Started By
Message
re: NCAA Tournament Wins by Team- Past 25 seasons
Posted on 2/15/24 at 10:34 am to AUTiger789
Posted on 2/15/24 at 10:34 am to AUTiger789
Arkansas would have 12 going back over the past 25 seasons, considering no school has wins this season in the NCAAt.
0
Posted on 2/15/24 at 11:37 am to RT1941
quote:
I'm too young to know anything about Nolan. What's the back story on his termination?
The relatively unbiased opinion is that Frank Broyles was a genius at being an athletic director. His facility building program was amazing, especially at a school with a small population that wasn't insanely interested in sports. He saved Arkansas from being left behind when the SWC imploded and kept us from being stuck in Conference USA or worse. And he had a tremendous knack for finding great coaches.
And... like a lot of geniuses he had some bad stuff to. One of which is he was a terrible micromanager. Mostly this was football related. Broyles ran off some great coaches from Arkansas on the gridiron. But it also drifted over to basketball.
Enter Nolan Richardson, an incredibly gifted and intelligent basketball coach, who was extremely opinionated and willing to speak his mind. Naturally, the two hated one another. They clashed repeatedly for years, even while Arkansas was enjoying amazing success. Broyles wanted a coach that was, how to put this, not so out spoken. Richardson wanted to piss on Broyle's grave and got a real case of the red arse that the mediocre Houston Nutt was making more money than he was.
When Nolan made some remarks with racist leanings about how fans viewed him Broyles couldn't wait to jump on that. Things got very heated, Nolan got fired, and Arkansas wandered the desert of college basketball for a long while.
They made up. Folks tend to do that. I think Broyles, towards the end of his life, realized that his micromanaging hurt the programs he really loved more than helped them. I think Nolan, as he nears the end of his life, realized that he truly loves NW Arkansas and that he can't do serious jail time for pissing on Broyle's grave at this point in his life.
Frank Broyles is both the greatest and worst thing to happen to Arkansas sports. But you know what? We'd be in the Big 12 (at best) if we hadn't moved him to AD.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 12:00 pm to Arksulli
quote:
Frank Broyles is both the greatest and worst thing to happen to Arkansas sports.
He made several coaching blunders. There is a part of me that while he loved the university, he deep down did not want a coach to be more successful in their career here than what he was in his coaching career. Just take a look...Nolan Richardson was right with him in coaching prestige, but all other coaches formed a riff with Broyles before they could be more successful than Broyles...
Basketball
Eddie Sutton (1974-1985)
- 260-75 (.776)
- 5 Conference Titles
- 1 Final Four, 2 Elite Eights, 4 Sweet Sixteens, 9 NCAAt's
Nolan Richardson (1985-2002)
- 389-169 (.697)
- 5 Conference Titles
- 1 National Title, 1 National Runner-Up, 3 Final Fours, 4 Elite Eights, 6 Sweet Sixteens, 14 NCAAt's
Football
Lou Holtz (1977-1983)
- 60-21-2
- 1 Conference Title
- Led Arkansas to Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange Bowls
- 1 Top 3, 4 top 10, 5 top 16 AP poll finishes
Ken Hatfield (1984-1989)
- 55-17-1
- 2 Conference Titles
- Led Arkansas to Orange Bowl and Cotton Bowl twice
- 4 Top 15 AP Poll finishes
Posted on 2/15/24 at 1:31 pm to Lord of the Hogs
quote:
Takes more than one Final Four in your shitty basketball history to be a blue blood, Auburn fans.
Oh, that's quite true. As much as I wish we were, Auburn is no blueblood. We had fun beating the bluebloods on our final four run in 2019, but for most of our basketball history, being mediocre in a football conference was about as good as it got. I am, content with being a newblood and enjoying a good run in a great sport for as long as I can.
This post was edited on 2/15/24 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 2/15/24 at 1:39 pm to SpotCheckBilly
Let's be honest, what really matters is where your program is currently and the last 4-5 years + how it looks moving forward. History is awesome, but if you are choosing between the two most would pick to be in the midst of a good thing (other than Kentucky or UCLA type history). Auburn has a good thing right now.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 1:44 pm to AUTiger789
Auburn has been a massive disappointment under Bruce. Bunch of 1st weekend exits sans 1 year.
I don’t see what the difference between him and Frank Martin at South Carolina is
I don’t see what the difference between him and Frank Martin at South Carolina is
Posted on 2/15/24 at 2:01 pm to mistaken4193
quote:
Auburn has been a massive disappointment under Bruce. Bunch of 1st weekend exits sans 1 year.
Well... at Auburn he has won every first round game... three out of the four times he's brought Auburn to the NCAA tournament they have lost in the second round - but to say they have been a massive disappointment under Pearl I think is untrue.... but you are absolutely entitled to your opinion
quote:
I don’t see what the difference between him and Frank Martin at South Carolina is
You don't know the difference? Okay I'll show you...
Frank Martin record at South Carolina - 171–147 (79–99 SEC) record
Bruce Pearl record at Auburn - 207 - 116 (86 - 80 SEC ) record
Posted on 2/16/24 at 1:09 am to AUTiger789
quote:
Here you go
Good stuff man thanks!
Posted on 2/16/24 at 3:58 am to Lord of the Hogs
quote:
According to Auburn fans, they’re a blue blood and a better basketball program. Despite their vastly inferior basketball tradition and overall losing record to Arkansas.
Silly Auby’s.
It's not the 80's any longer. 25 years is a hell of a sample size. That is more than six classes.
Posted on 2/16/24 at 7:44 am to MrAUTigers
What makes 1999 more relevant than 1995 or 1994?
