Started By
Message
re: Mizzou Has Been Referred to as a Sleeping Giant in Football
Posted on 8/9/13 at 6:49 pm to DawgHolliday
Posted on 8/9/13 at 6:49 pm to DawgHolliday
quote:
Mizzou falls into the category of USCe
USCe has an all-time win pct of .510. Mizzou has an all time pct of .540. Mizzou was successful in the '60s and '70s...then tanked in the 80's and 90's. We just finished a recovery decade, so I wouldn't call us "new kids on the block" like USCe
This post was edited on 8/9/13 at 6:51 pm
3
Posted on 8/9/13 at 6:52 pm to KCM0Tiger
quote:
Don't forget that we went undefeated in 1960
Neither my parents or myself were born yet
Posted on 8/9/13 at 6:53 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
When do you predict that the giant will awaken?
While it's debatable that there's even a giant to awaken, it certainly isn't going to happen with Pinkel at the helm. Not with how poorly (by SEC standards) he's been recruiting since coming to the SEC.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 6:57 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
While it's debatable that there's even a giant to awaken, it certainly isn't going to happen with Pinkel at the helm.
Agreed, Pinkel is toast.
And as I said earlier, I think Mizzou has potential to be a Wisconsin, Penn State, Clemson level program...not Alabama, Texas, Michigan.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 6:59 pm to KCM0Tiger
quote:
And as I said earlier, I think Mizzou has potential to be a Wisconsin, Penn State, Clemson level program...not Alabama, Texas, Michigan.
I would buy maybe Clemson. Or maybe a Virginia Tech. But that would require a lot more than just changing a philosophy in recruiting though.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:02 pm to mizzoukills
Sleeping puppy*
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:02 pm to BluegrassBelle
I don't disagree, there's a lot of change that needs to go on before the so called "giant" can awake **cough cough** new AD **cough cough**. But I think it's possible with the right adjustments
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:04 pm to KCM0Tiger
LOL. I wasn't insulting you by making that comparison. Its pretty apt. .510 to .540 isn't a huge difference.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:06 pm to DawgHolliday
It's not a huge difference but SCar is wayyyyy more new school. They were like .470 when spurrier took over and they didn't even win their first bowl game til '94. Not to mention the whole "11 win season" rings.. 
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:07 pm to Mizzou Fan in Da ATX
quote:
For sake of context here, what do the non-Mizzou posters here make of Mizzou's 12-2 season in 2007, when it finished ranked #4 in the nation and one half of football away from the national title game?
Already brought up, by me, no response from any Mizzou's because I pointed out you don't add anything to the conference so we may as well have waited for a better opportunity. Questions for you: Why are y'all the only team that gets injured? If you can compete in the SEC, why didn't that happen last year? Can you name anything besides a TV market that y'all bring to the conference? I'm sure y'all will have a winning SEC season eventually, but former NFL QB's aren't going to win any games for you in the future.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:13 pm to KCM0Tiger
Playing Devils Advocate here...what was Mizzous win percentage when Pinkel took over? .500 or so? Maybe slightly higher?
Again, not trying to insult, just pointing out the parallels. The past decade has been the most successful for both schools outside of possibly the Dan Devine days at Mizzou.
Again, not trying to insult, just pointing out the parallels. The past decade has been the most successful for both schools outside of possibly the Dan Devine days at Mizzou.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:16 pm to madddoggydawg
quote:
Already brought up, by me, no response from any Mizzou's because I pointed out you don't add anything to the conference so we may as well have waited for a better opportunity. Questions for you: Why are y'all the only team that gets injured? If you can compete in the SEC, why didn't that happen last year? Can you name anything besides a TV market that y'all bring to the conference? I'm sure y'all will have a winning SEC season eventually, but former NFL QB's aren't going to win any games for you in the future.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:16 pm to DawgHolliday
quote:
Again, not trying to insult, just pointing out the parallels. The past decade has been the most successful for both schools outside of possibly the Dan Devine days at Mizzou.
Mizzou's was probably about .510 IIRC. I'm not insulted, and I don't disagree with your thinking. Mizzou to SCar is not unreasonable to compare, but I think historically Mizzou is better in my opinion.
