quote:
This is the "manipulation" I was speaking of earlier, or more appropriately, "smoke and mirrors"

Unfortunately for him athletic budgets and superior facilities are not always a barometer of success when comparing two programs.

Over the last 5 years the Mizzou and Arkansas FB teams are very similar. I would argue that the Mizzou BB program was much better.

There has been nothing proven with athletic budgets and "size" of facilities.

The thing I find even more humorous is that evidently Mizzou has had similar success as Arkansas over the last 5 years with a lower athletic budget, inferior facilities and a recruiting disadvantage.

I think highly of UA. I just dont like the blanket statements like this guy has been making.

To the rest of UA fans, you have a great program and I look forward to seeing Mizzou play Arkansas.

I already proved Arkansas has a much bigger Athletic Budget. Click on the link.

I'll show you once again.

Mississippi makes more in football revenue than you, ha.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by kilo

Member since Oct 2011

27433 posts

Posted on 11/8/11 at 12:48 am to SunHog

quote:
Mississippi makes more in football revenue than you, ha.

So Arkansas has a bigger athletic budget than Mizzou.

Mizzou will obviously close that gap over the next few years.

So now that we have established UA has a larger athletic budget.

Why has Mizzou had similar success to Arkansas over the last 5 years in football? Does this mean that Arkansas is underachieving? Mizzou overachieving?

You are avoiding the actual competition on the field by trying to prove that Arkansas is superior because they have a larger budget and superior facilities, I am saying you don't based on what occurs on the field of play.

The fact is, Mizzou and Arkansas are very similar over the last 5 years on the gridiron.

1 ...

Report Post

Conference Expansion - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board