First, karlporkington, this will likely be very long and I accept the fact that you won't be reading it. I can live with that. To anybody else that hates long posts, that's fine, just skip over it and won't hurt you.
In the last few days the debate has raged over multiple threads that Mike is either right on track or peaked at mediocrity depending upon the end result desired by the poster. I thought it would be good to take a closer look at the records of Eddie, Nolan, and Mike. Heath and Pel were mistakes so there is no need to include them.
Eddie was a prototype x's and o's coach. He was also a demander of impeccable fundamental habits at all times. No exceptions. He played pressure man defense at all times and his players were great defenders or they never played. He ran a methodical ball control offense. He played his starters high minutes and thus, used his bench sparingly. That often hurt him at tourney time as his team tended to tire in quick turnaround of the tourney format. His players that went to the NBA were well known for their fundamentals and defensive prowess.
Nolan had a rough start here and a rough finish. His greatness, his legend, his legacy, is best defined by an epic 7 year stretch in which he took our program to places we never thought possible. From the freshman years of Day, Mayberry, and Miller to the last game of Corliss and co., we were as elite as it got in college basketball. four 30+ win seasons, 3 FF's, and a NC. We were truly elite and feared. Because this post is about expectations, Nolan's run of greatness is what should be looked at as the barometer of his legacy.
For you young guys out there, what Nolan and Eddie did was fun beyond words and set the bar for what our program can be under the right leadership.
First off, Mike has been touted repeatedly lately as having two of the highest win years in school history. This is a bit of a misleading statement. His high water win marks here were 27 and 26 wins. Nolan topped 27 wins 4 times(30, 31, 32, & 34) and Eddie once at 32. That puts Mike's highest win total at no.6. Mike's second highest win total was 26 and it was tied twice by Eddie and once by Nolan. Where it starts to gain some perspective is when you look at the losses in those years. Eddie went 26-2 and 26-4. Mike went 26-10 and 27 and 9. 53-19 in two years is not in the same world as 52-6. The difference between top 10 and top 30-50.
The deal is, both of Mike's high water marks were in odd years when he played 36 games. Eddie only played 36 games once in 11 years and he went 32-4 that year. Nolan won 30+ twice w/o even playing 36 games, played 36+ twice and won 30+ both times. 26 and 27 wins would look better w/o the 19 losses that went with em.
Eddie had one season of losses in double digits in 11 years, and that was his last one, when he was a raging drunk. He went 22-13. Mike has averaged 12 losses a year here and his low mark was 9. Eddie peaked in years 3, 4, and 5, but maintained a nationally competitive program until the end. He started with less than nothing and built and maintained a national top 5-15 team in a couple of years. He went to the ncaa tourney the last 9 years here and went toe to toe with some of the best college teams ever.
Nolan was the opposite of Eddie in most respects. Nolan didn't care a bit for fundamentals or precisely run plays. He believed in relentlessness at both ends the entire game. Non-stop pressure on the other team. Harrassing defense and attacking offense from tipoff to final buzzer. His use of depth and unorthodox style made us a bad draw in the tourney. When he had the guys to run it, it was virtually unstoppable and about as much fun as a fan could possibly have. Incredible time to be a Hog fan. The best of times. Sorry some of you guys missed it.
In Eddie's 11 years here, he won 5 conference titles and came in 2nd 5 times. In Nolan's 7 year run he won 6 SECC's and came in 3rd once. In 7 years, Mike has come in 9th, 7th, 5th, 2nd, 9th, T3rd, T3rd.
Truth be known, Mike's first seven years here look much more like the last 7 declining years of Nolan than any of the teams that made our legacy what it is. Year 8 looks much the same and anybody who thinks we will be better next year w/o Gafford is fooling themselves. Chaney can replace Gafford's production about like Derrick Hood replaced Corliss'. It's well documented that Mike is a fine guy and a true Razorback, but those things have nothing to do with running a BB program. We have 3 losses this year that could have and should have been wins. Those losses are costing us in rankings and national recognition right now and will cost us even more during tourney seeding time. If history is any indication, we will have another 3-4 snatching defeat from the jaws of victory games in conference too. Those games are the difference between ranking, high seeds, and national pub, and they are pretty much baked into Mike's teams every year.
Mike runs a system emulating Nolan's glory days. Problem is, like anything new and successful, once Nolan started dominating with it, many started copying it, others learned how to attack it, and yet others petitioned the ncaa to make rules to negate it(which they did). What Mike is doing had quit working for Nolan 20 years ago. The formula for attacking it is commonly known. Eight years in, the pattern is well set. Basketball does not require 8-10 years to establish a pattern. Mike's pattern is clear.
Sorry for the rambling to anybody who got this far. My head has been swimming with all of the takes on the subject over the last few days, so I thought I would try to throw what I see as best as I can in one post.