By design, not a quick turnaround

[TOM "tbw1"]

I don't understand the theory that any particular type of offense or system is "built to last" while others, including those that are currently experiencing success, are flashes in the pan or doomed to failure.

Spurrier dominated the SEC during the 90s with the Fun n Gun.  Saban (both at LSU and Bama) and LSU have dominated the SEC the last few years with ground and pound style systems.

Oregon has been successful for how many years now?  They're not in a traditional recruiting hotbed and they weren't a program with a lot of tradition when they started winning.

I don't think any particular system causes winning.  I think excellent coaches who are able to recruit and develop outstanding players win.  I think the teams we all like to cite that win big year after year with "traditional" systems do so mainly because their coaches have a talent and strength advantage and turning the game into a full frontal assault allows them to take advantage of that manpower superiority.  The more pronounced their physical advantage, the closer to the vest they can play it.

I think going forward the question will be can Arkansas recruit, develop, and benefit from manpower superiority vis a vis our competition.

I know that your memory carries you back to the days where Arkansas' offensive and defensive lines had fourth and fifth year juniors and seniors.  To me that is the one key we have to have no matter the system.

[EastexHawg]

I know that your memory carries you back to the days where Arkansas' offensive and defensive lines had fourth and fifth year juniors and seniors.

How do you keep the good ones from leaving early?  Can you imagine a Lance Alworth or Loyd Phillips type playing all four years today? 

[TOM "tbw1"]

How do you keep the good ones from leaving early?  Can you imagine a Lance Alworth or Loyd Phillips type playing all four years today? 

I think that is why line development is so crucial.  Super talents will usually jump.

[Hogpkins]

Look Biggus, no one's buying the latest excuse from the Hill ~ this new "our offense is so complex" idea. 

If it were by design no to be a quick turnaround, then why did CBB come out and say repeatedly that last year was not a rebuilding year. That he had too many seniors on the roster, he clearly came in expecting to make a bowl game. I mean he welcomed being picked last and acted as if he were going to upstage everyone that voted him there. He compared his Big 10 record with Saban and made claims about coming to win the SEC before he ever played one SEC game.

This guy had no intention on this being a lengthy process by "design"...no way. This is Bret Bielema we're talking about.

Your question has already been asked and answered in this thread. It would have been foolish for CBB to say last year's team would not be able to compete. The team needed some major work to rebuild its confidence, and that's what our coaching staff worked all season trying to do.

What good would it have done for CBB to predict that we would have a miserable year? Would that have really helped YOU? Maybe your answer is yes, but I know CBB's answer would be he couldn't care less what you needed to hear. Most of us understand why he said what he said.

You're suggesting he should've taken the Jurgen Klinsmann approach and set expectations low before the season even started. Of course, Klinsmann took a lot of heat for that approach and I know CBB would've taken enormous heat for it coming off a 4 win season.

Besides, it was not what our team needed to hear, and CBB doesn't waste breath trying to appease that small fragment of the fan base who will always find something to complain about. This whole idea of blaming CBB for not saying we would stink just blows my mind. It's a ridiculous thing to latch onto.

[bphi11ips]

I know that your memory carries you back to the days where Arkansas' offensive and defensive lines had fourth and fifth year juniors and seniors.  To me that is the one key we have to have no matter the system.

Why do I think Bielema's plan will work at Arkansas?







Because it's worked here before.

[hogsanity]

I don't understand the theory that any particular type of offense or system is "built to last" while others, including those that are currently experiencing success, are flashes in the pan or doomed to failure.

I am not saying any style is built to last or doomed to failure.  Whatever the style, it has to be continually fed players.  You can't build a program by having one signing class, riding their backs for 4 years, and not replacing them with like talent.

You can't constantly be relying on FR and Sophs to play large roles on your team. Sure, a talented FR, surrounded by jr;s and sr;s, can make a huge difference, but it is usually the supporting cast that makes that special player look even better.

