quote:
Any criteria be it total wins, division/conference champs, bowl wins and appearances etc...Mizzou is clearly the better football program, and I can't believe this is even open for discussion.

Well, since you brought it up

.500 = Kentuckys bowl winning percentage
.484 = Missouris bowl winning percentage

Clearly UK is better

You are sounding like Tennessee's "Life Champions" ™ when you try and act like Missouri is so superior to Kentucky in football. They are both "average" football teams at best.

Apples to Apples

~ Both are around .500 all time
~ Neither has produced a Heisman winner
~ Both have around 200 NFL draft picks (UK did have a #1 pick tho)
~ Both have around 1.5 dozen NFL 1st round draft picks
~ Both have around a dozen All Americans

While nobody is arguing Missouri may hold a slight edge in most of these numbers it is not like it is a commanding edge like say Alabama dominating Missouri OR Kentucky in these categories.

Apples to Oranges

+ Missouri clearly has more conference championships but they played in the old Big 6 and Big 8 with the likes of Kansas, Kansas State (sans wizard), and Iowa State and only to real competitors in Nebraska and Oklahoma. Kentucky played in the SEC with "The Six" and 6 > 2.
+ Missouri has played in more bowl games but that is expected when you have fewer top teams in your conference historically.
+ Missouri has been in the polls more because they could stand out more in their historic conference while UK has had to compete with "the six" year in and year out.

As for some snapshots in time
In 1950
UK went 11-1 under legendary coach Bear Bryant
MU went 4-5-1 under Don Farout (the guy they named the stadium after)

In 1977
UK went 10-1 under Fran Curci
MU went 4-7 under Al Onofrio

In the 1960's Missouri had its best decade ever under Dan Devine
In the 1960's Kentucky suffered through Collier and Ray

Since joining the SEC, Missouri had it 2nd best years of all time under Gary Pinkle while Kentucky was cratered by Joker. With the Joker gone, UK is on an upswing while Missouri has fallen off a cliff, post Pinkle. While I will give an edge all time to Missouri in most categories it was Apples to Oranges in the SEC vs Big 8. Now Missouri in the SEC started well, they have fallen and Kentucky started poorly under Joker they have risen under Stoops.

To argue "average" Missouri is better than "average" Kentucky is about right

To argue "superior " Missouri is better than "average" Kentucky is poppycock

Face facts, neither school is a football school and neither is going to be thought of as an elite football school unless either schools fans have been drinking from their respective koolaide.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by kilo

Member since Oct 2011

27433 posts

Posted on 8/23/17 at 9:41 am to Cheese Grits

quote:
Well, since you brought it up

.500 = Kentuckys bowl winning percentage
.484 = Missouris bowl winning percentage

Clearly UK is better

You are sounding like Tennessee's "Life Champions" ™ when you try and act like Missouri is so superior to Kentucky in football. They are both "average" football teams at best.

Apples to Apples

~ Both are around .500 all time
~ Neither has produced a Heisman winner
~ Both have around 200 NFL draft picks (UK did have a #1 pick tho)
~ Both have around 1.5 dozen NFL 1st round draft picks
~ Both have around a dozen All Americans

While nobody is arguing Missouri may hold a slight edge in most of these numbers it is not like it is a commanding edge like say Alabama dominating Missouri OR Kentucky in these categories.

Both around .500? Please, Mizzou is .545 and over 100 wins over the .500 mark all time. Kentucky is actually below .500 all time and has a losing all time record. Those two percentages are not even remotely close.

quote:
Apples to Oranges

+ Missouri clearly has more conference championships but they played in the old Big 6 and Big 8 with the likes of Kansas, Kansas State (sans wizard), and Iowa State and only to real competitors in Nebraska and Oklahoma. Kentucky played in the SEC with "The Six" and 6 > 2.
+ Missouri has played in more bowl games but that is expected when you have fewer top teams in your conference historically.
+ Missouri has been in the polls more because they could stand out more in their historic conference while UK has had to compete with "the six" year in and year out.

bullshite. Mizzou came in and won a division twice and won 11 and 12 games along with two new years day bowl games since being in the SEC. Kentucky has done what they always do which is failing to win more than 7 games and barely make a bowl game most years. This argument works when you try and defend your shitty program from outside the SEC but Mizzou has played 5 years in the SEC now. Im going to go with the fact that Kentucky is just really really bad at football and not that you have been some good program historically that has just been kept down by the "quality of the SEC". Do you really think people believe your bullshite?

Missouri vs Kentucky in all the metrics that matter; congrats on being terrible UK.