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:11 am to GoGators1995
quote:
What makes 1999 more relevant than 1995 or 1994?
It's just a time frame. Nothing more/nothing less.
Nebraska used to be dominant in football. The same for ND.
Indiana and UCLA were dynasties in bball.
none of them are relevant today.
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:13 am to MrAUTigers
Basketball is much less dependent on "natural resources" than football. Nebraska is always going to struggle to get back to being a national power in football because their 200 mile recruiting circle just doesn't have players in it.
Basketball, if you have financial support and the right coach, can turn into a Top 10 program in 18 months almost anywhere. "Local ties" in recruiting are nearly non-existent, especially in comparison to football.
Basketball, if you have financial support and the right coach, can turn into a Top 10 program in 18 months almost anywhere. "Local ties" in recruiting are nearly non-existent, especially in comparison to football.
This post was edited on 2/16/24 at 9:14 am
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:19 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Nebraska is always going to struggle to get back to being a national power in football because their 200 mile recruiting circle just doesn't have players in it.
I am not sure how old you are. I am quite certain you were around to see Nebraska as a national power in football. The only thing that has changed is HC and support. Their recruiting base is still the same that Osborne had. Devaney before him was very impressive.
ETA Hell, Bo Pelini had over a .700 winning percentage there.
This post was edited on 2/16/24 at 9:21 am
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:21 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
Indiana and UCLA were dynasties in bball.
none of them are relevant today.
Of course they are relevant today.
The difference in programs who have had sustained success over time in basketball, is those programs have always been willing to fund their programs and win. It is also that you seem to hold certain programs to higher standards than others. 3/4 of the SEC would kill to have the basketball resume listed below for UCLA and Indiana over the past 23 seasons.
UCLA has been to 4 Final Fours since 2000. Their latest was 2021. They have also been to 4 Elite Eights, and 12 Sweet Sixteens in that same time frame (last 23 seasons).
Indiana has a National runner up, final four, Elite Eight, 4 Sweet Sixteens, and 13 NCAAt appearances in that timeframe (last 23 seasons).
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:26 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
I am not sure how old you are. I am quite certain you were around to see Nebraska as a national power in football. The only thing that has changed is HC and support. Their recruiting base is still the same that Osborne had. Devaney before him was very impressive.
A loooooot has changed since then, though. Nobody was hurt more by regional programs in warm weather places getting more money and investing in programs than places like Nebraska. Kids from California, Florida, Texas and New Jersey are not going to Nebraska anymore like they did in the 1970s and 1980s. Look at those rosters, they always had 2-3 great Nebraska kids on them, but the majority of them were from the coasts and the Sun Belt.
The other major change, as everybody knows, is that they lost Prop-48. That was a massive part of the recruiting strategy of Osborne and his staff and those kids were all of a sudden off the table.
quote:
ETA Hell, Bo Pelini had over a .700 winning percentage there.
And never sniffed anything nationally relevant. Never finished in the Top 10. Never lost less than 3 games (and only lost less than 4 games 1x).
You can be good at Nebraska (and I think Rhule will be). You cannot sign enough elite players there to be a Top 10 program in 2024 IMHO, unless they create the largest and richest NIL programs in the country.
This post was edited on 2/16/24 at 9:28 am
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:28 am to mistaken4193
quote:
Auburn has been a massive disappointment under Bruce. Bunch of 1st weekend exits sans 1 year.
Somewhat agree here, though to be fair to Bruce, overall based on where Auburn was seeded, he should have won 6 NCAA Tournament games and he’s exceeded that with 7.
His four Tournament teams to date:
2018 4-seed: based on seed should have won 2 games but under-performed and won just 1.
2019 5-seed: based on seed should have won 1 game but exceeded expectations and won 4.
2022 2-seed: based on seed should have won 3 games but underperformed and won just 1.
2023 9-seed: based on seed should have lost first round but exceeded expectations and won 1 game.
So Auburn teams have underperformed twice and over-performed twice. They’ve won one extra game based on expectations.
That’s not enormously impressive but it’s above average.
quote:
I don’t see what the difference between him and Frank Martin at South Carolina is
Oh come on. That’s ridiculous. Frank made one NCAA Tournament. If not for Covid, Bruce would be taking Auburn this year to its sixth in seven seasons, and to date has never had a first round exit.
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:36 am to MrAUTigers
quote:
I am not sure how old you are. I am quite certain you were around to see Nebraska as a national power in football. The only thing that has changed is HC and support. Their recruiting base is still the same that Osborne had. Devaney before him was very impressive.
Not at all.
Nebraska changed conferences and their presence in Texas recruiting is not near what it was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. They lost all their regional rivalries when they moved leagues. The NCAA has also advanced their drug screening process.
In 1995, Nebraska had 10/22 starters from Nebraska. Since 247's inception, Nebraska has not produced a single 5 star blue chip and only 14-4 star players.
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:37 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Basketball, if you have financial support and the right coach, can turn into a Top 10 program in 18 months almost anywhere.
Agree. Look how fast Baylor turned around. After they had that murder scandle about 20 years ago, their program was about as low as a program could get. Then Scott Drew resurrected the program and took them to soon to be 12 NCAA Tournaments and even won them a National Title.
Posted on 2/16/24 at 9:39 am to AUTiger789
If Chris Beard stays at Ole Miss for 10 years (he won't, but in this alternate reality), I fully expect they'd be a consistent Top 25 program that is in the NCAA Tournament on a yearly basis and have some teams that are Top 16 type teams.
And Ole Miss is the worst historical program in the league. But they have financial support and an elite coach.
And Ole Miss is the worst historical program in the league. But they have financial support and an elite coach.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News