There is no reason that a SEC school should have to start as many FR and Sophs as the Hogs have had to do the last 3 ( counting this coming season ) years.

[sportster365]

Your question has already been asked and answered in this thread. It would have been foolish for CBB to say last year's team would not be able to compete. The team needed some major work to rebuild its confidence, and that's what our coaching staff worked all season trying to do.

What good would it have done for CBB to predict that we would have a miserable year? Would that have really helped YOU? Maybe your answer is yes, but I know CBB's answer would be he couldn't care less what you needed to hear. Most of us understand why he said what he said.

You're suggesting he should've taken the Jurgen Klinsmann approach and set expectations low before the season even started. Of course, Klinsmann took a lot of heat for that approach and I know CBB would've taken enormous heat for it coming off a 4 win season.

Besides, it was not what our team needed to hear, and CBB doesn't waste breath trying to appease that small fragment of the fan base who will always find something to complain about. This whole idea of blaming CBB for not saying we would stink just blows my mind. It's a ridiculous thing to latch onto.

You honestly don't truly buy what you just wrote do you?  What you said goes against the very fabric of who we come to know Bielema to be. He says exactly what's on his mind. If he thought we had a long way to go, he would have made that very clear.

He came and saw the talent level was an upgrade from what he's used to seeing at Wisconsin and thought that with their athleticism, his coaching ability and a host of Senior leadership, he'd swing this thing. He said exactly what he felt and it was exactly what folks like myself wanted to hear. Sadly enough it just didn't come to fruition. He put the carriage before the horse and it turned around and bit him. If this was "by design" to be some sort of lengthy rebuilding process, believe me.... above all if not only but to save face, Bielema would have said such without hesitation. He would have made known the offense was complex at some point throughout the struggles of last season not a year later...months after a tumultuous spring game showing that left fans scratching their heads.

Look the offense was fine. The plays were there last year. Guys were open, the execution was simply poor. Aside from the first 3 games, the playcalling was just fine. I even agreed with the call to go for 2 late against A&M.

[Biggus Piggus]

Look Biggus, no one's buying the latest excuse from the Hill ~ this new "our offense is so complex" idea. 

Yawn. So predictable. It's not a "latest excuse."

The legitimate question is whether an offense that takes multiple years to teach was the right direction for Arkansas. I'm thinking the passing elements need to have more natural unpredictability and not rely so much on what's called.

[Biggus Piggus]

We might have to develop a "delete GuvHog posts" tool, though I would favor just deleting his entire post history.

[twistitup]

Coach B- is live on BO

[twistitup]

He says we need better:

Quarterback play

Defensive confidence

AJ won't get many reps....but maybe part of punt team in a fake.

AJ - will be remarkable story of the program

Speight stepping up

Get better everyday, but huge improvement will be seen

sum it up- why are we better?

Care Factor- grades, nutrition , practice, etc...

JJ's tomorrow night!! Cancer fundraiser for grad assistant on staff

[Inhogswetrust]

We might have to develop a "delete GuvHog posts" tool, though I would favor just deleting his entire post history.

Well they usually do give us something to laugh about.............................

[ricepig]

So he's already getting fake punts ready?

Just think how much time our opponents will have to spend on them.

[hogcard1964]

Whenever I read this thread title, this is what I immediately think about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hNIX7V21pU

[WashUhog6]

I believe that further evidence for Bielema's approach for a turn around lies in the work of his three most well known coaching mentors: Hayden Fry, Bill Snyder, and Barry Alvarez.

The similarities between Bielema and the three are uncanny. Fry, Snyder, and Alvarez all took over non-power programs with infertile recruiting grounds that were in the dumps. Fry took over an Iowa program that had gone 17 years without a winning season, Alvarez took over Wisconsin who had not had a winning season in the 5 seasons prior to his arrival, and Snyder took over a program described as "Futility U" by Sports Illustrated in 1989.

