going to win this damn conference and something that special will be worth the wait.

Those that don't want to compete against the best can go play somewhere else and celebrate their second tier achievements.

If you did a poll I think a vast majority of Hog fans would say the same.

Second tier achievements? Kansas and ok st won a bcs bowl before arkansas...i bet thats higher than any high point the hogs have had in years.

[Hogwild]

Arkansas would have been considered an elite program up to the time period the conference change occurred.

We were a Top 25 program, based on wins, titles, bowl games, Heisman winners, NCs... We weren't one of the top dozen, which is how I would define elite. If your defintion of elite is top 20, then I can't disagree

The thing I find fascinating is the period of competing on a very high level for Arkansas is all but forgotten, or largely ignored, while a myth of aTm being on an equal or great level than Arkansas during this time period has came to be regarded as "fact".

The SWC was dominated by Arkansas and Texas during the 60s, the year aTm won the SWC was the only year in the 60s that no SWC teams finished the year ranked in the AP poll.

Yes, we have whipped A&M more times they would like to remember, but you are only focusing on one decade, when we were at our best.  We have 6 outright SWC titles ('36,'54, '60, '64, '65, '88, '89)  forfeited one other in the '30s, A&M has 15 outright SWC titles. A&M joined the 700 win club last year, something I hope we are in a few years from now.  A&M's historical success as a program is definitely are par with ours. The fact that we spanked them like a red headed step child is one of the best things about being a razorback



The late 70s-early 80s saw a rise of the SMU program, for reasons we are all aware of, Arkansas and Texas were still major players in the conference, Houston again rose in the late 80s as well as aggy, but Arkansas bested both on the field of play.

A&M did something really smart (since we know that can't happen) they got really lucky that when college football exploded on television (ESPN mid 80s) they had bookend national games.  They opened the season on national TV against LSU and ended on national TV against Texas. Then the last 15 or so years of the 20th century  they were in the Cotton bowl 7 or 8 times, matching up with Notre Dame a bunch.  Their program got maximum exposure to an entire generation.



But aggy is going to dominate because they are in the SEC now, aggy is a "traditional power", if you ignore history.

At the end of this season I feel that A&M will fall to 2-8 against LSU/Bama/Auburn since '11.

[Sweet Feet]

I'd rather be neck deep in elephant, tiger, gator, bulldog, black bear,  and chicken feces than step barefoot in a 22+ year old patty of bull    , any day of the week.

This is why hog fans have been so miserable the past 22 years. The willingness to be the step child to teams like bama florida and lsu that made the SEC as popular as what it is today.

[Hogwild]

My own personal experience aside - I can't imagine a kid, from anywhere, turning down an offer to play SS in the SEC so he could play RB in the Sunbelt....even though he probably played both in high school.

Well is wasn't the Sun Belt but it was damn close.   He had offers to play DB from LSU, Ole Miss, State, and Tulane, instead Marshall Faulk went to the only school that would let him play running back, San Diego State.

[LZH]

Well is wasn't the Sun Belt but it was damn close.   He had offers to play DB from LSU, Ole Miss, State, and Tulane, instead Marshall Faulk went to the only school that would let him play running back, San Diego State.

Touche.  Technically, though, since it wasn't the Sunbelt, I'm still right. 

[nextlevel]

Well is wasn't the Sun Belt but it was damn close.   He had offers to play DB from LSU, Ole Miss, State, and Tulane, instead Marshall Faulk went to the only school that would let him play running back, San Diego State.

Yes, people can recall the examples of success easier than the failures.

Felix Jones would be another, he was offered as a DB by Tenn and OU, RB by us, it worked out on our end, same with Joe Adams, etc.

You can see examples of what I was referring too when kids are recruited to a school as an "athlete", the staff may see them as on the defensive side of the ball, the player on offense, the player is usually given a chance at offense first since its a part of the recruiting process to get him, usually, once offense doesn't work out for them they transfer out for a chance at offense elsewhere.

However, Arkansas is able to take instate kids move them from offense to defense without much fear of them transferring. Dayvon McKinney, DeAnthony Curtis, Jamal Anderson, and Corliss Marshall (he was willing to play S) come to mind.

You have to wonder if Steve Atwater would have been an all-pro hall of famer if he was stuck believing he indeed was a QB and refused to switch positions as has happened recently with Tebow, Klein, and a few others.

[nextlevel]

Touche.  Technically, though, since it wasn't the Sunbelt, I'm still right. 

I also said CUSA, but I know you know what I meant.

