MizzouBob77
Three-Star Recruit
I got fed up with the bantering, so I went to the Rivals site of each and counted off their two-deep. After all, those are the players who are really seeing the field.Nice stats, Dahli Lama of the Huskerboard.As an FYI - Nebraska has a younger team than Missouri. Here's a breakdown of each team's rosters:Yes, absolutely, we are. But this is one of the youngest teams in college football, and they're 4-0, which is the best they could hope for. They got up for a rivalry game against UI. Then, they slept walked against a couple of teams for a bit in Nevada and Bowling Green, but they turned it on once they saw it wasn't going to be a cake walk. Furman doesn't count. All of our starters were out by the start of the second half. That being said, you can bet their a$$ that we'll be up for you guys. We always get up to play Nebraska. It will be a dog fight.
56% of Nebraska's roster are Freshmen or Redshirt Freshmen, compared to 45% of Missouri's. We have only one more Senior on our roster than Missouri. So these are both pretty young teams, and yet only one of us is using our youth as an explanation for why we've played erratically this year. A point to ponder.Code:Year MU NU FR 29 40 RFR 23 40 SO 25 22 RSO 7 0 JR 17 26 RJR 2 0 SR 13 14 TOTAL 116 142
Now....what is the breakdown of the starting 22 + 2?
Or how about just key positions.
Please research and get back to me.
For NU (in their two-deep, mind you):
FR - 11
SO - 8
JR - 15
SR - 10
So, they have 19 underclassmen playing significant snaps, but 25 upperclassmen.
For MU (in their two-deep):
FR - 9
SO - 20
JR - 7
SR - 8
So, MU has 29 underclassmen playing significant snaps, but onl 15 upperclassmen.
So, there. Mizzou is younger in key positions. That also means more of your starters will remember the a$$ whipping they've received the last two years. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)