We know these three coaches were all immensely successful when given time to build their program, but how did the rebuilding begin? Snyder and Alvarez went 1-10 in their first season, and Fry went 5-6. Fry and Snyder didn't have winning seasons until their third year, while it took Alvarez a fourth to get there. All three built their programs by creating a sound organizational structure with terrific coaching staffs, and even though it took time, these three took their programs to prominence.

The good news? Arkansas at the beginning of Bielema's tenure was head and shoulders above those three. We were only two years removed from a top 5 finish, while those three programs had gone a combined 28 seasons without a winning record. If you count the losing seasons in the early tenures of each respective coach, that number swells to 35. Arkansas also much better recruiting grounds and financial support. The bad news? Our conference is much more difficult than the Big Ten and Big 8/Big 12.

The proof is in the records of Bielema's mentors that a slow, painful turn around does not mean it will not succeed. The key is for impatient fans, like myself, to let it play out.

[BorderPatrol]

Whenever I read this thread title, this is what I immediately think about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hNIX7V21pU

The fact that you think about Pee Wee Herman is rather disturbing.....and quite telling.

bp

[Mick Hogger]

Guv, please read my signature and try to understand the irony of it.

[Hogpkins]

You honestly don't truly buy what you just wrote do you?  What you said goes against the very fabric of who we come to know Bielema to be. He says exactly what's on his mind. If he thought we had a long way to go, he would have made that very clear.

He came and saw the talent level was an upgrade from what he's used to seeing at Wisconsin and thought that with their athleticism, his coaching ability and a host of Senior leadership, he'd swing this thing. He said exactly what he felt and it was exactly what folks like myself wanted to hear. Sadly enough it just didn't come to fruition. He put the carriage before the horse and it turned around and bit him. If this was "by design" to be some sort of lengthy rebuilding process, believe me.... above all if not only but to save face, Bielema would have said such without hesitation. He would have made known the offense was complex at some point throughout the struggles of last season not a year later...months after a tumultuous spring game showing that left fans scratching their heads.

Look the offense was fine. The plays were there last year. Guys were open, the execution was simply poor. Aside from the first 3 games, the playcalling was just fine. I even agreed with the call to go for 2 late against A&M.

Just because he's not afraid to speak his mind doesn't mean he will kick his new team when they are already down. I agree he's outspoken but there's a difference between calling out other teams/coaches and piling on your own team.

I do agree with you that he did not expect to go 3-9, and he encountered some surprises along the way. I'm sure last year did not meet what he realistically expected going into the season.

But I still think he said exactly what he needed to say when taking over our program. I didn't interpret his "I came here to win the SEC" comment as meaning he came to win it in 2013. I understood his overall message to be that we had enough parts on our 2013 team that it should not be viewed as a wasted year, a rebuilding year. He refused to call it a rebuilding year, and I think that was a gesture toward his players more than anything.

Is that your and my fundamental disagreement? Should he have called it a rebuilding year?

[Hogpkins]

I believe that further evidence for Bielema's approach for a turn around lies in the work of his three most well known coaching mentors: Hayden Fry, Bill Snyder, and Barry Alvarez.

The similarities between Bielema and the three are uncanny. Fry, Snyder, and Alvarez all took over non-power programs with infertile recruiting grounds that were in the dumps. Fry took over an Iowa program that had gone 17 years without a winning season, Alvarez took over Wisconsin who had not had a winning season in the 5 seasons prior to his arrival, and Snyder took over a program described as "Futility U" by Sports Illustrated in 1989.

We know these three coaches were all immensely successful when given time to build their program, but how did the rebuilding begin? Snyder and Alvarez went 1-10 in their first season, and Fry went 5-6. Fry and Snyder didn't have winning seasons until their third year, while it took Alvarez a fourth to get there. All three built their programs by creating a sound organizational structure with terrific coaching staffs, and even though it took time, these three took their programs to prominence.

