No one's debating that, but I don't see how anybody can say that Arkansas's been the better program over the last 25 years. Arkansas has finished the season ranked exactly once in over 20 years. They've made the tourney field 6 times in 20 years and their average seed is an 8. They've defined mediocrity.
Regardless, even if Arkansas had been more successful in recent years, Texas is a much better job.
I wasn't really making a stand, one way or the other. Simply agreeing that Arkansas is better on a historical level. I also mentioned that Arkansas hasn't made it to the Sweet 16 since 1996.
There could be pros and cons for each side. Texas has a better brand, is a hotbed for local talent, and is probably more relevant for recruits. Arkansas can probably match the pay of Texas, the cost of living is cheaper, the scrutiny is less on a national level - which often means a longer leash for bad seasons, and they're more invested in basketball than Texas. At least, Texas football is a 100x more important than basketball, whereas the discrepancy isn't that large for basketball. It wouldn't be an obvious decision, should Musselman have that opportunity, IMO.