This post was edited on 8/9/13 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:16 pm to KCM0Tiger
quote:
USCe has an all-time win pct of .470-.480ish. Mizzou has an all time pct of .540. You really can't compare them. Mizzou was successful in the '60s and '70s...then tanked in the 80's and 90's. We just finished a recovery decade, so I wouldn't call us "new kids on the block" like USCe
Past is past and this is the present.
a) Many of the Cocks losses were prior to SEC membership
b) Cocks won 1 game in 2 years before they turned the corner
c) SEC allowed Cocks to go from little brother to big brother
Where the "new kids on the block" comes in is just related to the SEC. I think only TAMU is doing better in their new conference among all the teams that moved into the Big 5 and they have unlimited money, TX recruiting, and the only freshman to win the Heisman.
Revenue generally separates the classes within the SEC
Big money folks - 120K range
Alabama $124,899,945
Florida $120,772,106
Texas A&M $119,702,222 = new SEC
LSU $114,787,786
Folks with cash - 100K range
Auburn $105,951,251
Tennessee $102,884,286
Arkansas $99,757,482 = SEC add in 90's
Georgia $91,670,613 - I put the Dawgs here because they spend less and have a better net
Folks with loyal fans* - 80K range
Kentucky $88,373,452
South Carolina $87,608,352 = SEC add in 90's
* neither was known for winning football but both have been in the NCAA Top 25 attendance multiple times
Folks with limited cash flow - 60K range
Mississippi State $69,828,880
Mississippi $51,858,993
Missouri $50,719,665 = new SEC
Vanderbilt as a private does not have to report financial numbers
With the money the bottom 7 SEC schools have they could easily compete in just about any other conference but SEC bar is just that much higher. As the Bama poster noted, it takes filling the stands in big numbers and donor cash to be a real threat at the top of the SEC.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:17 pm to mizzoukills
lol
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:19 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
b) Cocks won 1 game in 2 years before they turned the corner
c) SEC allowed Cocks to go from little brother to big brother
Right, so why does nobody think mizzou can do the same thing. We don't even have a big brother holding us back. SCar and Arky both took years to adjust, so I don't understand the bullshite people sling about "mizzou gonna be a failure" because we went 5-7 in year 1
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:23 pm to KCM0Tiger
It took years for USCe and Arky to adjust , so I don't see why Mizzou gets so much shite for not competing in year 1 with our Big 12 resources. We're in better shape than both of those schools were at the time of joining, and once we adjust and get more SEC money, we'll be fine.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:28 pm to madddoggydawg
quote:
Why are y'all the only team that gets injured?
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.
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:30 pm to KCM0Tiger
quote:
Right, so why does nobody think mizzou can do the same thing. We don't even have a big brother holding us back. SCar and Arky both took years to adjust, so I don't understand the bullshite people sling about "mizzou gonna be a failure" because we went 5-7 in year 1
I think you are seeing two distinct messages and viewing them as the same.
Group A will razz the Tigers even if they have a good year
Group B will call Mizzou when they puff and fail but will give Mizzou credit when they do well
The part of your post in BOLD is the key part of your statement. Neither Arkansas or South Carolina did it quickly. Understand that and much of the issues will become non issues. I said at the very beginning I hoped Mizzou would do well but I did not expect that for at least the first 3-5 of SEC membership. I still feel this is the case. If Mizzou finishes upgrading to 77K and can fill it consistently then they can move up the financial ranks quickly to somewhere between where the Cocks and Hogs are now.
quote:
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.
Very valid statement Belle
This post was edited on 8/9/13 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 8/9/13 at 7:38 pm to KCM0Tiger
quote:I stayed in STL for Bama's trip up to Columbia that friday night. Great night too considering the Cards were getting beat badly in Game 5 of the opening championship series....
THIS. Gotta lock the borders. STL has been especially brutal for Mizzou in basketball and football. Mizzou does pretty well on getting the KC recruits but for whatever reason top STL recruits rarely come to mizzou
They pulled it off in the 9th, we partied hardy. STL folks loved us, but they claimed to hate Mizzou. Fun times.
But the fans at Columbia were pretty cool. The tailgating blew, but I made sure to carry a case with me as truce mechanisms while there. Overall a fun trip, but quite a lousy, wet game.
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News