The good news? Arkansas at the beginning of Bielema's tenure was head and shoulders above those three. We were only two years removed from a top 5 finish, while those three programs had gone a combined 28 seasons without a winning record. If you count the losing seasons in the early tenures of each respective coach, that number swells to 35. Arkansas also much better recruiting grounds and financial support. The bad news? Our conference is much more difficult than the Big Ten and Big 8/Big 12.

The proof is in the records of Bielema's mentors that a slow, painful turn around does not mean it will not succeed. The key is for impatient fans, like myself, to let it play out.

Great post. CBB touched on this very point during media days, and you state it perfectly.

[bphi11ips]

+1 to the gentleman from St. Louis. 

[RedSkiesAtNightHog]

I believe that further evidence for Bielema's approach for a turn around lies in the work of his three most well known coaching mentors: Hayden Fry, Bill Snyder, and Barry Alvarez.

The similarities between Bielema and the three are uncanny. Fry, Snyder, and Alvarez all took over non-power programs with infertile recruiting grounds that were in the dumps. Fry took over an Iowa program that had gone 17 years without a winning season, Alvarez took over Wisconsin who had not had a winning season in the 5 seasons prior to his arrival, and Snyder took over a program described as "Futility U" by Sports Illustrated in 1989.

We know these three coaches were all immensely successful when given time to build their program, but how did the rebuilding begin? Snyder and Alvarez went 1-10 in their first season, and Fry went 5-6. Fry and Snyder didn't have winning seasons until their third year, while it took Alvarez a fourth to get there. All three built their programs by creating a sound organizational structure with terrific coaching staffs, and even though it took time, these three took their programs to prominence.

The good news? Arkansas at the beginning of Bielema's tenure was head and shoulders above those three. We were only two years removed from a top 5 finish, while those three programs had gone a combined 28 seasons without a winning record. If you count the losing seasons in the early tenures of each respective coach, that number swells to 35. Arkansas also much better recruiting grounds and financial support. The bad news? Our conference is much more difficult than the Big Ten and Big 8/Big 12.

The proof is in the records of Bielema's mentors that a slow, painful turn around does not mean it will not succeed. The key is for impatient fans, like myself, to let it play out.

Solid post.  +1

[Atlhogfan1]

I believe that further evidence for Bielema's approach for a turn around lies in the work of his three most well known coaching mentors: Hayden Fry, Bill Snyder, and Barry Alvarez.

The similarities between Bielema and the three are uncanny. Fry, Snyder, and Alvarez all took over non-power programs with infertile recruiting grounds that were in the dumps. Fry took over an Iowa program that had gone 17 years without a winning season, Alvarez took over Wisconsin who had not had a winning season in the 5 seasons prior to his arrival, and Snyder took over a program described as "Futility U" by Sports Illustrated in 1989.

We know these three coaches were all immensely successful when given time to build their program, but how did the rebuilding begin? Snyder and Alvarez went 1-10 in their first season, and Fry went 5-6. Fry and Snyder didn't have winning seasons until their third year, while it took Alvarez a fourth to get there. All three built their programs by creating a sound organizational structure with terrific coaching staffs, and even though it took time, these three took their programs to prominence.

The good news? Arkansas at the beginning of Bielema's tenure was head and shoulders above those three. We were only two years removed from a top 5 finish, while those three programs had gone a combined 28 seasons without a winning record. If you count the losing seasons in the early tenures of each respective coach, that number swells to 35. Arkansas also much better recruiting grounds and financial support. The bad news? Our conference is much more difficult than the Big Ten and Big 8/Big 12.

The proof is in the records of Bielema's mentors that a slow, painful turn around does not mean it will not succeed. The key is for impatient fans, like myself, to let it play out.

Bielema's mentors have been discussed some.  Your post is a good reminder in discussions like this how he fits our program. 

[Peter Porker]

Whatever happened to the innovative wishbone offense? Flexbone? Run-N-Shoot? All innovative offenses at the time they were ran. All "the future of football". The 46 defense?

