DocNice

From FAU, AR State and ULL? Very little, as you well know. We learned they can whoop up on lesser talented squads and when they get their dander up they can shut out a team that's played an already difficult schedule. That and $5.99 will get you a crappy bottle of alcohol free "wine" at the local Hy-Vee. And if you're like me, you'll want your money back after tasting that swill. But I digress. The real thing we learned this year is, against weaker opponents, this Husker team can put the hammer down. And do it well. They throttled three Sunbelt opponents, as they should, and let them score a combined 12 points. At the same time, they racked up a boatload of meaningless yards and points, and generally worked the kinks out of their game left over from practice. But the good news is, we didn't just play a non-con that gave us an SOS averaging somewhere near 100. We also sprinkled in a salty, experienced, well-coached team on their home turf, whose specialty is defense and special teams. We went to their house, stood toe to toe with them for four quarters, and left the game knowing that we should have won. That confidence is invaluable. It overshadows every other non-con game we played like Everest overshadows a molehill. It showed particularly when we played a Spread offense the very next week after suffering a crushing defeat and throttled them without mercy. That's where Nebraska and Missouri differ. Missouri's first stern test will be when Nebraska comes to town. They'll learn who they are and what they can become from that game. They'll find out the mettle of their team like no other opponent has allowed them to discover. But Nebraska has already had that "come to Jesus" moment. They already know who they are, and what their potential is. They know what they can do, what they can't, and what they can get away with in between. That knowledge alone is an advantage that Missouri cannot boast, no matter how much you or the team or the coaches wish to insist that Illinois was a "defining" game. That is where I draw my confidence - that and the knowledge that Missouri's defense is not close to as good as VT's, yet we moved the ball handily on the Hokies, and that Missouri's offense is statistically marginally better than those we faced from the Sunbelt who earned a total of a dozen points over three games. You can pretend those non-con games meant nothing. I hope you and Mr. Pinkel and the Tigers in general think this. Because it's an errant conclusion to draw from what we've seen, and such ideas can only help the Huskers come October 8th. Absolutely, playing VT is a valuable experience. It's too bad you couldn't hold on and really have that feather in your cap. I guess my problem is, you also exposed a lot of weaknesses. Hey, so did Missouri. On both sides, are those things you can fix? What I learned from your VT game is that you can be physical on offense. That's pretty nice, but it's not likely enough to beat Mizzou. The pass offense didn't look good and the pass defense didn't get tested. The rush defense appears to be your strength, but it's easier when your opponent can't pass. Right now, my honest, but admittedly underinformed opinion is that you hit really hard, and have some talent, but you lack the speed, playmaking, and overall talent of the teams that used to beat up on Missouri. Maybe you'll have a really good defense this year, I just don't think you've convinced me yet. I do think you're improved, and stats bear that out, but look back at previous years, like 2005-2006, where you stomped weak competition and struggled with the rest. I'm also not ready to surrender anything to VT's defense just yet. I know that will make you laugh, but VT, statistically, benefits from playing in an offensively challenged conference. They're very good and have been better historically, and I certainly wouldn't claim we're better. My point is not so much to compare VT and Mizzou. It's just that I think Mizzou's has a bit of potential as well, and we're playing much better under our new defensive coach. We certainly don't lack athletes or hitters. These guys fly and lay the lumber. And we're top 25 so far in scoring defense. I know you'll say we've played patsies, but we have not played a single offensively-challenged team.

