Started By
Message
re: Missouri Realist Expectations
Posted on 11/6/14 at 11:40 am to 5thTiger
Posted on 11/6/14 at 11:40 am to 5thTiger
quote:
2. Missouri is not historically good at football.
Not historically good but they aren't as bad as people make them out to be. Have a winning record vs Most SEC teams. Doubt if schools like KU, Iowa State, K-State, Ok State have good records vs SEC teams. Most of the games played back in the 60s-70s was when schools didn't hook up "athletes" with grades to stay eligible. Mizzou was hanging in with SEC teams when we had real student athletes.
People act like Mizzou sucked in football, just came around in 2000 and started playing.
2
Posted on 11/6/14 at 11:44 am to bayou2003
Good call bayou 2003. I truly laugh at the fact that of all the things in my original post, people pick out the hospitality issue.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 11:49 am to bayou2003
I miss the day of real student athletes. Mizzou still does pretty well with athlete's GPA. Our real disadvantage was being only state that forbade tax dollars being spent to improve athletics. SEC money is really going to help to start leveling the field.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:03 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
I saw the question of "southern hospitality." I have yet to really see any of it,
I really didn't want to respond to this post, but I am weak. Having a bunch of friends and doing a ton of business in the south, southerners are very polite. Southerners are also the only people that have ever screwed me over on deals. I agree with Midwesterners being more genuine...polite but not as polite as the south, but also not disingenuous behind your back.
I think it has to do with the strong German moral influence in the Midwest.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:05 pm to 5thTiger
Southern Missouri is full of us "Southerners" as u call us. But your post is solid.
Some advice
Keep Pinkel happy.
Some advice
Keep Pinkel happy.
This post was edited on 11/6/14 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:06 pm to MullenBoys
quote:
You left out #6: We mizzou fans are very sensitive. It hurts when we go to a bar in another sec town and someone asks who our team is and then busts a nut laughing when we say "Missouri."
Says the guy from the worst school historically in the SEC?
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:14 pm to MullenBoys
You are a Mississippi St fan...
You probably live in Mississippi...
Surely you would never laugh at anybody, right?
You probably live in Mississippi...
Surely you would never laugh at anybody, right?
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:16 pm to TigerCruise
quote:
Says the guy from the worst school historically in the SEC?
Don't see why they would laugh. I bet we can pull Mizzou's all time records vs SEC teams. Missouri did pretty well. Also currently doing well in the conference. I don't see why people would "busts a nut laughing". Do these people even look at records and history. Sheesh. Or are they that dumb and just look at the name "Missouri".
ETA: I guess that's why they get mad when Mizzou wins and compete for division titles. Missouri is not suppose to come over from the Big 12 and compete in the SEC. Before they say the East is down. Remember Missouri sucks, no history, no good facilities, etc. If Mizzou can compete then why aren't Kentucky and Vandy competing. So Mizzou must be decent right.
This post was edited on 11/6/14 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:32 pm to jb4
quote:
After reading your rant, I bet you wanted Missouri to join the big 10. Only problem is the big 10 rejected your arse for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. It must suck to be a big 10 reject after having your governor beg for membership.
In case you didn't know, Rutgers and Maryland were invited a year after Mizzou accepted the SEC offer. I have no idea about the governor comment is. And I would have slit my wrists if they were in the B1G. Pump your brakes there lil' piggy, y'all are only slightly relevant.
This post was edited on 11/6/14 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:34 pm to bayou2003
Even taking into account how bad Mizzou was in the 80's, 90's and first half of the 2000's, overall we are still better than average if you look at our whole history thanks to stints before that. One big difference is that Mizzou could beat the big national powers back then, but would lose to weak opponents in the same season keeping us from ever getting a NC.
Nowadays, we *typically don't lose to weaker teams but can't find a way to beat the really big boys.
Nowadays, we *typically don't lose to weaker teams but can't find a way to beat the really big boys.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:37 pm to jb4
quote:
Only problem is the big 10 rejected your arse for Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland. It must suck to be a big 10 reject after having your governor beg for membership.
Must suck to always talk out your arse without knowing the details of a deal. Mizzou was playing hardball to not be junior members and buy our way into the B1G - then a better deal came along.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:40 pm to roadhouse
quote:
Even taking into account how bad Mizzou was in the 80's, 90's and first half of the 2000's, overall we are still better than average if you look at our whole history thanks to stints before that. One big difference is that Mizzou could beat the big national powers back then, but would lose to weak opponents in the same season keeping us from ever getting a NC.
Man the old Big 8 was pretty good. Texas schools messed it all up.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:41 pm to roadhouse
quote:
Must suck to always talk out your arse without knowing the details of a deal. Mizzou was playing hardball to not be junior members and buy our way into the B1G - then a better deal came along.
Yup Ohio State's former president said not inviting Mizzou was a mistake. I know some other schools also wanted Mizzou. Heard Nebraska was against it though.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:42 pm to roadhouse
quote:
Nowadays, we *typically don't lose to weaker teams but can't find a way to beat the really big boys.
Get ready for the much overused "Indiana" replies. You opened the door
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:44 pm to RonBurgundySliver
quote:
Get ready for the much overused "Indiana" replies. You opened the door
What's so funny about them saying Indiana, it makes the SEC look weak because we have teams in the SEC that can't beat Mizzou(one of their worst teams in years). But Indiana gave Mizzou problems. But people also don't realize that was earlier in the year, Mizzou offense still not good. This is not the same Mizzou team from last season. I guess people expect there to be no drop off after losing all those starters.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:47 pm to RonBurgundySliver
quote:
Get ready for the much overused "Indiana" replies. You opened the door
Nuh-uh, I put a start in front of typically so they can't.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:49 pm to bayou2003
quote:
Heard Nebraska was against it though.
I hadn't heard that. Would be interesting if it's true...only explanation would be not wanting the west division to be stronger by adding Mizzou.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:54 pm to 5thTiger
You will be lambasted for being long winded. But I, as an avid reader, wish that you would write more lengthy posts in the future so that I can really better understand the dynamics in play that make Missouri unique.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 12:57 pm to 5thTiger
If you need a free place to stay, I will exchange room and board for another wall of text.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 1:00 pm to Dick Leverage
Not sure if your being serious,
or just sarcastic
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News