[sportster365]

Just because he's not afraid to speak his mind doesn't mean he will kick his new team when they are already down. I agree he's outspoken but there's a difference between calling out other teams/coaches and piling on your own team.

I do agree with you that he did not expect to go 3-9, and he encountered some surprises along the way. I'm sure last year did not meet what he realistically expected going into the season.

But I still think he said exactly what he needed to say when taking over our program. I didn't interpret his "I came here to win the SEC" comment as meaning he came to win it in 2013. I understood his overall message to be that we had enough parts on our 2013 team that it should not be viewed as a wasted year, a rebuilding year. He refused to call it a rebuilding year, and I think that was a gesture toward his players more than anything.

Is that your and my fundamental disagreement? Should he have called it a rebuilding year?

I take "by design, not a quick turnaround" quite differently from 2013 not being a rebuilding year.  Those are completely opposite sentiments. If you're not rebuilding, then your obviously expecting a quick turnaround, it's that simple.

Are you saying that if Bielema came out from day 1 and said this is not going to be a "quick turnaround" that some how that would have come off as "piling" it on his own team? New coaches say things like we have a lot of work to do, all the time. That's not tearing down player confidence.  If it were player confidence he was concerned about, then he wouldn't be calling out his receivers to the media in the middle of a season, he wouldn't make comments like he thought he'd have a plethora of QB, WRs and offensive skill, but that was not the case, doesn't sound much like a person concerned with player confidence to me. The overall argument that it was by design, going to be a lengthy process is simply another excuse in my opinion to push the blame on someone or something else.

[Pickwick Hog]

I get it now. Bielema should have stood behind that podium and stated "We're going to suck so don't buy tickets until we get this thing straightened out".

Then 3-9 would have been acceptable. Got it.

[Hogpkins]

Are you saying that if Bielema came out from day 1 and said this is not going to be a "quick turnaround" that some how that would have come off as "piling" it on his own team? New coaches say things like we have a lot of work to do, all the time. That's not tearing down player confidence.  If it were player confidence he was concerned about, then he wouldn't be calling out his receivers to the media in the middle of a season, he wouldn't make comments like he thought he'd have a plethora of QB, WRs and offensive skill, but that was not the case, doesn't sound much like a person concerned with player confidence to me. The overall argument that it was by design, going to be a lengthy process is simply another excuse in my opinion to push the blame on someone or something else.

Yes, I am saying that if, before he ever coached a game here, he let out a deep sigh, shrugged his shoulders and said, "Boy, we have some major rebuilding to do so don't expect us to be competitive this year," then:  (1)  his attitude would not be helpful to the team's psyche; and (2) a segment of our fan base would have jumped on him for having a defeatist attitude, trying to minimize expectations. I don't think he would care about number 2, but it's true.

You apparently would have been satisfied with him coming out and setting expectations really low because it would help you deal with it today. So Bielema just needed to say, "We have a lot of work to do"? Really, that would have satisfied you? That coach-speak makes me puke, and I have a hard time believing that would have satisfied anyone.

There's an ocean between the notion of writing off a season before it's started and the notion of critiquing a team's play as it unfolds. I don't recall him throwing anyone under the bus. Yes, he was critical of the team's play, but that was something he couldn't really ignore during press conferences as the losses piled up. You're conflating two completely different scenarios.

[hogfan10]

Then why the Frank did you post the previous comment?

bp

I was being sarcastic. Sorry it was over your head.
To break it down for you: two coaches possibly lied to the players, but Irwin was only referring to Nutt. He never criticizes Malzahn (Gus), Sooooo, I sarcastically stated that I couldn't believe he would call Gus out like that (all the while knowing he was referring to Nutt).

[Oklahawg]

WashUHog6 gets a nomination for "post of the day". Fantastic reminder/insight.

[Inhogswetrust]

WashUHog6 gets a nomination for "post of the day". Fantastic reminder/insight.