[PonderinHog]

This is why hog fans have been so miserable the past 22 years. The willingness to be the step child to teams like bama florida and lsu that made the SEC as popular as what it is today.

I want to beat those teams just as bad as the next Razorback fan and feck tuxas.

Second thought, what is your point?

[redeye]

Actually most of their losses are from ole miss shockingly. Ark only lost to lsu 4 times before ww2

I count 18 losses to LSU before WWII, but I should have said "LSU and Ole Miss", because we do have a lot of Ole Miss losses, too.

[redeye]

Alabama, Tennessee, UGA, & LSU had a more successful programs than us when we joined the SEC, Florida was an awakening giant.

-Most of our wins against the Tigers were before 1930. Since 1930 we have 8 wins against LSU, that's over  9 decades, 35 games.

-Prior to joining the SEC we had never beaten Tennessee, by '92 the Vols had already won 17 bowl games vs. 9 bowl wins we had.

-UGA had twice had many top 5 finishes has we did, prior to us joining the SEC


We had a good program, but we joined a conference that had a few elite programs.

That's a good argument, but note that I never said we were better then those teams.  My point was only that we were on the same level.

However, I also think a little light could be gleaned on your facts:

- We only played LSU once after Broyles arrived, before joining the SEC, and Arkansas was nothing before Broyles.  So, yea, LSU had a better record against us, but only one game was played during our best decades.  And LSU won that one game, too, but they were pretty crummy for more then a decade before we joined the SEC and that was my experience with LSU growing up.

- We had only played Tennessee 3 times before joining the SEC and 2 of those were very close games.  From my perspective, I knew Tennessee was a good football program, but again, they hadn't done much in my lifetime to that point.

Bowls have always been a problem for Arkansas, so you're picking at a sore spot.  A&M also had a much better bowl record than us, but we dominated them in games against each other.

- I knew Georgia was a good team, because they'd won a recent national championship with Herschel Walker.  However, I did not know that they'd had twice as many top-5 finishes, but I still saw us on the same level.  Neither Arkansas nor Georgia had the great history of Alabama, but both teams had their fair share of success.

- Arkansas was as much of an elite program as anyone before joining the SEC, with the exception of Alabama.  Outside of Alabama, who'd had more *recent* success then Arkansas?  Georgia won a single national title, Auburn had Bo Jackson and Ole Miss had Archie Manning, but does any of that trump the success Arkansas had from 1958-1992?  In comparison, we'd had an undefeated season, played in a Game of the Century and came close to winning multiple national titles, including 2 that were awarded to Alabama teams with worse records.

If you look at ESPN's prestige ratings, Arkansas trailed the 4 teams you mentioned when we joined the SEC, but also note that we were penalized heavily for having less success up to 1958, unlike the others (and I don't put much value in what happened before 1958, because there were probably some years when we could have gone undefeated and not been ranked.)  Still, they had Alabama 2nd, Tennessee 10th, Georgia 11th, LSU 12th and Arkansas 14th in 1988 or 4 years before we joined the SEC.  That's not much difference to me.  Auburn was ranked 21st and Florida #43, so we were closer to the 4 you named then Auburn or Florida.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468

[LZH]

I also said CUSA, but I know you know what I meant.

Yeah, I know.

It means that we both keep score..........

[redeye]

Friends of mine were talking to me saying that arkansas' progress and lack of a conf title was already forseen and hinted before they moved to the SEC. One brought up the point that we had a 22-34 record vs the SEC before joining. Another said that even in our heyday in the 60s and 70s we were still a combined 3-8. While i can see what they are saying, i jusr refuse to believe it. The SEC just has gotten stronger. Plus arkansas has been to three seccg, more than any team who hasn won a seccg. in the strongest division at that. But what is your take? Were we doomed from the start joining the SEC or do we just need more time?

I'd show your friends ESPN's Prestige Ratings for 1988, which was 4 years before we joined the SEC.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468

Here are the 1988 ratings listed in the Through the Decades section:

2. Alabama
5. Texas
10. Tennessee
11. Georgia
12. LSU
14. Arkansas
16. Ole Miss
20. Texas A&M
21. Auburn
43. Florida

This is pretty close to how I think Arkansas was expected to fare in the SEC when we joined.  It's also probably how we would have fared if we'd had better coaching AND if the SEC had not become the meat grinder it is today.

Also note that the last time this was updated was in early 2009 and that Alabama had fallen from 2nd to 6th in the previous 20 years, despite winning a national championship in '92, so Arkansas wasn't the only team that dropped.  The nineties killed Arkansas in these ratings and we still won 2 SEC-W titles.