You do realize that we own televisions in Nebraska, yes? You do realize that most of us watched the Illinois game, the Bowling Green game and the Nevada game, yes? If you don't, you may want to adjust your thinking. I know you're looking at the teams you've faced through Tiger-colored glasses. That's understandable, especially after the way you've throttled us four of the last six years, and the last two running. But you do not know football as well as you think if you looked at your games against Illinois and Nevada and thought your team looked good. You saw two opponents more detrimental to their own aims than most anything Missouri could have devised, yet despite this, the Tigers looked barely adequate to the task. This isn't Bill Callahan's Husker team. This isn't even Bo Pelini's 2008 hangover from the Callahan Era team. This is a very different Husker team than you've faced the last few years. On the other side of the ball, this isn't the same Tigers team we've faced the last few years with your brace of crazy-good tight ends, a future NFL QB and Maclin, who for my money was better than any WR in the league the last several years (and yes, I'm talking to YOU, Michael Crabtree). Maybe you'll get what we've been saying next Thursday if you don't grasp that now. The beauty of college football is that graduation mandates change every few years. Graduation and recruiting have had their way with Nebraska and Missouri, as has Pelini's better coaching, and this will be a very different game than you've seen the last two years, I guarantee it. The Tigers may still win (I doubt this, but it's very possible), but it will not be like 2007 and 2008. Not even close. I think the problem you're having, and perhaps much of the rest of the country, is that you think Mizzou was just Daniel, Maclin, Coffman etc. Hey, Maclin is an otherworldly talent, and Coffman's as good a college tight end as you'll ever see. Daniel set such high marks it's hard to imagine even Gabbert breaking them. That said, we didn't beat you just because of those players. If you didn't notice, we have one of the best receiving corps in the conference, even without Maclin. And our QB, even with occasional happy feet, is already one of the best in the country. Will he make mistakes? Of course, but we're not asking him to be perfect, only good enough to be the best in the North. We have the fastest defense we've ever had, good running backs, and a lot of nice things going for us even if our program never heard of the last 2 seasons. We are a good team. If you want to dismiss us because you think our competition sucks, then have at it. But when you find out that we have talent all over the field and beat you way worse than VT did, don't say I didn't tell you. Can Nebraska beat Mizzou? Of course. You're a good team. But I really genuinely believe this. Missouri is better.

Hope you guys have a sense of humor.

Where did all these reasonable people come from? Well, maybe I'm not sold on this post. I was laughing a little bit at the statistically verifiable remark, but I almost spit out my gum at the "find out who has a better QB over the season" remark. Lee is probably better than the VT game, but you'll know what I mean when you see Gabbert play.

Doesn't take a genius to figure out this guy, while doing his best to exude confidence in a Tiger win, is actually setting up his best excuse in case NU wins: It's a rebuilding year! I personally don't buy it. If it's truly a rebuilding year, why are they so confident in a Missouri win? Why do they seem to think they can beat an experienced Kansas team? Gabbert is performing at or near Booger levels already, and the receiving corps seems to be doing fine without Maclin. The defense wasn't much to see last year, and they return their only player (Weatherspoon) that was really worth a damn. Plus, doesn't a rebuilding year generally mean the year before was great? Last year, Mizzou was supposed to be a national title contender, and they ended up losing to every good South team they faced (barely beat Baylor), lost to unranked Kansas and barely beat an average Northwestern team in OT in the Alamo Bowl. The fact is, MU has had only ONE great season in my lifetime... 2007. Aside from that, they are a perfectly average program. Even as dark as the post-Osborne years have generally been for Nebraska, they've still won quite a few more games than Missouri (95 vs. 74) during that time. Side note: Pinkel has eight full seasons under his belt, and the closest he's come to a conference title was a 21-point loss to Oklahoma. Anyone have any doubt Pelini will have one in his first four? I think there's some truth to that. Whether you call this a rebuilding year or a reloading year, the fact remains that we are a VERY young and very talented team that returns almost everyone for not only next year, but the year after. If we beat you guys this year, it could be a while before you can say you're better than us. As for how close we've come, part of that reason is that Oklahoma has been particularly good the last few years (and Texas). If you win within the next 3 years as you suggest, it will be because OU and Texas have come down to our level, not because you've gone up to theirs. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you've got to much ground to make up in that timespan. Mizzou's 2007 team had so much skill player talent than nearly every player at a skill position went to the NFL, including several on defense. I may never see another Mizzou team that talented, and we still couldn't beat them. And I guarantee you that team was way better than you are now. I know you guys have a lot of tradition. As much as I hate to say it, all Mizzou fans acknowledge you are one of the great programs in all of college football. But I just don't see how you can possibly recruit well enough and develop those players well enough to close that gap in two or three years. And the even harder truth is that you're unlikely to ever return to where you were. Perhaps a superstar coach like Nick Saban could get you there, but Pelini is not Nick Saban. You'll always be good. You've got too much name recognition not to be, and honestly, I think there could be a real rivalry brewing between our programs as we compete for North titles. But it's a steep hill all the way back to national title contender.

