Ol' Mizzou

We do what we do.

Recent Comments
@Dawglb, UGA is a fine school, but if your fans (not necessarily you, but the other dude) are gonna be this insufferable don't @ us for giving exasperated responses.
I sure hope so! He's committing tomorrow evening so we'll know soon. Hoping to see Drink tweet out the bat signal soon.
you seem to be a bit of a jerk.
An awful lot of indications that his teammate, Allie Green, another good transfer DB could be coming as well. If true, potentially season changing stuff for Mizzou. Biggest roster weakness sudden would be a real strength. Dreams of SEC East contention get a lot more reasonable.
To quote Mizzou's greatest coach ever, this is mammoth. Take the biggest, most glaring weakness on an otherwise pretty good roster, add a likely NFL talent, and you have potential to make a real difference in the win column. Evans and Rakestraw as a CB duo sounds a heck of a lot better than Rakestraw and (insert freshman). Improving the secondary gives us a legitimate chance to win ~8 games and snag 3rd in the East...and maybe scare one of the top teams on the schedule. Big freaking deal.
Because he's doing their bidding,, of course, and sucking up their bad PR. Mark Emmert has essentially no power by himself. The university presidents collectively give him his power. He's doing, or at least attempting to do exactly what most of them want, while also providing them cover. It's just like Roger Goodell. Just about every fan and player in the NFL dislikes him, and the owners nod along, because he gives them cover, while being paid handsomely to be a public punch bag. Sports commissioners/NCAA presidents who ever from their base of power don't hold their jobs for long.
I'm not sure. The stadium is generally pretty full unless its a truly god awful season (granted that's like 50k) and it's a reasonably good game day atmosphere, so they're not apathetic exactly. But it's definitely a place where basketball is first and foremost which probably gives extra leeway similar to a Kentucky.
I live near Purdue, and I'm legitimately surprised at how little hot seat talk there is around Brohm. Sure, he started hot, but even "hot" was barely bowl eligible, which seems to be his ceiling. And he hasn't reached that since 2018. Barry Odom is often regarded as a failure, and had a much better tenure than Brohm, who (admittedly a decreasing amount) still gets mentioned occasionally as an up and comer in the sport. I just find it odd. Purdue isn't kU, they can and should do better.
Hasn't been with the program for a few weeks. Guess he just now made it official? Anyway, it's a loss, he's a talented player. But its a position we have a lot of depth at, so not concerning imo. Now that CB depth chart on the other hand...
Yeah, and they had a decent season in 2020, but the Pac 12 schedule was so short it is almost impossible to know if it actually meant anything. I don't think he's immediately on the hot seat, but if they go 8-5 in 2021 I certainly wouldn't be surprised if he's out.
also I don't understand the Helton placement. Sure, 39-19 would be good at Cal or Arizona but at USC he might be fired if he maintains that pace another year. He hasn't been bad necessarily, but okay at best given what that program can bring to bear. I doubt USC fans are thrilled with his hire.
Eh, Odom wasn't a smashing success by an stretch, but I don't think we actually had better options at that moment. We were not exactly at a high point and he kept the program at least respectable after a tough first season. Not sure I see grouping him with the likes of Chris Ash or Lovie Smith, though to be fair I'd say the same of Mark Richt. He's closer to the Justin Fuente tier, who honestly I'm surprised is employed still.
You do understand that someone can generally be a goofball with weird opinions (Danny Kannell is that) and still be correct in a specific instance, right? I think Danny Kannell is a contrarian who regularly makes a fool of himself in his mostly vapid attempts to "own" the SEC. I also think he makes a compelling argument here. In no way are these things mutually exclusive.
I am very hesitant to project dominance out that long. Things just change so fast. Sure, Saban's dynasty has lasted forever, but that's obviously an exception. I think both UGA and UF are in strong position now, but could that change for any number of reasons, sure. Off field scandals happen, but sometimes coaches just lose the "It" factor and stagnate. I have no reason to predict it, but happens all the time in this league, and we'd be remiss to think it won't keep happening. Further, the "dominance" from UF and UGA hasn't been as a result of uniformly strong play by both programs. UF wasn't all that good in '15-16-their titles were just as much if not more the result of a down division as Mizzou's the two years previous. And both programs have had down years. My point isn't to fade UF or UGA. My point is to say those predicting a decade of alternating titles are making a risky bet, based on historical precedent.