[Hogwild]

I like using these rankings better than the ESPN writer, because it allows you to sort by decades, best 5-25 year stretch...
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php

I understand what you are saying with regard to being close to some of these elite teams at certain points in our history, you have referenced '58 as a starting point but you have to included what happen up to that point as well (LSU won the national title in '58 and Auburn won national title in '57).  As far has how close a program we were compared to Tennessee & UGA, you have to take into account that the Vol program has over 800 wins. Only 7 schools have more.  UGA is 10th all time in wins and has a dozen SEC titles.

[redeye]

I like using these rankings better than the ESPN writer, because it allows you to sort by decades, best 5-25 year stretch...
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php

I understand what you are saying with regard to being close to some of these elite teams at certain points in our history, you have referenced '58 as a starting point but you have to included what happen up to that point as well (LSU won the national title in '58 and Auburn won national title in '57).  As far has how close a program we were compared to Tennessee & UGA, you have to take into account that the Vol program has over 800 wins. Only 7 schools have more.  UGA is 10th all time in wins and has a dozen SEC titles.

I also like the technical ability to sort those rankings, but I think ESPN is more accurate, this time.  I think the CFBDW rankings change regularly, because I'm almost certain that they used to give Arkansas more respect for it's run in the sixties.  I don't know how they came to ranking Arkansas as the 9th best team of that decade, but I'm almost certain they had us in the top-5 at one time and I certainly don't agree that there were 8 better teams that decade.

They rank Nebraska ahead of us, despite that we beat them for our national championship.  Speaking of which, LSU is ranked ahead of us despite not winning a national championship, and it looks like we received the least possible points for ours, even though it's recognized by the NCAA.  I could probably find other inconsistencies, if I were inclined to look, but I think those results are largely the work of posthumous accolades and revisionist history.

I only used 1958 as a starting point, because that's what ESPN did.  Personally, I would go back to the start of the fifties, because WWII really messed things up, giving some teams huge advantages, and I don't consider anything before WWII of any worth.

I'm also aware that Tennessee is one of the winningest teams in the game, although I've never understood how they don't have more to show for it.  I'm not the least bit surprised that Georgia is 10th on the list, either, but I know A&M also has more wins then we do.  However, my point isn't to say that Arkansas is better then those schools, but just that we're not much different.  Many of our fans seem to think we are today, because we've struggled and failed to win a SEC title, and yet, we've still managed to play in 3 SEC championship games, had a 2-time Heisman runner-up and have had some good years along the way.  Petrino offered a glimpse of what's possible from Arkansas, but it was only a glimpse.

[Biggus Piggus]

This thread is the whole reason so many were upset over the firing of BP.  For the first time in about 20 years we were breaking into the top.  The older a fan gets, the more that fan feels like we made the wrong move. 

People upset because Petrino was fired refuse to face the fact that Petrino had destroyed his credibility, ruined himself. He already faced serious obstacles in hiring assistants and recruiting players. Then he did what he did, which showed Arkansas football wasn't that important to him. The guy got imperious pretty darned quick. Petrino destroyed Arkansas's momentum. We could have kept him and limped along. Then we would be griping about terrible recruiting and staff turnover, wondering what cause would be enough to justify a coaching change.

Damn it. Petrino knew he had gone way, way too far. That is why he kept lying to the entire UA administration. He knew it. Some of our fans know better though. Lordy.

[Steef]

People upset because Petrino was fired refuse to face the fact that Petrino had destroyed his credibility, ruined himself. He already faced serious obstacles in hiring assistants and recruiting players. Then he did what he did, which showed Arkansas football wasn't that important to him. The guy got imperious pretty darned quick. Petrino destroyed Arkansas's momentum. We could have kept him and limped along. Then we would be griping about terrible recruiting and staff turnover, wondering what cause would be enough to justify a coaching change.

Damn it. Petrino knew he had gone way, way too far. That is why he kept lying to the entire UA administration. He knew it. Some of our fans know better though. Lordy.

Good post, BP.

Thing is...the Petrino Years of Excellence....were over. Even if he stayed.

[1960'sHogFan]

While it is only 1 slice of the total pie, failure to recruit North Louisiana has been a step in the wrong direction.

Many think North LA football equals S Arkansas football. More numbers, better coaching and facilities,  much better off season programs, etc prove that to be very false.

It won't be easy, but go after the best. Don't settle for the ones the top SEC teams pass on.