Illinois' problem is quite simply Juice Williams. When he plays well, they're unstoppable. When he doesn't teams force the short throws and hope the run can't beat them on its own. They have so much talent on offense it's insulting that they've scored so little. But part of that is a decent MU defense and an excellent Ohio State defense, which shutout a pretty good Toledo offense the week before. I think the trip to Penn State will be painful for the Illini, but if they don't collapse into disarray by then, they'll start pulling out some wins.

Umm, you act like we've never played a team that knows how to hit. And furthermore, you seem to forget that Mizzou defenses, for while now, but especially this year, have a reputation for laying the lumber. I find it interesting that so many NU fans seem to think NU is going to be 100% better just because they hit harder and want it more than last year. Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so, I'll be eating crow in a couple of weeks, but I still think NU has a talent gap to make up. Its not an act, dawg. Not sure why you take one sentence and start wigging out. If you do not think the Huskers have become more physical and more talented than they were last year, then you'll be just as suprised as your team. How is that difficult to understand? Its not even a shot at MU either. The huskers are better this year. They've improved. And it starts with their toughness and how physical they are. You may want to re-read what I wrote entierly instead of jumping up and down and wasting a lot of hot air. It's not a question of whether the Huskers can hit better than last year. Perhaps I'm overreacting a little bit to other Nebraska fans I've talked to, but a lot of them seem to think you can take the same talent, the same scheme, and just tell them to try harder and they'll turn into contenders ala Alabama's turnaround last year. It's going to take more than that. You need to upgrade your speed, you need to upgrade your receivers, potentially your QB and other positions. If you say you've upgraded since last year, fine, but it's a long climb back to the top from what I saw. Maybe I'll be surprised come the 8th, but it won't be by how physical you are. We know that game and can hit right back.

I understand your point, but even when a big team loses to a lesser team, it doesn't make sense to knock them waaay out of the rankings. Like I said about USC, even if they lost to Washington and struggled at times against Washington State University, there is now way that there are 17 teams in the nation that are better than USC. I may not like em, but they are still one of the top 4 or 5 best teams in the nation. To digress a little bit, there's aren't 2 teams in the country more TALENTED than USC, but there might be 20 or so that are better. I've seen three of their games and they quite simply are not good on offense. Good O-line and running backs, but it just goes to show you how important the quarterback position is. Barkley might end up a great one, maybe even by the end of the season, but right now they throw too many interceptions and can't open up the playbook.

Why wouldn't we be the team to beat? Two straight north titles, and really a bularkey holding call in the final seconds of the ISU game in 2006 (which the league apologized for) would have made it 3 straight. We have the best record by nearly every measure of success for the last 2, 3, 4 even 5 years of anyone in the North. And even if you don't like our competition, I think you'd agree that the predictions of Missouri's demise without Daniel and Maclin are grossly overstated.

Who cares if they outrushed us? They're a rushing team and we're a passing team. We outgained them by 200 yards late into the 4th quarter, and we were up by 3 scores. Even if they scored that TD, we had at least 2 more scores in the tank and probably more if needed. One thing we have learned about this team is they don't panic when they're against the wall. I didn't think for a second that Nevada was going to win that game, even if it was closer than I wanted. Nevada is 0-3 instead of 1-2 because they turned it over 5 times vs CSU. I think they have a lot of weapons and a physical team, and I'll be surprised if they don't get at least 6 wins, and probably a bowl game. But that's just my opinion. Even if you think they're crap and would have dominated them, I'm not the least bit ashamed of 4-0 vs our schedule.

Umm, what? You're making excuses for Nevada? NEVADA?!?!? Right now they're 116th nationally in scoring offense and 109th in scoring defense. They were 7-6 last year. Who exactly respects and even remotely fears Nevada? This is the same team that NU's terrible 2007 squad whipped 52-10. You've made reasonable, if unconvincing, arguments to this point, but that last one is unbelievable. I'm not making excuses for them. I'm telling you, they're a good team. That's not an excuse, it's evident in what I saw on the field. Could they self destruct the rest of the year like they did the first two games and make me look like a fool? Sure. But as I said before, I know two bad teams playing when I see it, and that wasn't it.