Yep. I also liked Bphi11ips reply and nice catch of the name as +1 to the gentleman from St. Louis.

[WilsonHog]

I believe that further evidence for Bielema's approach for a turn around lies in the work of his three most well known coaching mentors: Hayden Fry, Bill Snyder, and Barry Alvarez.

The similarities between Bielema and the three are uncanny. Fry, Snyder, and Alvarez all took over non-power programs with infertile recruiting grounds that were in the dumps. Fry took over an Iowa program that had gone 17 years without a winning season, Alvarez took over Wisconsin who had not had a winning season in the 5 seasons prior to his arrival, and Snyder took over a program described as "Futility U" by Sports Illustrated in 1989.

We know these three coaches were all immensely successful when given time to build their program, but how did the rebuilding begin? Snyder and Alvarez went 1-10 in their first season, and Fry went 5-6. Fry and Snyder didn't have winning seasons until their third year, while it took Alvarez a fourth to get there. All three built their programs by creating a sound organizational structure with terrific coaching staffs, and even though it took time, these three took their programs to prominence.

The good news? Arkansas at the beginning of Bielema's tenure was head and shoulders above those three. We were only two years removed from a top 5 finish, while those three programs had gone a combined 28 seasons without a winning record. If you count the losing seasons in the early tenures of each respective coach, that number swells to 35. Arkansas also much better recruiting grounds and financial support. The bad news? Our conference is much more difficult than the Big Ten and Big 8/Big 12.

The proof is in the records of Bielema's mentors that a slow, painful turn around does not mean it will not succeed. The key is for impatient fans, like myself, to let it play out.

I haven't written a post this good in six years.

[razorbackkid]

I haven't written a post this good in six years.

Patience grasshopper.

[WilsonHog]

Patience grasshopper.

Pisses me off. At some point, I stopped posting and started moderating.

[Ironhawg]

How do you keep the good ones from leaving early?  Can you imagine a Lance Alworth or Loyd Phillips type playing all four years today? 

I think that is why line development is so crucial.  Super talents will usually jump.

I see what you're saying.  This system seems ideal for building real depth on BOTH sides of the ball, something that IMHO Arkansas has lacked since joining the SEC.  My question is how to do you keep quality depth at QB?  I can see having a top-notch QB and a back-up, but how do you convince those guys at 3 and 4 to come back?

[lumphog]

Since Chaney raved about BM all spring I find it hard to believe he was Chaney's #2. I really believe CBB overruled Cheney in making BA the starter.

I believe in bigfoot

[TNRazorbacker]

Is there an example of a team that has taken this path in the past and been successful?  Do you think CBB will be given 5 years to show results?

South Carolina.

The Ole Ball Coach toughed out 5 bad to mediocre seasons before finally winning the east in 2010 and having 3 consecutive 11 win seasons 2011 - 2013.

[ballz2thewall]

i'm with bigpig all the way on this.  a farm is what is needed.  there was a day when a lineman rarely saw playing time until late soph, or junior year.  just one example.  but, we do need the building process and it is the only way to gain competitiveness. 

[Nuttcracker, Sweet!]

No coach wants a 3-9 record in his first season. Yes, BB seemed optimistic at the start because he knew we had some talent. What he did NOT know was the level of talent we play against week in and week out.

The talking heads and fans of other leagues who say the SEC is over rated have no idea of the type of players we and other SEC teams see 8 times a year, 9 for the teams in the SECCG. It all starts with the passion of the fans who fuel the SEC's fire.

I mostly agree with the original post, though. This was never going to be a quick turnaround with the very different ways BB has of doing things and the dip in the talent level, especially at WR.

Unless you're Alabama or LSU talented, you cannot just line up and whip 6 or more SEC teams a year, driving 80 yards consistently. You have to make big plays in all three phases and we were sorely lacking in big plays in 2013.

