I'm feeling like a ramble so here it goes... Not trying to throw shade but when was the last time Arkansas was truly relevant on a national level. I'm thinking the McFadden years and the wildcat formation popularized by those Arkansas teams but in neither Basketball nor football have the Hogs been as relevant as they were in the SWC.
I could say "40 minutes of hell" and if you are of a certain age or an extremely well-informed basketball fan and you will immediately think about the early 90s teams of Nolan Richardson. For those that don't know he blew up at a presser one day and offended basically everybody in Arkansas so he had to go, but what has Arkansas done since he left in hoops?
Football has never been able to recover from the loss of playing in Texas every other week and frankly having weaker competition. The SWC was primarily Texas, Texas A&M, and Arkansas with occasional smatterings of competence from SMU or Houston or whomever but it wasn't the SEC week in and week out.
In the SWC, Arkansas was one of the Big Dogs, in the SEC they are most decidedly NOT. Even in their own division I would rank them 5, 6, or 7 in their division most years along with the Mississippi schools.
In the final analysis, Arkansas did the right thing for their budget but I still think, and believe most of their fans think that after the breakup of the SWC Arkansas has become a much wealthier but far less competitive shadow of it's former self.

I agree.

I never understood how adding Arkansas and South Carolina ended up being a home run for the SEC.

Arkansas was a good program, but not a juggernaut. South Carolina was decidedly average - they finished the season ranked only 3 times before joining the SEC, and never in the top-10. Once they were in the SEC, neither school was really nationally relevant until 2010.

That's definitely one of the downsides of larger super conferences of today. While there are more teams in power leagues, there are now fewer power conferences, thus the opportunity to win a power conference has definitely gone down.

Thankfully, all of the teams in the power conferences are making much more money; but there are fewer conferences to win/be competitive in.

If Arkansas stuck with the SWC/BXII group, they would be an annual top-25 program and have flirted with a national title their share of times. Arkansas is a classic program that's a shell of its former self.

I lived in Arkansas for many years and actually played my high school football there back in the 1980s. Arkansas is more of a cultural fit with the states of Texas and Oklahoma than South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Ole Miss and now Texas A&M are the schools they have history with in the SEC (they were already playing Ole Miss regularly before being in the SEC). However, being in the BXII playing UT, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and even going down to Ft. Worth to play TCU would be huge battles in that region for everyone involved.

(09-20-2019 11:10 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  If Arkansas stuck with the SWC/BXII group, they would be an annual top-25 program and have flirted with a national title their share of times.

Nope. At no point in Arkansas' time in the SEC have the Hogs had a football coach that would have been one of the 4 best coaches in either the SEC or Big 12. They had a run of questionable football coaching hires that had nothing to do with their conference. On top of that, Big 12 football has been better and, more importantly, deeper than SWC football during the Hogs' last decade in that conference, so SWC success during that time doesn't mean they would have been great in Big 12 football.

(09-20-2019 11:28 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-20-2019 11:10 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  If Arkansas stuck with the SWC/BXII group, they would be an annual top-25 program and have flirted with a national title their share of times.

Nope. At no point in Arkansas' time in the SEC have the Hogs had a football coach that would have been one of the 4 best coaches in either the SEC or Big 12. They had a run of questionable football coaching hires that had nothing to do with their conference. On top of that, Big 12 football has been better and, more importantly, deeper than SWC football during the Hogs' last decade in that conference, so SWC success during that time doesn't mean they would have been great in Big 12 football.

2006 Arkansas would've flirted with a national title in the BXII.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Arkan...tball_team
10-4
17-pt MOV's over #2 & #13
4 losses to top-9 teams

BXII finished with 2 top-25 teams, #11 & #13:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con.../2006.html

I am not saying it makes sense for the SEC, but it would be better for Arkansas if Mizzou was in the west and Auburn was in the East. Or maybe just get rid of divisions.

It actually might help Arkansas if the SEC expanded and took Texas and Oklahoma. Even though those 2 are bigger powers, it could help to get Arkansas playing more in it's old neighborhood. The SEC then could either....
stick with 2 divisions by shifting Bama and Auburn East and Mizzou west,
or go with 4-team pods where Arkansas is grouped with Mizzou, Texas and Oklahoma.

The Petrino teams were great.

Arkansas use to recruit Texas heavily. Once they left for the SEC, those recruits quit going there. The results are predictable.

Due to their location, they are a better fit in the Big 12, but that's water under the bridge.

Arkansas is one of those schools that honestly could fit in multiple leagues. At the time it sat at the crossroads of the B8, SWC and SEC and could have been in any of them.

Would Arkansas have done better in the B12?

Possibly but not necessarily

And here’s the thing: up until the SEC Network happened there has always been nothing stopping Arkansas from going to the Big 12. There still isn’t much stopping them today.

