Page 2 of 3

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:41 am
by mrydel
Offering models. Hmmmmm. That could work.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:52 am
by birddogger
mrydel wrote:Offering models. Hmmmmm. That could work.
You, sir, should apply for a position in recruiting.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:32 am
by mrydel
Large article in the sports section of today's Arkansas Dem-Gaz about the deal. Man says he will honor the bet even though he still believes Arkie will win a conference game. All cars will be new. He will give away 6 Kias and 6 Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep. Says the total cost to him will be about $200,000.

Not sure how he would do it, but knowing the history of this man I would bet he will give them to needy families or charity groups. Or he might raffle them and donate the money to a good cause. He is a good community person.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:02 am
by gostangs
Man its got to sting to be Arky, and have aggie waltz into the SEC and basically own it (for now). They have been in there forever and haven't done squat. Really odd for those of us that use to think of Arkansas as a big deal football school. That is getting to be as big a distant memory as the Pony Express.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:30 am
by mrydel
The new coach will have them back and competitive within 3 years counting this year. He is doing everything right from the recruiting side. They did lose a big time OL commit the other day who flipped to A&M but still I believe they are on the right track. He is building a big, athletic OL and has top rated RBs already. Good redshirted QB. They are short on good receivers.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:33 am
by Stallion
he could do everything right and still not succeed in the SEC. I don't agree he is doing everything right. With increase interest and exposure in Texas for SEC and playing annual game at Jerry's World he should be more successful in Texas. Arkansas is next to last in SEC recruiting and only has 1 Texan(not including a PK)

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:54 am
by mrydel
Gosh Stallion I thought you might realize that recruiting is not over yet.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:24 pm
by Stallion
89% of Texas Top 100 have committed

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:28 pm
by redpony
and probably not a single one sent their tape to jj hoping to get an offer. :evil: :roll:

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:26 pm
by mrydel
Stallion wrote:89% of Texas Top 100 have committed
I do agree that Texas has great talent but there are good recruits outside of Texas. Second, recruits do flip. As I mention, Arkansas just got stung by that but they could flip some others. Third, they openly acknowledge they are not well established in Texas yet but it is a priority. I believe you will see more offers and commits in Texas next year. They are doing well in Florida and have some California ties also.

What they do say is that traditionally, with Beliema, they are working with high level recruits that are waiting until late to commit.

When I say he is doing things right, I mean he is going after highly sought recruits. His full staff is on the road in maximum allowed numbers whenever allowed. He is building an offensive line first in order to establish a ground game that in turn will allow a passing game.

I hear about these people every day. They are everywhere. Will they succeed? I do not know. But if they do not it will not be due to lack of effort.

And I have no ties or love for them. I am just an observer and so far I am impressed.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:54 pm
by PoconoPony
mrydel wrote:He broadcast it openly over the air and after the first few games when the team was not looking very sharp he reiterated the deal and stood by it. He will honor the pledge if they do not win a game. He is that type of man and also very wealthy.
I find it fairly ironic that Arkansas was the first to leave the SWC which ultimately led to the demise of the entire conference. Ultimately, they have barely been competitive in the SEC and I do not recall them ever winning a title in either football or basketball. Why change conferences if you cannot be competitive and compete for titles? I guess $$$$ is the only explanation; however, I wonder how the fan base now feels about years of losing and little hope of any change in sight????

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:23 pm
by mrydel
At $16,000,000 a year they are very happy. And they have been in I believe 3 West division championship games which for they most part the team they lost to won the National Championship. They have fared considerably better than Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Kentucky. They have no regrets whatsoever. I am amazed at those who think otherwise. They have done much better in the SEC than we did in CUSA.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:25 am
by Arkpony
Arkansas won the National Championship in Basketball. pretty good.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:47 am
by PoconoPony
Arkpony wrote:Arkansas won the National Championship in Basketball. pretty good.
Yes, as a member of the SWC.

Re: Why you should not gamble (not SMU)

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:53 am
by PoconoPony
mrydel wrote:At $16,000,000 a year they are very happy. And they have been in I believe 3 West division championship games which for they most part the team they lost to won the National Championship. They have fared considerably better than Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Kentucky. They have no regrets whatsoever. I am amazed at those who think otherwise. They have done much better in the SEC than we did in CUSA.
Do you really believe the fan base is not frustrated looking at Bama, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Florida and South Carolina as road blocks every year knowing they will not be in a BCS bowl? Yep, the money is there, but relegated to the middle of the SEC pack after years of contending for the SWC title and big bowl games must be a bitter pill.