Miz-Stl

Drink to the Hogs? I don't think he wants to step down to a barely over FCS team. Aren't they a minor league Mizzou team? Well all I know is Mizzou owns them year in and year out.

I am a Mizzou fan who has been at all three of their games, and I can tell you that I am not even sure at this point what Mizzou is, so how someone else can rank them 4th or 12th I have no idea. They have looked dominant (they beat up Kansas every where but the scoreboard); however until they play their first couple of SEC games (SC and Bama), I am not sure how any one on this site or any where else can make an accurate judgement concerning them. Could they be an 8-4 team...yes, or could they be a 10-2 or 11-1 play-off team...yes. All I do know is that that they have looked like everyone said a SEC should look like when Mizzou joined the conference. Great D and great running game.

You have to be kidding me, the refs were so one-sided for the Gators it was ridiculous. I feel like the Tigers just beat two teams, Florida and the refs.

I can't believe a Gator fan had the sack to complain about the refereeing. The game was called very one-sided for Florida.

Mizzou winning made the SEC 5-3 in the postseason and the Big Ten 4-3 in the postseason. Definitely going to be rooting for Boise St. tomorrow night.

No question OU has for the most part owned Mizzou in the past. That being said a new day is dawning for them. Nebraska thought they walked on water too until they switched conferences, and the SEC is a hell of a lot harder than the Big 10.

You would think that with all of the Texas money and the popularity of football in their home state that the Shorthorns would be a football power year in and year out. For some reason it never happens. I can't wait for them to be an annual 8-4 team in the SEC. They aren't Bama or Georgia, they just think they are.

When Mizzou arrived in the SEC over a decade ago I thought the SEC was overrated. I based that on September results and Bowl games, and probably a little Big 12 bias. What I didn't realize until Mizzou played a few seasons in the SEC is that the SEC is tougher for two big reasons. One, the talent level is much higher. All you have to to do is look at the NFL draft and recruiting rankings to know the SEC talent level is higher than the rest of the country. The second is how fanatical SEC fans are. Yes Texas and Oklahoma are great programs; however in the Big 12 they rarely line up against teams with their talent level and their fan base support. In the SEC that is called a fall Saturday. The grind of playing against the high level talent and playing in places with such rabid fans is a gauntlet. I found many of what I thought were good metrics are misleading. September football is not a good indicator because many teams are still figuring out who they are. Mizzou only beat Middle Tennessee by 4 this year yet went 6-2 in the SEC. If Mizzou had played Middle Tennessee in October I believe they would have crushed them. Bowls are a bad indicator because who knows what players show up and how motivated a team is. No, the only way to understand the SEC is to play a SEC schedule. In 2024 OU and Texas get to find out. Good luck!

Not sure why the SEC would want to lower its standards and let in Kansas. The only reasoning I can see is to give Vanderbilt an auto-win in football every year.

In answer to why Mizzou would vote no: because Texas screwing up the Big 12 is one of the reasons the Tigers left the conference. In the SEC, Alabama may rule on the field, but for the most part it appears all the schools have a say in its direction. In the original Big 12 before the four teams left, Texas treated the conference like its own private fiefdom. I know many SEC fans wish that Mizzou wasn't let in, but at least our school doesn't cause trouble. Texas is a virus and you don't let viruses into your system.