I know it's all we've got, but we've covered that ground. You want to dismiss the game Mizzou has played as no good. I would do the same if I were you, especially if I didn't know the opponents. I've said before I don't think any of them was close to as good as Nebraska. But I also don't think the games were as close as some here seem to think. There's the score and there's the product on the field. Take Nevada for instance, a team that most thought would challenge for at least #2 in the WAC (and still could). If you watched that game you cannot tell me that this is not a team that lacks talent, heart and competitiveness. Lots of teams lay an egg versus a top 25 team on the road in the first game of the season. Nevada followed that up with a 5 turnover game vs a good Colorado State team on the road. But if you watched the Mizzou game, you clearly saw two things. #1, the better team won, and even if they scored that 4th quarter TD, Mizzou would have won with room to spare. #2, they played like a good team. I know it's hard to compare teams sometimes, but I've seen enough football to know what two bad teams look like playing each other and that wasn't it. I think there's a good chance any of those 3 opponents will play in postseason this year. The odds of all 3 doing it are a stretch, but I'd be far more surprised if none did. Now, this would seem to be an opportune time for me to slam Nebraska's opponents, but rather than start that flame war back up, let me ask you this. What did you learn about your team from playing any of the 3 you played? For example again, against I-AA Furman, we learned nothing. We learned that vastly superior athletes can dominate inferior talent. But against Illinois we learned that we could contain the big play versus a dangerous playmaker with a big arm (the same one that burned us for 450 yards last year with basically the same personnel around him). We learned that we could run with the best receiving corps in the Big Ten by most sportswriters' accounts. And we learned we could win with the pass even when the D committed to stopping the run. Against Bowling Green, our QB learned how to handle pressure, and our team learned they could pound the ball. We learned the opposite of the other two games, that we could win running the ball when they committed to defending the pass. We also learned that we still know how to win games in the 4th quarter, dominating the second half. And against Nevada, we learned that even against a strong rushing attack, we could stiffen when we needed to, and again we proved we could win without the run. Perhaps even more importantly, those opponents were good enough to give us things to work on, so that we'll be better the next game we play, just like we were better after Illinois, and after Bowling Green, and will be after Nevada. So I ask you again, what did you learn about your team?

I may have worded it poorly but of course I know who CFN is. The point is you arbitrarily picked them because they buttress your weak point. CFN's ranking is an opinion based on the whim of those casting ballots, nothing more. If a guy has a grudge against USC it's reflected in their rankings. Sagarin's computer holds no bias, which is why it's cited time and again by sportswriters across the country as a reference point. As for whether Nebraska or Missouri has played enough quality to show what they have, clearly the answer is yes. Missouri has struggled against weak opponents while Nebraska dominated theirs. Throw out Furman and throw out VT, and we'll focus on the three patsies each team has played. By CFN's rankings we should have beaten the hell out of these teams - their average rank is 95, while ours is 6th (which is a joke, but this is YOUR preferred ranking system). So we should have taken these three teams to the woodshed, and we did. Handily. Nebraska held all three of their Sunbelt opponents to their lowest point total of the season, an average of two TDs less than they've scored in their other games. By CFN's rankings Missouri should have beaten the hell out of their weak non-con schedule as well. MO's average opponent rank is 74, well below what would be average in a 120-team ranking. Missouri should have beaten all of these teams quite easily, being ranked #16 by CFN, but they didn't. In fact, they struggled with two of them to an embarrassing degree. Missouri was able to put Illinois away, and held them to their season average right at nine points. But Missouri struggled with Nevada and Bowling Green, giving up each team's highest point total of the non-conference schedule, allowing even 0-3 Nevada an extra TD above their average, and struggling to put them away into the fourth quarter. This is a winless team who has been shellacked by Notre Dame and Colorado State, but Missouri couldn't put them away. And bear in mind, to be fair to your school we're not even talking about the Virginia Tech game for Nebraska, because by anyone's ranking system, VT is on a completely different tier than anything Missouri has played so far. It's not even close. And if you didn't see the success Nebraska had against VT, you're blind or drunk on the kool-aid. Again, we're getting back to rehashing whose schedule sucked worse. We struggled against Bowling Green for a half, then we dominated. Nevada was never in doubt. I know you'll disagree, but I've talked to a lot of other Mizzou fans and they say the same thing. It's just the DNA of this team. And keep in mind, our previous DNA was kicked balls, 5th downs, giving up 3-4 score leads, etc. Even when Nevada was knocking on the goal line, I knew we were going to win. And Nevada is a good team this year. They didn't show up to Notre Dame, gave up almost all of the Colorado State points on turnovers (CSU is a good team this year BTW) and showed why they were a respected team heading into the season against Mizzou. If you watched the game as you say you did, you know that. As for VT, I'm impressed with your play. But I don't put TOO much stock in it because VT is a one-dimensional team, which is always easier to defend anyway, but especially when that one dimension plays to your strength, run defense. This is not just my opinion, they rank in the bottom 5 or 6 in the nation in pass offense along with the military academies. Let's see what you can do against a real QB. We've seen what your offense does against a real defense. Whether Mizzou can play that well remains to be seen.