Until we get or develop some WRs like we play against on a weekly basis in SEC play, 6-6 is going to be an accomplishment. We have good talent everywhere else on offense, even QB, but we are green except BA.

I do think 6-6 is attainable this year, but it hinges on keeping BA healthy and getting a few breaks, along with a much improved defense that gets a few takeaways. And a few less fake punts/onsides kicks that fool no one would help...

[Hollywood_HOGan45]

I cannot wait for the season. We may not be that great but this team will fight.

I do know that we will bulldoze Texas tech.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

You don't truly believe that a coach of a BCS conference team doesn't understand how tough the SEC is do you?

I think it is possible that he underestimated the competition across the board in the SEC and how necessary it is to have a higher degree of quality, experienced depth at all positions than that of other conferences. The sheer physicality of an SEC season requires this.

Additionally, the QB barrel was left empty with the exception of 1 single player, Brandon Allen. Who were the QB's on JLS's 2012 team? There was Wilson, then Allen. After that, B. Mitchell (playing WR most of the time) Buehner, Davis McElroy and Taylor Reed.

Now look at 2013. We had BA again, then Derby, Buehner, Austin Allen and Damon Mitchell. 4 of the 5 not ready to play and execute Chaney's offense. Heck, even BA wasn't as ready as we needed him to be and then when you throw the injury in on top of things, well, we all saw what happened.

Yes, I think that to a degree, Bielema was a bit surprised by the SEC, the level of competition and intensity compared to the Big Ten and additionally, just about everything that could go wrong, did. We were the unluckiest team I have seen in a long, long time.

[three hog night]

I believe that further evidence for Bielema's approach for a turn around lies in the work of his three most well known coaching mentors: Hayden Fry, Bill Snyder, and Barry Alvarez.

The similarities between Bielema and the three are uncanny. Fry, Snyder, and Alvarez all took over non-power programs with infertile recruiting grounds that were in the dumps. Fry took over an Iowa program that had gone 17 years without a winning season, Alvarez took over Wisconsin who had not had a winning season in the 5 seasons prior to his arrival, and Snyder took over a program described as "Futility U" by Sports Illustrated in 1989.

We know these three coaches were all immensely successful when given time to build their program, but how did the rebuilding begin? Snyder and Alvarez went 1-10 in their first season, and Fry went 5-6. Fry and Snyder didn't have winning seasons until their third year, while it took Alvarez a fourth to get there. All three built their programs by creating a sound organizational structure with terrific coaching staffs, and even though it took time, these three took their programs to prominence.

The good news? Arkansas at the beginning of Bielema's tenure was head and shoulders above those three. We were only two years removed from a top 5 finish, while those three programs had gone a combined 28 seasons without a winning record. If you count the losing seasons in the early tenures of each respective coach, that number swells to 35. Arkansas also much better recruiting grounds and financial support. The bad news? Our conference is much more difficult than the Big Ten and Big 8/Big 12.

The proof is in the records of Bielema's mentors that a slow, painful turn around does not mean it will not succeed. The key is for impatient fans, like myself, to let it play out.

We also encountered a rare impact of messy dramatic exit of a popular coach.   It is rare that a coach is fired after he had 2 great seasons, but this was for off the field issues.   The program was also about to be exposed for the lack of talent he had recruited for the last 2 years.   It was a house of cards.

[immahog]

GREAT read ....I agree 100% +1

[Gonzo]

  The program was also about to be exposed for the lack of talent he had recruited for the last 2 years.   It was a house of cards.

Assumptions




Go Hogs!

[Shorttimer]

I believe that further evidence for Bielema's approach for a turn around lies in the work of his three most well known coaching mentors: Hayden Fry, Bill Snyder, and Barry Alvarez.

The similarities between Bielema and the three are uncanny. Fry, Snyder, and Alvarez all took over non-power programs with infertile recruiting grounds that were in the dumps. Fry took over an Iowa program that had gone 17 years without a winning season, Alvarez took over Wisconsin who had not had a winning season in the 5 seasons prior to his arrival, and Snyder took over a program described as "Futility U" by Sports Illustrated in 1989.

