The Nouveau Riche: Missouri
The Norm. To say Missouri was in a rut during Gary Pinkel's first six seasons would be an understatement. In fact, it goes back quite a bit farther than that: Missouri's last conference title was in 1969, in the Big Eight, a conference subsequently dominated by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado as the Tigers remained in mystifying mediocrity. Take the trend pre-2007 and extend it back 35 years:
As for Pinkel, his team's annual Big 12 marks heading into last season were 3-5, 2-6, 4-4, 3-5, 4-4 and 4-4 beginning in 2001. There was some hint Mizzou was good enough to compete for the title in a watered-down North division; there was none at all it would run roughshod over every team it faced in the conference that wasn't Oklahoma.
Get Used To It. The Tigers outgunned seven non-OU opponents in-conference by 15 points and 110 yards per game and set new school records for wins, conference wins, passing yards, total yards, scoring and final poll finish (fourth by the AP after a Cotton Bowl blowout of Arkansas). They beat Nebraska by 35, Texas Tech by 31, Colorado by 45, Arkansas by 31, Texas A&M by 17 and Kansas State by fourteen. They bookended the regular season with wins over two teams that ended in the BCS (Illinois and Kansas). By margin and degree of difficulty, Missouri was as much a non-flukey powerhouse as anybody.
If Chase Daniel was truly a one-man show, it might make some sense to question the offense's sustainability, like a one-shot supernova. But back alongside Daniel is Jeremy Maclin, who set a new I-A record for freshmen with almost 2,800 yards rushing, receiving and returning, and three other receivers (Danario Alexander, Tommy Saunders and tight end Chase Coffman) who combined for 130 catches. Other than Maclin, who can properly fly, these are not extraordinary talents. Daniel is an accurate, first-rate decision maker, and as long as he's well-protected - and Pinkell's system continues to make defenses pay for their aggressiveness with a lot of screens, misdirection and a deceptive, trap-heavy running game - the offense might as well be on high-scoring autopilot.
Enjoy It While It Lasts. The balance of power depends on the sustainability of Kansas' rise - which is shaky - and the durability of Nebraska's sense of entitlement, at least where recruits are concerned; in that regard, the stockpiling of talent, the Huskers reasserted themselves under Bill Callahan after some really mediocre efforts on the trail by Frank Solich's staff. Missouri's recruiting has been a little better the last two years, but still just so-so - Pinkell hasn't brought in a class ranked higher than fifth in the Big 12 according to Rivals, which is roughly how his teams have usually fared. Missouri hasn't won in Lincoln since 1978, and its time at the top may only last as long as it takes Bo Pellini to slam the door.

Never leave me!
- - -
Beyond this fall, though, probably not much, not on elite level. Missouri's had good, productive quarterbacks before - Brad Smith, Corby Jones - and been thoroughly mediocre, anyway, because they had to handle everything themselves (Brock Olivo could squat the statehouse, but he was just an OK running back). The current supporting cast seems like an elite group because it has an elite quarterback who can get everyone involved. When Daniel is gone, there's no reason to expect any sustained fireworks on the order of last year's (and this year's, most likely). If the conference title drought doesn't meet its demise with the current group, there's no end in sight.
0 recs |
21
comments
Comments
Re:
But for serious, Tech returns a lot of defensive starters and the word this spring has been the defense, not the offense. That will get disspelled when we drop a 60 point loss to either OSU or Texas or Kansas or Oklahoma, but it could also turn out to be the case that Missouri's defense is a paper tiger.
by Red Blooded on May 5, 2008 11:14 PM EDT 0 recs
The difference is...
Basically, since Missouri has had a good defense, while Leach never has, it's a logical conclusion that Missouri's defense will be superior this year. Of course, the only way we'll find out is if Tech wins the south and MU wins the North.
by BigMOman on
May 6, 2008 12:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Tech
The Raiders return 10 guys from last year's defense, and will have had a full offseason of practice under McNeill.
Don't sell the Red Raiders short; they'll compete this fall. I'd love to see a Missouri/Texas Tech Big 12 title game. It'd be one of the most entertaining conference championship games ever, and they don't play during the regular season.
by Year2 on
May 6, 2008 11:33 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I would enjoy that as well...
by BigMOman on
May 6, 2008 5:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I neither said
by Red Blooded on
May 6, 2008 1:42 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Re:
by Kevin0511 on May 5, 2008 11:26 PM EDT 0 recs
Gabbert
Other than that, great summary! I've been following them all spring, and I think you've hit the nail on the head. Of course, if Missouri is known for anything, it's letdowns of trememdous proportions (think Tyus Edny for UCLA, Nebraska kicked ball, Colorado 5th down), so you never know what will happen. Last year was the best shot you can ask for: win and you're in. One can only hope that they have a similar situation this year.
by BigMOman on May 6, 2008 1:03 AM EDT 0 recs
Graphs
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go back to my basement.
by Alaska Hokie on May 6, 2008 2:40 AM EDT 0 recs
Starting at 2...