I've liked your opinions thus far DocNice, but I must disagree with you on this simply because of their rankings after Week 4. Most notably: #4 VaTech: Completely disagree with this. Top 10 team maybe, but not top 5. #6 Nebraska: Not even I think Nebraska is the 6th best team in the nation, and that is saying something. I think Nebraska should probably be in the 15-20 range. #18 USC: I don't care if they were only able to put up 27 points against Washington State or not. Nobody can sit their and tell me USC is not a Top 10 team. They always find ways to win the biggest games that have the biggest implications, with a few speed bumps here and there. Can anyone honestly say that their are seventeen better teams than USC? Didn't think so. Don't get me wrong, I like CFN and their coverage a lot, but they are susceptible to the same idiocy as every other sports analyst. And I disagreed when they ranked Mizzou #8 in week 2. The problem they're having is that there are just not good top 10 teams right now. Florida and Texas are the closest things, and even they don't look that good this year so far.

Nevada (which is a very good rushing team BTW) did have a good running day, no doubt, but very little passing success. Mizzou defended the run just well enough to stay in its base defense without stacking the box, leading to lots of medium length drives for Nevada. Even when you average 5 yards a carry, you still have to convert a large number of 3rd downs. To do that, eventually you gotta pass. Nebraska will have some success running the ball, but to turn statistics into scoring, they'll have to be able to a) be able to run the ball so well that we have to stack the box, or B) pass the ball well to create balance. Can they do that?

That you don't know who CFN is doesn't lend credibility to your position. CFN stands for CollegeFootballNews.com, and is easily the best college football coverage available. Take all the writers for ESPN combined and you'll get a fraction of the quality and depth of CFN. For starters, ESPN spends 90% of their coverage on 10 teams. CFN covers everyone and actually watches the games. Check it out, you'll like it. As for the rankings, no point in rehashing. I stick with my opinion that they'll all finish higher than they are now, due to playing their toughest stretches of their schedule early. But regardless of whether they're any good, surely we can agree that Nebraska's have been truly awful. Nobody higher than 85th? I'm not trying to knock you, but it's worth noting that we don't know how good you'll play against a team like Mizzou. Essentially what that means is that you've got a one game record right now, and with mixed results in that one game. Whether Mizzou has one or more such games is up for debate. I think we've seen enough quality to know somewhat what we can expect. You apparently disagree. As for Sagarin, you can call him respected if you want. It's a computer ranking. It's not all that accurate in Week 12 and it sure as heck isn't accurate in Week 4, and he'll be the first to tell you that.