For Mizzou to enter the conversation in 2021, they need to make additions in the secondary. Their depth chart is overall pretty strong, but at CB it's hilariously thin and young. A couple stud transfers from Tulsa are looking our way. Drink needs to land them. Fill that hole, and I can buy us as a challenger. No, I'm not saying we're going to win the East. I think we will be 3rd or 4th again. But in that case, we'd be good enough to plausibly take advantage if UF and UGA both stumble badly. You can laugh, and it's not likely, but we've seen it before. A program like Missouri (or Kentucky) just needs to keep its house in order consistently. Because the heavyweights fall down sometimes, at least when they're not Alabama. And if you have a top 15-20 team in place when they do you can do big things.
Yeah, I try to avoid having weddings during summer (fishing) fall (hunting, CFB), winter (college basketball) and spring (spring football). Every other season I'm wide open, though.
Very different with 12 games and non con. Look at UK's schedule...they could be very mediocre and still win 7 games. And I expect them to be relatively decent. I'd hammer the over as I have them at 8-4.
Eh, it was an embarrassing loss, and they finished like 8-5. Not exactly a natty season, but an 8-5 SEC team getting handled by Georgia State is a fairly wild result
Like if we lost to Indiana in 2015 or 2016, it wouldn't be on here. No one would have blinked.
The Indiana loss was embarrassing precisely because we had a good team and everyone knew it. We'd just come off hammering a pretty good UCF team, and the week after would beat (an admittedly over-ranked) top 15 SC team. The Wyoming game was a shocker, but at least was on the road in a weird environment, and even though we had some high expectations we weren't actually ranked. Honestly I think the Vanderbilt game in 2019 was far more embarrassing than Wyoming, although it obviously doesn't fall under the purview of this article. Others like MTSU were embarrassing, but came during really bad seasons and weren't really huge upsets. I was at the MTSU game as well and I can confirm it was zero fun.
Its really hard to know where to set expectations for Bazelak, and Mizzou in general. I thought Baz passed the eye test consistently, and clearly I'm not the only one, given his freshman of the year award. That said, the stats are confusing (very solid too good in yardage, outright bad in TD passes). Similar for Missouri overall. They posted frankly a pretty shocking record (I had them pegged at 2-8 or 3-7 at best), and had some wins that FELT big (LSU, breaking the Kentucky streak, coming back against a really hot Arkansas team). Then again the best of those teams went 5-5, and they were pretty resoundingly crushed by the top teams (UGA/UF) and suffered a really embarrassing loss to a Tennessee team they should have wiped the floor with. So it was clearly better than expected, but advance stats consistently had them in the 50s-60s, and project similar things for 2021. That would suggest we should just be happy if we can get to 6-6. The strong conference record and the "eye test" combined with what we return indicates 8-9 wins should be the baseline expectation, however. I'll split the difference, and set the bar at 7-5. It's achievable with our schedule, but not easy.
I don't like the ranking, but the guy who does SP+ is a huge Missouri fan and ran a Missouri fan site for over a decade. There is no anti Mizzou bias i promise.
Yup. Arkansas is pretty safe right now. They obviously COULD fall out, but they're in the field with room to spare for now, and I think a .500 finish will seal it. LSU is on much shakier ground. They have enough talent that they should be able to win enough to get in, but at this moment they are at or near the cut line. They need a good finish.
I think these are pretty much what I'd go with. If Missouri had completed the blowout, I think we'd have a strong case for #1, but as it stands Alabama is still #1. It's just a bit closer. Really any of Alabama, Mizzou and Tennessee are good enough to make a deep tournament run if the breaks are right. Florida has a high ceiling but a lower floor. They are a team that could make a surprise Sweet 16 run out of a 7 or 8 seed. Let's call them tier 1B. Arkansas will most likely make the tournament, but I don't see them past the first weekend at all. LSU is trending dangerously close to the NIT if they aren't careful, but for right now are a tournament team. Don't see anyone else getting in. Georgia, Ole Miss, abd Mississippi State still have a chance at an at large, but would take nearly winning out. So either a 5 or 6 bid league depending on how LSU finishes or if one of the long shots can make a huge late push.