We know these three coaches were all immensely successful when given time to build their program, but how did the rebuilding begin? Snyder and Alvarez went 1-10 in their first season, and Fry went 5-6. Fry and Snyder didn't have winning seasons until their third year, while it took Alvarez a fourth to get there. All three built their programs by creating a sound organizational structure with terrific coaching staffs, and even though it took time, these three took their programs to prominence.

The good news? Arkansas at the beginning of Bielema's tenure was head and shoulders above those three. We were only two years removed from a top 5 finish, while those three programs had gone a combined 28 seasons without a winning record. If you count the losing seasons in the early tenures of each respective coach, that number swells to 35. Arkansas also much better recruiting grounds and financial support. The bad news? Our conference is much more difficult than the Big Ten and Big 8/Big 12.

The proof is in the records of Bielema's mentors that a slow, painful turn around does not mean it will not succeed. The key is for impatient fans, like myself, to let it play out.

In my 8+ years on this board, I've never used the karma feature . . . until today.  +1 to you.

[opineonswine]

Assumptions




Go Hogs!

Of course it's an assumption, just like the ones who blindly think Petrino was going to continue to win 10-11 games.  The difference is the facts bare out the first assumption...not the second one.

[GuvHog]

Of course it's an assumption, just like the ones who blindly think Petrino was going to continue to win 10-11 games.  The difference is the facts bare out the first assumption...not the second one.

I agree the Hogs wouldn't have won 10 or 11 games the last 2 years under BP but they would definitely have done a heck of a lot better than 4-8 and 3-9. I don't blame CBB for last year's 3-9 finish, that's just what happens when even a good coach is put in a bad situation.

[GuvHog]

A "heck of a lot better" is certainly relative.

I wouldn't consider going 6-6 with a scumbag coach who I was embarrassed that we retained to be dong "a heck of a lot better" than going 4-8 with a coach who just doing his best to get us through the year so we could find a permanent solution, OR 3-9 with a quality coach who as in his first year of cleaning up a giant mess.

They would have been better than 6-6 both years under BP IMHO.

[hogcard1964]

A "heck of a lot better" is certainly relative.

I wouldn't consider going 6-6 with a scumbag coach who I was embarrassed that we retained to be dong "a heck of a lot better" than going 4-8 with a coach who just doing his best to get us through the year so we could find a permanent solution, OR 3-9 with a quality coach who as in his first year of cleaning up a giant mess.

You wouldn't have been embarrassed of Petrino.

[Gonzo]

Of course it's an assumption, just like the ones who blindly think Petrino was going to continue to win 10-11 games.  The difference is the facts bare out the first assumption...not the second one.

You're half right, both sides are assumptions. The "facts" don't assure either argument,  no matter how long and how loud either side shouts them.


Go Hogs!

[Augustus]

what I find hard to understand is why so many people continue to cry over a 5th yr Sr that was never any coaches choice to be the starting QB, not BP, not JLS, and not BB. I guess he had the unfortunate luck to be coached by 3 guys who all were out to get him and keep him on the bench. 

IF I were a HC coming into a total rebuild, the last thing I would do would be give snaps to a guy that was only going to be there one year, a year in which his presence MIGHT have meant 1 more win, but would also have delayed the development of guys that the program was going to be relying on for 3 or 4 years after he was gone.

People were under the delusion that BM was some sort of hybrid QB that they imagined him running some version of some offense they saw somewhere and they thought it was cool, probably the local pop warner league where they had it to the big fast kid and let him run around. 

What people fail to remember is that BP had pretty much named BM as 3rd string in the spring of 2012, before the accident, behind TW AND BA. That is why he was playing receiver in 2012.

We let the next Cam Newton get away.

[hogcard1964]

Not buying it, but ok.