I hope I haven't contributed too much to that. Unfortunately any time there's a big early season game, there's very little to base things on, so it degenerates into whose opponents suck worse. Strengths vs Weaknesses After re-watching the Nevada game, I'm a little more worried. I've been putting a lot of stock in our players abilities rather than their play. Size, speed and strength don't really matter if you get stood up on the LOS. We've got a lot of work to do. I do think we're talented enough that we might be able to win even playing as badly on the line as we did last week; after all it's not uncommon for us to beat teams despite losing the LOS. But it's going to be harder. That said, I also wouldn't be surprised if we came out and played much better. That could be just a homer opinion, but it's not uncommon the last few years for Mizzou to play horribly on the LOS one week and great the next. What I'd really like to know from NU is: what's the bread and butter of your running game? Misdirection, power-game up the middle, sweeps, all of the above? The key matchup seems to be your running game up the middle versus our d-line. We've played very good perimeter run defense so far, but we could be in trouble if you get leverage out there, but I don't expect that to happen. If you run, it's likely going to be straight up the gut. The other way around, I'd look at your ability to pressure the QB with 4 linemen and drop the rest into coverage, especially if you can effectively defend the run in this configuration. Do that, and you'll need only 20 or 30 to win. If Mizzou runs on you, I think the game's over, but I don't expect to have a successful rushing day.

For paid boards, try PowerMizzou.com. For free boards, Tigerboard.com is easily the best. People that are used to the cookie cutter message board format get thrown by it at first, but it's got definite advantages with the thread format resulting in a more natural debate flow. The only problem is that it's such a busy board posts only last a few hours before they're dead. As with any popular board, there are flamers, trollers and intelligent posters. The impression you make will go a long way toward which kind respond to you. The general feeling on the Tigerboard is that Nebraska presents a serious challenge. Generally it's divided into two camps. A small camp of pessimists thinks we'll lose 4 or 5 games in conference and get a minor bowl. Most people feel like we're more talented than Nebraska based on recent history and will win a competitive game. But I don't think a loss would shock anyone.

Yes I do. Deep down I have absolutely no reason to think the Huskers will win.

Tell you what. I'll hang my hat on VT. Who you got? Wait, wait. That's not fair. I'll hang my hat on one of the three Sunbelt teams winning their conference and beating any of your opponents in a bowl game. Fair? And laughable with this "outside of VT" comment. Equivocating already? Come now. We are men of honor. Lies do not become us. And CFN? So? Sagarin is the most respected independent ranking out there, and either you know it or you should know it. And check your "almost all of your stats came against those [sunbelt] teams" comment. Go see how we ran against Virginia Tech, a team with a front line you would sell Weatherspoon to get. Yes, absolutely all of our passing stats did. Lee had a terrible game in Blacksburg statistically. But we're not one-dimensional, unlike the Tigers. We can run the ball, and run it well. 3.79 yards per carry by the Tiggers against that level of competition is embarrassing. Bottom line is this - those stats I can spout off mean nada. You guys could still whip our butts. What I'm getting at is, you have nothing to base such an assumption on other than hope and the ghosts of Tiger Teams Past. You're hanging your hat on VT? A loss? Really? Every FBS team on our schedule is ranked higher by CFN than the highest ranked Sun Belt team you've played, so I'll take those odds. And Sagarin is not the most respected ranking service. In fact, Sagarin is notoriouis for inaccuracies, especially early in the year. And of course, if you like him so much, why'd you neglect to mention he has us ranked higher? If 3.8 yards per carry is bad, what's 11 for 30? My point stands. Your stats have come against significantly inferior competition.

Umm, you act like we've never played a team that knows how to hit. And furthermore, you seem to forget that Mizzou defenses, for while now, but especially this year, have a reputation for laying the lumber. I find it interesting that so many NU fans seem to think NU is going to be 100% better just because they hit harder and want it more than last year. Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so, I'll be eating crow in a couple of weeks, but I still think NU has a talent gap to make up. Sadly for you, that lumber has been doled out in toothpicks this year against a weaker non-con schedule than the Huskers have faced (Sagarin), and yet the Huskers have allowed 28 points non-con. Missouri allowed twice that. More than twice that. You guys "laid the wood" to Nevada so fiercely that the offensive juggernaut that is the Wolfpack nearly equaled Nebraska's opponents' output all by their lonesome. Further, against a woeful set of defenses (Furman? Really? Give me the Sunbelt title any day over Furman), you've managed... what? 147 points? Epic. Meanwhile, the Huskers have played an actual factual defense and scored on them. Moved the ball really well, in fact. And by the by - when Missouri plays a team that knows how to hit.... yeah. Let's just say, it doesn't work out well for you. Texas - lost by 25. Oklahoma - lost by 41. Do you really want to hang your hat on a Week 4 Sagarin ranking giving you 10 spots higher? See my post above. You haven't played a team ranked higher than 85 per CFN outside of VT. And almost all of your stats came against those teams.

