Tonight this is men vs boys.
We already are. This year might be tough, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that we were in the gutter and have climbed out.
More like experience versus youth.
Good reply, General!
They have been relevant.
They have not been Elite.
Maybe, he might ask the question…Will we ever be a Top 25 program again. That means finishing the year as a Top 25 program. I think we will. I am not sure who the coach will be, but I think we will. The Laws of Probability are valid and true. We probably will.
Not anytime soon… just too many weaknesses.
This is the best team they have played and the first they have been blown out.
They are not close to being a championship team, but also nowhere near where some of you place them.
Think it’s a bit too early to go either way on this… we may be right where some are placing them or maybe the last half of the year they will be where you seem to think they are… time will tell. They haven’t looked good, at all, in several games but they might still turn it on at some point… not likely but… How’s that for optimism from a confirmed pessimist?
I guess it depends on what you consider “Relevant” to mean.
Consider these historical facts about our program since we made back to back appearances in the NCAA Championship game in 94/95.
NCAA Tournament Team: 11
First round wins: 6
Second round wins: 1
Sweet 16 losses: 1
Second round losses: 5
First round losses 5
Last year our Hogs made it past the first weekend in the NCAA Tournament was 1996 and lost that sweet sixteen game as a 12 seed to a 1 seed UMASS.
JMO, but I don’t call a program “Relevant” unless it can make it past the first weekend in the Tournament.
Highest we’ve been seeded in all of these Tournaments was 4 in 1999 and then a 5 in 2015 and then 6,7,8,9 and 11 seeds.
Decide for yourself!
Relevant is one of those words that can have many different meaning to many different people.
There truly is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.
Take Mississippi State - are they a relevant because they are in the top 25 now - but have not been to the tournament in three years?
Vanderbilt? Ole Miss?
I don’t consider any of those three “relevant.” Could that change this year? You bet.
One year don’t prove anything or make you relevant.
Relevant compared to what?
Van Eman era - Yes
Sutton era - No
Nolan era - No
Heath & Pelphrey eras - Yes
But all have spent time in the top 25?
Not made the tournament much if at all lately, but have been in top 25.
Just getting everyone’s definition of relevant.
One would guess South Carolina would be that to some because of their Fina Four run.
Don’t forget Tennessee. Everyone is talking about how great they are and was last year, but TN hasn’t made the 2nd weekend of the tourney under Barnes with a “much” better team. Might that change this year? Possibly (and very likely), but everyone complaining would have gone nuts if Mike has us as a 3 seed and lost to an 11. And he’s only made one tourney in four years (again could and will probably change this year)
I agree completely that everyone has a different definition of “relevant” just like everyone has a different definition of what are “reasonable expectations.” For ME, “relevant” means it is a team that comes to mind when I think of making a decent run in the NCAA’s. Very unscientific and depends in part on how much I am paying attention! It also has some what of a “lag” in it. Even though Mississippi State went to the final four back in 1996 (I think) I didn’t really think they were relevant as it was pretty much a one time deal. The same with Florida in 1994 (again I think that is right). A little bit later when Florida won back to back titles, big time yes for them of course.
The lag can keep you “relevant” even after the glory days are gone. I don’t think any one think UNLV is relevant right now, but there name sure meant a lot for years after their glory years.
I still thought of Arkansas as “relevant” during the 1980’s even though we never made a deep run again after 1979 (1981 you could say I guess). Part of that was doing things like beating UH when they were on top, beating UNC when they were on top. While we didn’t make a good run in those years, we were capable of it and people though of us as possibly making a good run. We were also generally, year in, year out, in the top 25 (top 20) for most of the year.
Having one year where you spend part of that year in the top 25 or even making one decent run in the NCAA’s isn’t enough to make you “relevant” for ME. Doing it over several years? Yes.
Program national relevance to me is 22 NCAA Appearances over 24 years including 4 final fours and a national title from 1977 and 2001.
Losing national relevance and for some seasons, complete program irrelevance, can be reflected in 6 total NCAA appearances over 16 years between 2002 to 2018 and few games beyond first round.
Heath/Pelphrey have 3 NCAA appearances over their 9 years, Mike with what appears to be 3 NCAA appearances at the moment in his year 8 assuming this team does not find magic and make it.
I hope for the relevance we had in the 90’s but don’t see it happening. The inability to keep our best instate talent home and style of play on defense does not give me much hope. I will pull for them to win every game but I have learned to live with the results better now. Mike is a good coach who appears to do things right. He is not elite and none of his staff have proven to be elite recruiters yet. Scotty gives hope while he is learning. We are what we are.