Missouri?

[fro daddy]

UCLA stomped a winning record Nebraska.

Oregon has Washington and UCLA.

Stanford seems legit with a UCLA victory, but that Utah loss. Sweet Jesus!

This is something else.... I know I am on a husker board, but seriously. You cant possibly be telling me Missouri has beaten nobody and doesn't impress, and then just a short statement later pump UCLA's win over a below avg Nebraska team as something of note?!?! That's funny. when does the Kool-Aid guy come busting threw my computer screen? UCLA's best win is Nebraska. Who has played nobody. And I mean nobody. And you already know this. What is Nebraska's best win...what, a 3 point win over 4-4 Wyoming? 6 wins over retarded blind kids is not quite something that makes Nebraska a good team. The 101st rank SOS and only one victory over a FBS team without a losing record. And again, that's 4-4 Wyoming. Nu has played two winning teams and lost by two scores or more in both. Nebraska is far from a good win for UCLA. In record and name only is it even noticeable. On paper its about as impressive as Missouri over Toledo.

About Oregon...Oregon's wins are over the before mentioned UCLA who has beat nobody and 5-3 Washington. Washington's best win is Arizona, who is likely going to finish 7-5. They really haven't beaten anyone that good either. Even if they are one of only two teams to have all their wins be by 15 or more points (mizzou is the other btw). I am all for discussing and point/counter point. But that Nebraska thing lost me. Just out of curiosity who would win if MU and NU played and what do you think the score would be? Acutally, nevermind. I am sure I already know your answer. CFB isn't loaded with great teams this year. Infact there maybe only 3 that are even that great. I think that is about all we are going to come close to agreeing on. I feel that you can see if a team is talented and good. For you the proof is in who they have beaten. I feel like I have shown that is not always the case.

Edited November 7, 2013 by fro daddy

[fro daddy]

Miz-who was not as bad as last year (injuries)

 

and

 

They are not as good as this year (opponent's injuries)

 

That's possible. But there is no telling really. What games would have changed with our opponents. Florida is still a win, Tennessee is still a win. I assume your talking about Georgia. well maybe that's the case and maybe not. Gurley is great, but Missouri is one of the best run D's in the country. Would that have made the difference for Georgia? possibly, but then I could say MU would have been in a better position with EJ Gaines on the field for all of the game. Mike Davis has been the best back in the SEC this season. avg 6.3 yrds a carry. He ran for 51 on 19 attempts at Mizzou. 2.68 ypc. 2 yard per carry worse than he next lowest output on the year. I would think it would be safe to say that he may not have found much running room. OR maybe he does because he is freakin Gurley and he is a stud.

 

Heck if James Franklin plays the first half of the SC game we are up 31-0 at least. Maybe if shaw played the whole game instead of just about half maybe its a shoot out. Fact is there is no way to know and IMO there are only two possible games where things could have changed. And Mizzou lost one of those. who is to say that if we have our best qb and db playing that we don't win against SC easily?

[deedsker]

It you want to get derivative where this team has only beat this team, who has only beat this team, all wins can be boiled down to beating nobodies.

 

Northwestern does look bad at this point, but they did go undefeated in nonconference play. They beat the bottom of the barrel in the PAC-12, but also beat the 3rd best team from the ACC Atlantic behind only Clemson and Florida State. That doesn't sound to bad to me. It just looks like the basement of the B1G Legends just isn't that low. Conference loses you say? 9-0, 6-2, 7-2, 5-4, and 6-2. All above five hundred. Northwestern's last three loses have been by a combined 13 points, one coming in overtime. Yeah, Nebraska won on a Hail Mary, but it is still a win like Mizzou's lose to South Carolina. It sucks, but it still counts. Also, the B1G Legends divisions loses are from Northern Illinois (9-0), UCLA (6-2) and Notre Dame (7-2).

 

The SEC East has loses to Clemson (8-1), Miami (7-1), Oregon (8-0), Western Kentucky (5-4), and Louisville (7-1). Looks pretty similar.

 

Now, that I took the time to do that let us look at our respective division records in the nonconference. B1G Legends are 21-3 (.875), and the SEC East is 16-5 (.762). Without FCS wins, B1G 16-3 (.842) and the SEC East 12-5 (.706).

 

Doesn't look like beating Northwestern is such a gimmie. Yeah, I would laugh if Nebraska had to play Missouri. I don't know if I want to see us play Michigan, but I am excited to see if we can get a W. That doesn't blind me from the fact that we may not win another game the rest of the year.

 

Mizzou has beat two teams with a winning record. TWO. Toledo (6-3) and Georgia (5-3). You have lost to South Carolina (7-2). I don't see a resounding pick me! Pick me! That is what I am getting at.

 

I defend UCLA because they have lost to Oregon (8-0) and Stanford (7-1) both to me well above South Carolina. They have beaten Nebraska (6-2) who I wouldn't mind seeing play a beat up Georgia without Gurley, Marshall, Bennett, and Scott-Wesley.

 

Is it a thin argument? You bet! The logic there still says UCLA is on par or slightly ahead of Missouri. Stanford has beat UCLA so I will give them the credit over Missouri as well.

 

As a Mizzou fan, I am sure you don't want to hear that, but right now that is the way I see it. There is still more football to be played and things change every week.

 

Enjoy football while we have it and good arguing with you again fro! We did miss you for quite some time!