I can do the graphs in 2D, but they look terrible. I'll think about it.
by SMQ on
May 6, 2008 2:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
K
by Alaska Hokie on
May 6, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Nice post...
by The Boy on May 6, 2008 4:32 PM EDT 0 recs
Nice Post
by SMQ on
May 6, 2008 6:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Tech and the top echelon
Though there's more and more focus on sports in the media, it's almost always on the teams that are performing well. And because good players want to be selected in the NFL Draft, they're going to almost always go to places where they can get the media coverage they need. That means going to a successful team.
It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Good teams get lots of media coverage. Teams are good because they have good players. Good players join those teams because they know they can get media coverage.
Tech was fortunate enough to get into the loop right before sports media exploded in volume and popularity. Tech began its current bowl streak in 1993, right at the cusp of the 1990s economic boom and right at the point where the number of bowl games exploded (which spurred sports media immensely). In 1995, Tech was lucky enough to participate in the Sugar Bowl -- what was then a Bowl Alliance game. Then, of course, came Michael Vick.
Before him, we were a cyclical team that got lucky enough to hit the top of the cycle three times in a row. After him, I think we made it into the perennial contender category.
There is, however, a bright spot for all the aspiring teams out there. And that's the blogosphere and the vast improvements in scouting and recruitment. Not every good player is going to want to be USC's fifth-string running back. Successful teams are going to be able to convince that fifth-string back that it's better to start with say, Indiana, than sit on the bench and get no coverage at all.
In addition, the fissioning of sports media (blogs and the like) is starting to break up the old monolithic sports media, where all the big networks would focus on the same stories. A few interesting draft picks this year were the result (according to the teams' scouts) of seeing the players on YouTube. If that keeps up, there won't be as much of an advantage to automatically seek the teams everyone knows are good. Schools will still have to maintain their facilities, provide good coaching, and the like, but once you reach that point, it's only a matter of time, not intangibles.
by Alaska Hokie on
May 6, 2008 8:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Something else we MIGHT have going for us...
And our coaches certainly seem to be stepping up and trying to parlay the added exposure into getting into the living rooms of more and more national recruits...which may be a fruitless effort, but you certainly have to try it...especially with how highly-regarded our offense is at the moment. What WR wouldn't at least consider playing in this offense? In the end, though, "being in on" more kids doesn't make much of a difference, so we'll see. I'm certainly not convinced there's a ton of life beyond Chase Daniel, but there are at least a couple reasons for optimism...
by The Boy on
May 7, 2008 7:06 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Well...
There's a lot of good regional coverage out there, but media hasn't gotten to the point where regional and national coverage means the same thing because the Internet allows you to get both with equal ease.
by Alaska Hokie on
May 7, 2008 4:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
True to a Degree
Missouri is hampered by the fact it got shut out of the BCS and that no one really thought the Arkansas team it hammered in the Cotton Bowl was that good. Plus, Gary Pinkel has only put one great season together.
Kansas is hampered by the awful schedule it played last year and the perception it was a one year wonder. Most at least think Mizzou will contend this year, but KU is viewed more like the 2006 Wake Forest or 2006 Rutgers teams that came out of nowhere and then fell back. For what it's worth, SI.com has a big feature on Kansas featured on its college football main page.
by Year2 on
May 8, 2008 12:02 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Honestly...
by The Boy on
May 8, 2008 10:26 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Trust me...
by Alaska Hokie on
May 8, 2008 3:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
OB
Trust me, you’re better off in the long run without the Orange Bowl experience. Miami’s not that great.
I think it should have been West Virginia vs. VT in the Orange (Big East used to have a contract with the Orange), Mizzou vs. USC in the Rose, Arizona State vs. Oklahoma in the Fiesta, and Kansas versus Georgia in the Sugar. Keep in mind that the Sugar was never going to let the Rose have Georgia.
Illinois and Hawaii had no place in the BCS, and the “can’t have more than two teams from one conference in the BCS” is garbage, just like the ACC having an automatic bid.
by Year2 on
May 9, 2008 9:45 AM EDT
up
0 recs
yeah...
...I don’t see why they couldn’t use the BCS standings to dictate the 10 teams that would be playing in the BCS Championship, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose, then have the bowls fight it out. I was pissed that Kansas got selected over Mizzou after we, you know, beat them and all (and I was dumbfounded by the Orange Bowl’s “We really wanted a 1-loss team” logic), but I was probably more pissed by the Rose Bowl’s “We’d rather have a Big Ten team than a good matchup” logic. If the 10 teams are pre-selected, you could still do the Rose Bowl a favor, like giving them the first choice if another Big Ten or Pac 10 team doesn’t make the list of 10. It wouldn’t have been hard at all to have USC vs Georgia (the most attractive matchup) in the Rose, then go from there…would have ended up something like WV/OU in the Fiesta still, MU/Hawaii in the Sugar (bleh, but at least we’d have been in the BCS), and VT/KU still in the Orange (or KU/Hawaii and MU/VT), and that still wouldn’t have been perfect, but the right teams would have been there.
(And yes, I still think Hawaii earned the BCS bid…I love what’s more or less the “go undefeated and you’ll make the BCS” qualifier…for every 2006 Boise you’ll have a 2007 Hawaii, but oh well. The matchups sucked anyway, so you might as well have sucky matchups with a mid-major or two thrown in.)
by The Boy on
May 9, 2008 11:46 AM EDT
up
0 recs





