The NEW MU v. NU Thread

[Enhance]

Just out of curiosity and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it a BAD thing that MU is younger than NU?

Actually, no. Being youthful fully explains how and why they struggled to put away bad teams like Bowling Green and Nevada.

But it also bears repeating that Missouri didn't struggle to beat either Bowling Green or Nevada - they had each game well in hand.

It also bears repeating that Bowling Green and Nevada are good teams. They played other, tougher competition recently and were lagging a bit because of it. Ignore their combined 1-6 record. This is irrelevant. Sometimes good teams show they are good by losing. A lot.

So they didn't struggle while struggling to put away good bad teams. See? Makes perfect sense.

Thanks for clarifying knapplc :thumbs

 

[Tiger of the Corn]

That's why we appreciate you so much, Fro. You may root for the wrong team, but you're fair and you're intelligent. I'll be happy for guys like you if the Tigers win next week. Some others... not so much.

Am I in the "some others" category?

 

[knapplc]

Am I in the "some others" category?

Curious why you would ask that.

 

[redout22]

That's why we appreciate you so much, Fro. You may root for the wrong team, but you're fair and you're intelligent. I'll be happy for guys like you if the Tigers win next week. Some others... not so much.

Am I in the "some others" category?

Possibly. We wont have to worry about it this year though :box

 

[Tiger of the Corn]

Am I in the "some others" category?

Curious why you would ask that.

I don't know.

I have a complex.

 

[DocNice]

Just out of curiosity and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it a BAD thing that MU is younger than NU?

Actually, no. Being youthful fully explains how and why they struggled to put away bad teams like Bowling Green and Nevada.

But it also bears repeating that Missouri didn't struggle to beat either Bowling Green or Nevada - they had each game well in hand.

It also bears repeating that Bowling Green and Nevada are good teams. They played other, tougher competition recently and were lagging a bit because of it. Ignore their combined 1-6 record. This is irrelevant. Sometimes good teams show they are good by losing. A lot.

So they didn't struggle while struggling to put away good bad teams. See? Makes perfect sense.

What do you want us to say? That those games were in doubt? Hey, any Mizzou fan will tell you that we were worried in the Bowling Green game. But anyone watching that game knows we turned it on and walked away with it pretty easily at the end. With Nevada, I knew after the first quarter we were going to win. When Nevada was about to score in the 4th to have a chance to tie, I still just didn't see any kind of consistency in their attack, or any indication they could stop us. Miracles happen, but I never really doubted we would win.

I think the real issue is that you wanted us to dominate those opponents the way you dominated the Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind x 3. What we're trying to tell you is that those teams are better than the ones you beat. That's why we didn't dominate them when you did dominate yours. Not that they're top 25, just that they're good enough to make a good team work to beat them.

 

[DocNice]

Now...In the short time that I have 'known' knapp, I have come to respect his football knowledge and wouldn't think he would post trumped up stats and such. I would like to think that he would believe me as well. Even though I post some inflammatory remarks now and again, I don't post untruths.
Now....since I can't believe him anymore..............

You can believe everything I post concerning stats is either 100% true or at the very least intended to be true (I've been known to mess up a spreadsheet or two, but not often). I'd be happy to begin posting links to the sites I get my info from as well. But the bottom line is, I'm using stats and in-game information to base my opinions, while several of you Missouri fans are using supposition and gut feeling.

Stats aren't really comparable though, because we haven't played comparable opponents.

 

[DocNice]

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.

Try the 2 deep and get back to me.

Do you guys even know where to find stats like this, or grasp how to set them up in a usable fashion? Why make me do all the heavy lifting here? Anyway, since you asked, the two-deeps are remarkably similar. Nebraska has a slightly "older" two-deep than Missouri.

MISSOURI

OFFENSE		
SO	FR	Left tackle
SO	SO	Left guard
JR	RFR	Center
SR	SO	Right guard
SO	FR	Right tackle
SO	SO	Tight end
SO	SO	Quarterback
JR	SO	Tailback
SR	SO	X-receiver
SR	SO	H-receiver
SO	SO	Z-receiver
DEFENSE		
SO	RFR	Defensive end
SO	SO	Defensive tackle
SR	RFR	Nose tackle
SR	RFR	Defensive end
SR	FR	Weakside linebacker
JR	SO	Middle linebacker
JR	RFR	Strongside linebacker
JR	SO	Cornerback
JR	RFR	Cornerback
SO	JR	Free safety
SR	SR	Strong safety


NEBRASKA

OFFENSE		
SR	SO	Wide Receiver (X)
JR	SO	Left Tackle
JR	SR	Left Guard
SR	SO	Center
JR	SR	Right Guard
SO	JR	Right Tackle
JR	JR	Tight End
JR	FR	Wide Receiver (Z)
JR	FR	Quarterback
RFR	SO	Fullback
JR	FR	I-Back
DEFENSE		
SR	RFR	Left Defensive End
SR	SO	Defensive Tackle
SO	RFR	Defensive Tackle
JR	RFR	Right Defensive End
SO	JR	WILL
RFR	SR	MIKE
RFR	RFR	BUCK
JR	JR	Left Cornerback
SR	RFR	Strong Safety
SR	SR	Free Safety
JR	SO	Right Cornerback

