They're not, but like UK they don't have the depth to compensate for it.That's the difference between the "giants" and the lower tiered teams in conference. Always has been.

Our 2007 squad could've competed with just about anyone. They beat #1 LSU. But dropped some games they shouldn't at the end of the season because we just didn't have the depth.

Until Mizzou improves the depth they'll routinely be in the same situation UK has been in as a long-standing member of the SEC. If you have a decent enough coach who can develop lower level talent (i.e. Rich Brooks) you'll pull off some 7-8 win seasons and bowl games. But you're just as likely to have seasons like last because of the lack of depth. South Carolina is a good example of how to do it with next to nothing in the SEC, but it's taken arguably one of the best coaches to put on a headset in the modern SEC era and I don't see Mizzou picking someone up like Spurrier.

Now I will say Mizzou suffers a little bit of what Kentucky does in recruiting in that there's not enough instate talent to really make them a consistent competitor in the SEC. Even locking down the top guys in state (FWIW Mizzou has done a better job of this then Kentucky has until recently) still doesn't get depth across the board. And it's going to take them dipping into places like Illinois, maybe Texas, or forming some southern pipelines. I know we're benefitting in spades in recruiting (obviously we won't know on the field for a couple years just how much we're benefitted by it) from dipping into Ohio while trying to keep the top guys in state at home.

Mizzou will have to develop a similar philosophy in order to consistently compete in the East. And I think most Mizzou fans will agree that Pinkel is either going to have to be gone or is going to have to totally gut his staff to get it done.