But they have had flashes of mediocrity at times, unlike Vandy, who hasn't seen a decent team since 1933 or UK, who should just stick to basketball 12 months out of the year.
Over the last 15 years I would have to say that the SEC East has been a lot better at the top than the West. I wouldn't call Auburn and LSU perennial powers, both programs need to keep winning for a while to be considered perennial powers for sure. UT has been the most consistent. UGA has done much more than either AU or LSU consistency wise. Florida has been down but no where near where Bama has been.
agreed...there are more contending teams in the east. the west hasnt really had a perennial power in a long time. i think as a whole the west might be better, but MSU and OM do really suck right now. bama is gettin better and arky plays tough most of the time.
Yeah, I really think it is better to be in the West. Let's see: LSU has a solid, natural recruiting base and the state's proximity to Texas allows them to pull in a good number of Texans to boot. Mississippi and Alabama have good but not quite as valuable (from a per capita standpoint) talent bases but that base is split two ways per state from an intraconference standpoint. Arkansas could and should be more competitive, IMO, than they have been in recent years (not much room for improvement, but there is some). There's no "natural" group in the West that's equal to Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and (truth be told) South Carolina in the East. At the very least---the very least---South Carolina should be on par with an Arkansas in terms of production, IMO.
Tejas, I kind of agree with that, SC should probably be a little better talent wise and would be if they didn't have Clemson in their backyard. As for Arkansas, did anyone on this board follow them much in the 60's, 70's and 80's when they were in the SWC. I'm wondering if they use to get more top notch talent from Texas. I remember them getting a couple of good ones from north LA every so often. I just don't think they have ever had a lot of great homegrown players.
From a recruiting standpoint, Arkansas moving to the SEC was not good. Ark needs TX like Ok needs TX. When they were in the SWC since they were the only team outside of TX, from a recruiting standpoint they were like an annex of the state. They would always play 3 or 4 games in the state, which means that it is easier for family and friends to see recruits play. They rarely play in TX anymore and that hurts them. We can get by with just a few recruits from TX, but Ark needs more IMO.
Arkansas should be doing better because they really don't have any D1A rivals within the state of Arkansas. Texas has UT, A&M, TT, Baylor, TCU, UTEP, Houston, etc... And Houston Nutt doesn't appear to have the motivation to do much more than to try to qualify for a bowl game. Athlon got it right with their "Bowl Hunt," front page. :hihi: Nutt doesn't even seem to recruit in Kansas City much, which would appear to be a logical city in which to pull a few recruits from each year. Broyles, at about 83 now, should prep Nutt to take over the AD position and they should both look around for an up and coming coach with more MOTIVATION. Of course, Arkansas would have to shell out some real money for a competitive coach. That may be part of the problem.
My basic point is that Ark, like TN, doesn't produce a ton of talent like LA or even MS, and it has to be supplemented. Since the move they haven't replaced TX as a recruiting source. Whether this is due to a lack of effort or incompetence, I do not know. Could they do a better job in state, maybe, but if they want to return to the glory years, they have to upgrade the overall talent from wherever they can find it.