The position breakdown looks like this:

MU	1D	2D
FR	 0	3
RFR	0	6
SO	 9	11
JR	 6	1
SR	 7	1

NEB	1D	2D
FR	 0	3
RFR	3	5
SO	 3	6
JR	 10	4
SR	 6	4

You guys still want to hold on to the notion that Missouri is younger than Nebraska? They are marginally younger because of all the starting Sophomores, but the Tigers don't start anyone younger than that, while Nebraska starts three Redshirt Freshmen. Missouri starts one more Senior than the Huskers, while Nebraska starts four more Juniors. I'd call it a wash, but I'm willing to give you the title of "younger" team.

And this is your iron-clad excuse for struggling with the likes of Bowling Green and Nevada. Makes perfect sense to me.

I'd say that's a pretty considerable difference actually. Nearly 50% more players in the 2 deep as underclassmen.

 

[DocNice]

some valid pts in all this hot air, some are comical, like Lee has a big arm? Huh? Havn't seen him throw a decent deep ball in all the snaps I have seen

Whatever little credibility you had is gone. You've obviously not watched Lee . . . except for maybe the VaTech game. Lee has the strongest arm of any Nebraska qb in recent memory. And he throws an outstanding deep ball. For your convenience, check out the pass to Curenski Gilleyen in the FAU game. (or pretty much any deep pass to number 11.)

Who posted that stat about most long passes by Big XII QBs so far this year? I remember Lee was in the top three or four, either right ahead of or right behind Gabbert. I read that "haven't seen him throw a decent deep ball" comment and just shook my head. It's like people are commenting on Nebraska and they haven't even watched more than a few minutes of any of our games. I firmly believe that most Tigers fans commenting here are like that - they watched a series or two, or a half, of our VT game and formed their opinions off of those few plays. Without context, those plays mean next to nothing.

Gabbert leads the nation in long throws (30 yards).

http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/beh...g-the-notebook/

 

[DocNice]

Rivals does incredible work, so I don't debate the validity of my post.
I agree that they shouldn't have struggled, but they did. I chalk it up to immaturity and not handling success well. I'm glad it happened to them in non-conference, rather than in Big XII play. Still, they're talented, and I expect they'll be jacked up to play the vaunted Huskers.

Why do you think their immaturity will have vanished? What will stop it from happening all year?

Hopefully teams learn from each game.

 

[dizzturbedNUfan]

Just out of curiosity and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it a BAD thing that MU is younger than NU?

Actually, no. Being youthful fully explains how and why they struggled to put away bad teams like Bowling Green and Nevada.

But it also bears repeating that Missouri didn't struggle to beat either Bowling Green or Nevada - they had each game well in hand.

It also bears repeating that Bowling Green and Nevada are good teams. They played other, tougher competition recently and were lagging a bit because of it. Ignore their combined 1-6 record. This is irrelevant. Sometimes good teams show they are good by losing. A lot.

So they didn't struggle while struggling to put away good bad teams. See? Makes perfect sense.

What do you want us to say? That those games were in doubt? Hey, any Mizzou fan will tell you that we were worried in the Bowling Green game. But anyone watching that game knows we turned it on and walked away with it pretty easily at the end. With Nevada, I knew after the first quarter we were going to win. When Nevada was about to score in the 4th to have a chance to tie, I still just didn't see any kind of consistency in their attack, or any indication they could stop us. Miracles happen, but I never really doubted we would win.

I think the real issue is that you wanted us to dominate those opponents the way you dominated the Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind x 3. What we're trying to tell you is that those teams are better than the ones you beat. That's why we didn't dominate them when you did dominate yours. Not that they're top 25, just that they're good enough to make a good team work to beat them.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no matter how you look at it our 4 non conference games were tougher then yours. They all ended last season bowl eligible, pull up this years stats and look where Offense and Defense are rated among the teams. Yes, 3 of the 4 wern't championship contenders but still better then the ones you faced. You turned nothing on against Nevada, they really, really suck! They hung with you until they were wore out from lack of depth. And yes, they did struggle.

 

[knapplc]

Who posted that stat about most long passes by Big XII QBs so far this year? I remember Lee was in the top three or four, either right ahead of or right behind Gabbert. I read that "haven't seen him throw a decent deep ball" comment and just shook my head. It's like people are commenting on Nebraska and they haven't even watched more than a few minutes of any of our games. I firmly believe that most Tigers fans commenting here are like that - they watched a series or two, or a half, of our VT game and formed their opinions off of those few plays. Without context, those plays mean next to nothing.

