Lol @ Mizzou

[stoops4pres]

Well, I just remember that Mizzou team fairly easily handling every team they played but us. And that includes Arkansas, who went into Baton Rouge and defeated the eventual national champion.

Agreed, I remember touching on that point a week or two ago as well. Not to mention, they pounded Ole Miss worse than almost every other SEC team did that season. I'm not saying Missouri would've unquestionably won the SEC, but they certainly were good enough to compete for the conference title that year. Those aforementioned facts, and a Top 5 finish validates that sentiment.

West Virginia? Those dudes were also really good. Total fluke that they lost to Pittsburgh, and they responded by kicking the dog **** out of us.

In my opinion, when Pat White was healthy I thought they were the best team in the country that season. They were absolutely loaded on offense with all that speed, and their defense was very underappreciated (they were ranked 7th in scoring defense in all of college football). I don't think they would've destroyed OU to the extent they did had OU not had their multitude of injuries (Kelly and seemingly half of the starting defense), but they were as good as any team around when White was calling the plays.

 

[Sooner04]

Boise dominated our lines on both sides the first half or 3 quarters or so. They just wore down and won with trick plays late. But when they built that 28-10 lead they dominated us.

I remember them dominating Paul Thompson.

Bomar gets the boot and Stoops chooses to redshirt Bradford and play Paul Thompson. Oh the humanity!

 

[Sooner04]

This also brings up an interesting point about perception. I agree about it being a sub-par year for college football in 1984. But 2007, to me, is a little different. Was the Big 12 down, or was it down because Missouri and Kansas were two of the better teams?

I remember people saying the Big 12 was down in basketball in 2004. Well, maybe the Big 12 was down because a non-traditional power, O-State, was kicking the piss out of the rest of us.

Was 1990 a down year in college football? Or was it down because the best football was being played in the ACC (GT splits the national title, Virginia is #1 for a couple of weeks).

Just something I've always wondered about. I won't sell that 2007 Missouri team short. I thought they were very, very good. But they weren't going to beat us. Kinda like those early 2000s Texas BBall teams. They were pretty good, made a few runs, but Kelvin absolutely owned them. Just terrible matchups.

 

[thebigabd]

Mizzou plays a dinky-dunk (technical term) offense and doesnt recruit great players. Therefore, they will always be just average. Their system gives them success while at the same time holds them back, if that makes sense.

 

[stoops4pres]

All of college football was really that bad in 2007. Once a decade or so, this happens - 1984 and 1990 are two other examples. In '84, BYU won the title after beating a 6-5 team in the Holiday Bowl. In '90, Colorado won a share of the title with a loss, a tie, and one win because of getting an extra down.

Yes, Missouri and even Kansas may have been upper-tier SEC teams in 2007. I'm sure this can happen on occasion. For now, Missouri would be considered the 9th or 10th best team in that conference. I'm guessing Sawyer rates them higher based just on recent seasons. Yes, I'll take Missouri over Tennessee over the past 5 years...wouldn't even be close. However, if Tennessee gets the right coach (and they eventually will), who do you think will be the better team 5 years from now?

Yeah, I honestly think 2007 was the worst year in college football in awhile, simply because there were absolutely no great teams. LSU lost two games to teams that weren't exactly juggernauts, and could've lost a few more along the way. Their biggest luck of all was when Ohio State benefitted from playing a mediocre schedule and everyone else falling like dominoes at the end of the regular season. I thought there were about 6 or 7 teams that were arguably better than Ohio State was that season. Give LSU credit for taking advantage of others' shortcomings, but I doubt another team gets that lucky to win a title in quite some time.

 

[Sooner04]

Give LSU credit for taking advantage of others' shortcomings, but I doubt another team gets that lucky to win a title in quite some time.

And then pulls a Kansas and gets to follow their mediocre season by playing for the championship a short drive from home.

RUBBISH!

 

[stoops4pres]

And then pulls a Kansas and gets to follow their mediocre season by playing for the championship a short drive from home.

RUBBISH!

This.

 

[Sawyer]

Regarding the impact playing in the SEC east vs. West would have in Texas recruiting, I dont think it's a huge factor either way. Mizzou's recruiting in Texas is often guys who the local teams don't pursue as much. Very few of the relevant Texans to play at MU would have had better local options than Mizzou in the SEC.

Most of this discussion has centered around the impact in football, but I've always been a basketball fan first. Playing in the east would give MU two games annually with UF, UK, UT and Vandy. Not an easy group at all, with two elite programs and two solid ones. Would be damn fun, though.

 

[Tony]

Why would Mizzou be in the SEC East?

 

[DenverSooner]

Why would Mizzou be in the SEC East?

Because A&M is going to the West?


I think Missouri fans are wrong to think east versus west won't matter. It is going to hurt not playing A&M every year. Leaving the Big XII will hurt.

 

[Sawyer]

Alabama doesn't want to give up annual games with Auburn and Tennessee. With Mizzou in the west, Auburn would go to the east and Alabama's cross-division rivalry would have to be either Tennessee or Auburn. They want to play both.

Missouri borders Tennessee and Kentucky, so three of the six East teams aren't really any farther. Mizzou to SC or UGA is really not much longer than MU to LSU or A&M. It seems like it should be farther, but it's really not.

 

[Sawyer]

I think Missouri fans are wrong to think east versus west won't matter. It is going to hurt not playing A&M every year. Leaving the Big XII will hurt.

It might hurt some, but MU will also pick up some of that slack in other states. We've recruited Louisiana more over the past couple years and will likely increase our efforts in other southern states.

Look at any NFL roster and you'll see starters from random small southern schools, it seems. There is a ton of talent down there. Pinkel's done pretty well identifying under the radar guys other programs weren't interested in (Danario Alexander, Sean Weatherspoon, Ziggy Hood... all very lightly recruited). I expect him to use a similar approach in LA, GA, etc. that's been successful in Texas. It's not a strategy that's likely to win titles, but it will be enough to remain competitive IMO.