Umm, you act like we've never played a team that knows how to hit. And furthermore, you seem to forget that Mizzou defenses, for while now, but especially this year, have a reputation for laying the lumber. I find it interesting that so many NU fans seem to think NU is going to be 100% better just because they hit harder and want it more than last year. Perhaps I'm missing something, and if so, I'll be eating crow in a couple of weeks, but I still think NU has a talent gap to make up.

The ridiculousness of your proposition would seem to indicate I'm overhyping the Illini and under-respecting VT. But of course, your apparent proposition is just as ridiculous: that the Illini are a talentless, horrible team that have no shot at a bowl game, and VT is a national title contender. The reality of course lies somewhere in between. Illinois is not a good as Miami this year, but of course, we didn't lose to them. Beat them pretty handily in fact. Virginia Tech is a perennially overrated team. Don't get me wrong, I love em. Beamer ball rocks. But they are not top 5, and if they were, that says more about the lack of quality teams this year than the strength of their team. Don't forget how badly they got spanked by Alabama. Miami, meanwhile, is a young team that didn't play its best, and at the same time, was never a top 10 team anyway. 3 weeks ago, people thought the FSU/Miami game would be a snoozer. But a couple of decent but not great wins later they're an unstoppable powerhouse? Preseason rankings can be way off, but sportswriters clearly got a case of starstruck love looking at all their playmakers, and forgetting that they're a) young and B) don't have a particularly good defense. On the flip side, Mizzou hasn't played anyone nearly as good as Nebraska, but we have played competition that has been good enough to test us, and that's worth something. NU fans wanting to dismiss us will naturally say that being tested shows Mizzou is weak. I think a more balanced opinion of someone who watched the games sees a young, imperfect team that's capable of both bad things and great things. If the former shows up, you'll beat us. If the latter shows up, I think we run away with the game and it's not close. Somewhere in the middle, where it's likely to be, it's a competitive game.

I'm not saying we've played Alabama, but a lot of that has to do with the teams that they have played. Illinois has played Ohio State. Nevada played Notre Dame and and underrated Colorado State. Bowling Green played Fresno State and Troy. All of those are considered pretty good offensive teams. I would say none of those defenses are good, but none of them are bad like your schedule has arguably been outside of VT. They're average defenses and we shredded them. Also, I think it's quite clear that Miami was overrated, which only proves that we just don't know how good many of these teams are right now. Miami was not well respected coming into the season, yet shot up to top 10 after two decent but not spectacular wins. I think it's clear they're a good but not great team. I would say the same about VT from what I've seen on the field. The win over VT seemed to have a whole lot more with Miami lacking a credible defense than VT, but maybe VT and FSU are really just offensive powerhouses and their D is actually good. I'm guessing not.

I'm glad we agree. I would say that Mizzou appears to be here to stay as long as we have Pinkel and hopefully for good. Old timers will remember that Mizzou was a pretty storied program at one point. Not Nebraska, not Oklahoma, but pretty darned good. Before our two lost decades, we were pretty much tied in the Nebraska series. So football is a big deal there and I think they're not going away easily. Obviously a good QB helps you out big time, but Mizzou has enough talent coming in to stay among the ranked consistently. And the good news is that Pinkel has a track record of recruiting and developing top QBs. He's put like 7 in the NFL. And he also has a track record of finding hidden talent in Texas. He only has to out-recruit the big guys for a few players a year to be pretty darned good. The next level for MU has to be getting better linemen though. I like who we've got, but we've got 2 of the top 4 programs in the country this conference. If you want to win the Big 12, you have to be national title contender good, or at least in the neighborhood. You can't do that with an above average line.