Gabbert leads the nation in long throws (30 yards).

http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/beh...g-the-notebook/

Thanks Doc. I knew I had seen that somewhere. Funny thing, though - Zac Lee is right behind him at 15 passes of 30 yards or more.

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/42...12-quarterbacks

 

[knapplc]

You guys still want to hold on to the notion that Missouri is younger than Nebraska? They are marginally younger because of all the starting Sophomores, but the Tigers don't start anyone younger than that, while Nebraska starts three Redshirt Freshmen. Missouri starts one more Senior than the Huskers, while Nebraska starts four more Juniors. I'd call it a wash, but I'm willing to give you the title of "younger" team.
And this is your iron-clad excuse for struggling with the likes of Bowling Green and Nevada. Makes perfect sense to me.

I'd say that's a pretty considerable difference actually. Nearly 50% more players in the 2 deep as underclassmen.

Great, so you've got a built in excuse for why you'll struggle next week. You've got a bunch of sophomores on your roster, the only statistical difference between the two squads, and this is why your team struggled with a strength of schedule 13 points lower than Nebraska's.

 

[DocNice]

Just out of curiosity and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it a BAD thing that MU is younger than NU?

Actually, no. Being youthful fully explains how and why they struggled to put away bad teams like Bowling Green and Nevada.

But it also bears repeating that Missouri didn't struggle to beat either Bowling Green or Nevada - they had each game well in hand.

It also bears repeating that Bowling Green and Nevada are good teams. They played other, tougher competition recently and were lagging a bit because of it. Ignore their combined 1-6 record. This is irrelevant. Sometimes good teams show they are good by losing. A lot.

So they didn't struggle while struggling to put away good bad teams. See? Makes perfect sense.

What do you want us to say? That those games were in doubt? Hey, any Mizzou fan will tell you that we were worried in the Bowling Green game. But anyone watching that game knows we turned it on and walked away with it pretty easily at the end. With Nevada, I knew after the first quarter we were going to win. When Nevada was about to score in the 4th to have a chance to tie, I still just didn't see any kind of consistency in their attack, or any indication they could stop us. Miracles happen, but I never really doubted we would win.

I think the real issue is that you wanted us to dominate those opponents the way you dominated the Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind x 3. What we're trying to tell you is that those teams are better than the ones you beat. That's why we didn't dominate them when you did dominate yours. Not that they're top 25, just that they're good enough to make a good team work to beat them.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no matter how you look at it our 4 non conference games were tougher then yours. They all ended last season bowl eligible, pull up this years stats and look where Offense and Defense are rated among the teams. Yes, 3 of the 4 wern't championship contenders but still better then the ones you faced. You turned nothing on against Nevada, they really, really suck! They hung with you until they were wore out from lack of depth. And yes, they did struggle.

No matter how you look at it? Except perhaps unbiased sources? Here are Massey's computer ranking average:

ULL 87

Ark st 98

FL Atlantic 109

Average: 98

Ill 85

BG 75

Nevada 99

Average: 83

Here are CollegeFootballNews.com's rankings of every team, which aren't swayed as much as computers by win/loss in a short season:

ULL 97

Ark st 85

FL Atlantic 104

Average: 95

Ill 63

BG 82

Nevada 76

Average: 73

Now, neither is anything to write home about, but clearly Mizzou's wins have come against a tougher schedule, both in terms of best opponent and overall average. In fact, by CFN's standards, our worst win was better than your best. To take this one step further, our worst win and your best win played a common opponent. Arkansas State lost to Troy at home, and Bowling Green blew Troy out on the road. Not looking good for you. To go even one step farther, our teams have played a pretty tough schedule early and stand IMHO, a better chance of moving up in these rankings, and even playing in a bowl.

If you want to dismiss our opponents so you can feel better about your chances, that's fine. You'll have fewer excuses after we beat you. But I feel good about Mizzou's opponents, not so much in that they look good and therefore make us look good, but in the sense that they challenged us just enough to make us better.

 

[Enhance]

I think the real issue is that you wanted us to dominate those opponents the way you dominated the Sisters of Mercy School for the Blind x 3. What we're trying to tell you is that those teams are better than the ones you beat. That's why we didn't dominate them when you did dominate yours. Not that they're top 25, just that they're good enough to make a good team work to beat them.

Facts?

Something to base your opinion off of?

Come on MU fans, if you are going to come to Huskerboard and start talking football with us, you gotta realize that we aren't going to nod our heads in agreement at everything you say. A lot of us, myself included, spend time to look up information to come back with honest factual retorts.

Since you haven't, here are mine. This is CBS sports, rating the toughest non-con schedules in the Big 12. The closer your number is to 1, the tougher your schedule is. As you will notice, Missouri played one of the weakest non-conference schedules.

LINK

Also from CBS Sports, your strength of schedule is 105th. Nebraska's, is 73. Again, here is the LINK

And I'm not even going to get into how ridiculous the notion is that the teams MU beat are better than the ones NU beat. I believe knapplc has already debunked this conundrum one million times over.