LOTOTiger

I hope you enjoy the trip to COMO!

Another good bar is My House (but I think cover is pretty steep on game days) - they have lots of TVs.

One of our tailgate regulars has a couple of kids that went to MSU, I'm sure they will be there and the whole crew is friendly. Most Mizzou people are very welcoming.

One other thing to note - due to the construction you have to enter the stadium on the side where your seats are located. So, check your ticket location and plan to arrive on that side or give yourself ample time to get around. It can get crowded on the narrow temporary walkway for the North side construction. The South side requires you to traverse pretty steep walkways/roads as you have to go down into the lower parking lot and back up (the stadium sits in a natural revine). This is temporary until the new North end zone is done, then there will be a nice wide open concourse to move from East to West.

quote:

---

Dude really was a national treasure. We need more personalities like him in sports.

---

Amen

I hope this holds up on Saturday... I love a good defensive football game and would rather see a score in the 20s or 10s then see 15 touchdowns. Nothing keeps you on the edge of your seat more than anticipating which side will crack.

I like how some of those have the revenue calculated to the penny, but they don't know how many units were sold.

quote:

---

QB2 Beau Pribula was injured against Vandy, and QB1 (redshirt junior) Sam Horn

---

Not that it matters... but Pribula is/was QB1 and Horn QB2 (or maybe they were 1a and 1b) as the plan was to play them both in the first game. Pribula started and played every snap, but one, in the opening game. Horn was injured on the first and only play he ran late in the first quarter. Really sucked for the kid - he's battled injuries all the way. Guess that contract with the Dodgers is a good fall back though.

If any MU fan was hoping for Zoller's to play they certainly wouldn't be hoping it was due to an injury to Beau - especially as severe as this injury appears to be (unless they are a sadistic SOB). That's just effed up to even suggest.

What is effed up even more.... it is pretty clear that 99 had intent to injur as there was absolutely no reason for him to roll the way he did when the play was clearly over (others were already getting up) - other than to torque whatever he had in his grasp, which was Beau's leg. Not saying this doesn't happen in the game - but this was pretty clear and caught by the camera.

I do think Mizzou fans were encouraged by Zoller's play (especially given the circumstance and lack of experience). Other than the fumble he played pretty well.

quote:

---

How many times have we seen review officials get wrong what millions of people can see on HD TV?

---

Sometimes you wonder why they bother having replay at all. And, further to that thought, why are some things reviewable and others not reviewable? If the idea is to get it right, then get it effing right.

quote:

---

I grew up in NE MO, the quail have been almost gone for 20 years.

---

I too grew up in NE MO - and really miss the quail hunting. Whether with a few buddies, or an army of cousins on Thanksgiving day - lot of great memories. For me the reason is obvious - the fence rows, hedge rows, and pretty much all the other cover is just gone due to larger row crop operations and a lot fewer farmers with lifestock.

quote:

---

why onside kick?

---

I thought the same - but after thinking some more, it really would not have made a lot of difference. Either way, we HAD to get them 3 and out or the game is over. If we kick deep and they go 3 and out, their punter could really let loose with a deep punt. With the onside and 3 and out, the punter had less field to work with. Probably not more then 10-15 yards difference there, and we had plenty of time to work with. FWIW I would have kicked deep (but I'm an IT guy, not a football coach)

For the record - I have no issue that this was called targeting. The still picture showing the contact to the head/neck (facemask) in this thread is at the end of a very violent collision. The way the rule is written, if there is any contact to the head/neck all that is left to do is judge whether that contact was "forcible". Given the dude was on the turf like a rag doll I understand why they decided what they did.

What I don't like is (in some posts here and on other sites) I see people saying Burks intentionally was aiming to injur the receiver. The game is very fast, and very violent. Anyone who thinks that these guys, playing at this speed and ferocity will 100% of the time avoid this type of contact doesn't really understand what is going on down there. Targeting is called in about 15% of FBS games, so it happens often enough - and it will continue to happen as long as it remains a contact sport. I don't recall many (if any) targeting calls where I clearly felt that a player intended to injur another. I certainly don't in this case. Watching the full video in slow motion it appears the overwhelming majority and force of the contact was with the shoulder/arms to the receivers shoulder and chest, and even the still in this thread shows the head/head part of the contact was side of helmet to facemask, as if he was trying to keep his head in front of the receiver as you should. He didn't launch, he didn't lead with his helmet, and he didn't use the crown. If he was aiming to injur, that would not be the case. Instead it appears he was trying to stay within the rules. To say that he intended to injur is a pretty big leap - and frankly a bit irresponsible.