But a conference totally and utterly dependent on one of their most hated rivals and that only exists on their whim has never interested Piggy.

That this surprises some people seems odd.

(09-20-2019 10:24 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I agree.

I never understood how adding Arkansas and South Carolina ended up being a home run for the SEC.

Arkansas was a good program, but not a juggernaut. South Carolina was decidedly average - they finished the season ranked only 3 times before joining the SEC, and never in the top-10. Once they were in the SEC, neither school was really nationally relevant until 2010.

You are looking at moves from 1990 through the prism of 2019. At the time, having a Conference Championship Game was unheard-of. This move by the SEC was absolutely groundbreaking. Adding 2 schools brought the SEC up to 12 and allowed for a football CCG that has brought many million$ into the SEC. Ark and SC were southern, contiguous states and willing to join. It was that simple.

(09-20-2019 01:15 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Arkansas is one of those schools that honestly could fit in multiple leagues. At the time it sat at the crossroads of the B8, SWC and SEC and could have been in any of them.

Would Arkansas have done better in the B12?

Possibly but not necessarily

And here’s the thing: up until the SEC Network happened there has always been nothing stopping Arkansas from going to the Big 12. There still isn’t much stopping them today.

But a conference totally and utterly dependent on one of their most hated rivals and that only exists on their whim has never interested Piggy.

That this surprises some people seems odd.

I think the SEC & Big 10 have stayed stable because the historic powerhouses (Alabama, Ohio State, and Michigan) aren't in the biggest population center at the center of the conference (Atlanta & Chicago). The football powerhouses in the SEC & Big 10 also generally aren't the strongest academic schools that the University Presidents like to schmooze with. So everyone needs each other.

But in the SWC & Big 12, the conference was centered on Dallas & to a lesser extent the rest of the Texas Triangle. The Longhorns have the biggest fanbase throughout most of that region, and they're the best academic school in both conferences (other than arguably Rice).

Basically, there was no one who could tell Texas, "no."

Arkansas and Nebraska are cautionary tales of what happens when you go to a stronger conference. Yes, there’s more money, exposure and stability. Some of their struggles are self-inflicted. But when people on this board start throwing scenarios where Oklahoma goes to the SEC or Big Ten, what they forget is the Sooners only have to look at the schools in Lincoln and Fayetteville, schools that used to have strong football programs and ask themselves if they want to go that route even though they’ll be making more money. Even worse, do they want to run the risk of being an irrelevant program like their old Big 8 rivals Colorado and Missouri?

Hogs had three teams that might have had a crack in Big XII ASSuming that they could have recruited as well.

2006 got routed by then #6 USC who finished 4, lost to #9 LSU the eventual #3 and 10 point loss in SEC title game to eventual national champion Florida. Not counted would have been loss in bowl by three in #6 Wisconsin.
2010 Went 10-3 the losses were by 4 to then #1 Bama, by 22 at then #7 Auburn who won the National Championship and by 5 to then #6 Ohio State a win the Buckeyes vacated but being bowl wouldn't have been a factor.
2011 Went 11-2 loss by 24 at then #3 Bama the eventual national champion and 24 at LSU then #1 who would then lose to Bama

It is odd that the decades the Arkansas economy revolved around Memphis and New Orleans that athletics revolved around Texas and soon after the economy shifted to revolve around Dallas athletics turned east.

Everyone wants to be in the biggest/best conferences but they tend to forget that makes it increasingly unlikely to win them. With 8/10 team conferences and co-champs, everyone had a lot more years when they were either conference champs or deep in the race. The cost of these mega conferences with ccgs is that even major programs now can go decades without a championship if things go badly and smaller programs (or even not so small) can see their once every 20 year or so championship far less likely.

(09-20-2019 02:53 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Everyone wants to be in the biggest/best conferences but they tend to forget that makes it increasingly unlikely to win them. With 8/10 team conferences and co-champs, everyone had a lot more years when they were either conference champs or deep in the race. The cost of these mega conferences with ccgs is that even major programs now can go decades without a championship if things go badly and smaller programs (or even not so small) can see their once every 20 year or so championship far less likely.

Yup.

I miss 8-10 team conferences.

You can say the exact same thing about Penn St and the BIG

Jackson

(09-20-2019 03:53 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  You can say the exact same thing about Penn St and the BIG

Jackson

Penn State has 2 outright Big Ten titles and 2 other Big Ten co-championships.

Penn State has won at least 9 games in 17 of 26 seasons since joining the Big Ten.

Arkansas has won at least 9 games only 6 times in 27 seasons in the SEC.

Well, Arkansas won their hoops national title while in the SEC.

Also, the SWC ceased to exist 3 years after they left, so arguably good timing.