The NEW MU v. NU Thread

[BlackShirt1340]

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.

With that ridiculous logic, lets look at it with these two scenarios...

So... BYU beat Oklahoma, Florida state pounded BYU, Miami beat Florida State (as did south florida), and Virginia Tech pounded Miami. Nebraska dominated 58 minutes of the game with Va Tech and for all intents and purposes, should have won as they won 72 of 75 plays. So.... by that amazing logic, is Nebraska better/on par with Oklahoma?

Or... Bowling green blew out troy on the road who beat arkansas state.. okay :dumdum ... Bowling Green almost beat Missouri... then went and got beat by Marshall, who got BLOWN OUT by Virginia Tech...

So with that logic Doc.. It isn't looking too good for Mizzou come thursday. And it doesn't matter if your strenght of schedule is "tougher"... for these non-conference patsies. Once a team gets so bad that they are ranked below 70 out of 119 teams... there really isn't a huge difference. You're telling me that had Nebraska had Bowling Green at Memorial Stadium that they wouldn't have dismantled them the same way that they did the other three teams?

No matter how many SOS statistics you throw at us, it doesn't make a difference when you are talking about the 3 GARBAGE teams that each of our respective teams have played. It doesn't matter.

 

[DocNice]

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.

We don't look for moral victories anymore. Okay, low blow. But seriously, we don't care that we're young and I guarantee it won't be an excuse if we lose. It does feel nice knowing that we're very talented and very good even with all this youth, and that win or lose, we stand a good chance of beating you the next few years as well.

 

[JTrain]

Forget the stats... look at it this way:

Nebraska played three crappy teams, and completely dominated all three of them. There was not a single game that hadn't been completely, 100% decided by halftime.

Mizzou on the other hand, played three crappy teams, and only put one away soundly (Illinois). They trailed Bowling Green for most of the game, and didn't take their first lead until the last half of the FOURTH QUARTER. And Nevada actually led them at one point in the third quarter, and was three yards away from potentially tying the game in the fourth (until a fumble). So which is more impressive? Devouring your cupcakes like you're supposed to, or nearly choking on them?

Throw in the fact that Nebraska has already experienced a hostile crowd and a top 10 team this season (and Mizzou hasn't) and you have to think Nebraska has the slight edge.

 

[DocNice]

Forget the stats... look at it this way:

Nebraska played three crappy teams, and completely dominated all three of them. There was not a single game that hadn't been completely, 100% decided by halftime.

Mizzou on the other hand, played three crappy teams, and only put one away soundly (Illinois). They trailed Bowling Green for most of the game, and didn't take their first lead until the last half of the FOURTH QUARTER. And Nevada actually led them at one point in the third quarter, and was three yards away from potentially tying the game in the fourth (until a fumble). So which is more impressive? Devouring your cupcakes like you're supposed to, or nearly choking on them?

Throw in the fact that Nebraska has already experienced a hostile crowd and a top 10 team this season (and Mizzou hasn't) and you have to think Nebraska has the slight edge.

False dichotomy.

 

[DocNice]

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.

That makes no sense. Your SOS is tougher because you played VT, not because the other teams were better. But you lost. I supplied ample evidence our wins were better.

 

[knapplc]

Doc, it's not just about comparing wins. Kudos for trying to steer the conversation into less murky waters for MU, but you can't simply remove the VT game from existence.

The NU/VT game is the elephant in the room. It is the single most important game on either team's (MU or NU) non-con schedule. That game taught the Huskers more than a season's worth of Sunbelt opponents would.

There will be no intimidation factor in CoMo this year. We've already played a better team in their house with louder fans.

Missouri cannot duplicate the speed of VT on defense.

Missouri cannot duplicate the environment at Blacksburg.

Missouri cannot duplicate Beamer Ball.

These factors do not bode well for the Tigers.

 

[Igetbored216]

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

You are hilarious man. If you actually read what the poster said before you, he was talking about ALL FOUR non-conference games, but then you go into this "unbiased" analysis of only three non-conference games conviently leaving out Nebraska's toughest opponent AND Missouri's FCS team they faced.

Yeah, I'm sure leaving those out won't skew the results.

 

[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.

That makes no sense. Your SOS is tougher because you played VT, not because the other teams were better. But you lost. I supplied ample evidence our wins were better.

What doesn't make any sense is trying to downplay VaTech to make our team look worse, when in reality this is the biggest reason that Husker fans feel confident about Columbia.

You played crappy teams and were only able to snake by a couple. 3 of 4 teams we played were crappy and dominated them. Our less to VaTech should have been our win, but I digress.

Lets just say for one second that your SOS slightly, and only just, harder. That still doesn't negate the fact that you played what every other college football fan (other than Missouri fans) would say is a "cupcake" non con schedule, and you weren't able to put your foot in your opponent's mouth.

 

[MizzouBob77]

It has to be said... It doesn't matter who in the hell we've played up to this point. Really, it doesn't. It will not affect the outcome of this game. The experience gained is minimal. Once the first snap happens, all of that garbage goes out the window.

 

[DocNice]

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

You are hilarious man. If you actually read what the poster said before you, he was talking about ALL FOUR non-conference games, but then you go into this "unbiased" analysis of only three non-conference games conviently leaving out Nebraska's toughest opponent AND Missouri's FCS team they faced.

Yeah, I'm sure leaving those out won't skew the results.

You guys keep changing the argument. If it's about how weak Mizzou is because their wins aren't that good, then LOSING in blacksburg doesn't really help your point.

 

[DocNice]

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.

That makes no sense. Your SOS is tougher because you played VT, not because the other teams were better. But you lost. I supplied ample evidence our wins were better.

What doesn't make any sense is trying to downplay VaTech to make our team look worse, when in reality this is the biggest reason that Husker fans feel confident about Columbia.

You played crappy teams and were only able to snake by a couple. 3 of 4 teams we played were crappy and dominated them. Our less to VaTech should have been our win, but I digress.

Lets just say for one second that your SOS slightly, and only just, harder. That still doesn't negate the fact that you played what every other college football fan (other than Missouri fans) would say is a "cupcake" non con schedule, and you weren't able to put your foot in your opponent's mouth.

Pretty sure at the end of the season they won't be called cupcake. Illinois should single handedly give our schedule credibility beyond cupcake status. That's my argument in a nutshell. Doesn't seem like we're making progress here.

 

[NU41SB]

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.

That makes no sense. Your SOS is tougher because you played VT, not because the other teams were better. But you lost. I supplied ample evidence our wins were better.

What doesn't make any sense is trying to downplay VaTech to make our team look worse, when in reality this is the biggest reason that Husker fans feel confident about Columbia.

You played crappy teams and were only able to snake by a couple. 3 of 4 teams we played were crappy and dominated them. Our less to VaTech should have been our win, but I digress.

Lets just say for one second that your SOS slightly, and only just, harder. That still doesn't negate the fact that you played what every other college football fan (other than Missouri fans) would say is a "cupcake" non con schedule, and you weren't able to put your foot in your opponent's mouth.

Pretty sure at the end of the season they won't be called cupcake. Illinois should single handedly give our schedule credibility beyond cupcake status. That's my argument in a nutshell. Doesn't seem like we're making progress here.

Is this still going to stand true if/when they don't make a bowl game this year? Just curious

 

[Igetbored216]

You guys keep changing the argument. If it's about how weak Mizzou is because their wins aren't that good, then LOSING in blacksburg doesn't really help your point.

But you were talking about SOS. Whether or not a team wins or loses a game, it doesn't change what the SOS is. The fact is - out of all four games - Missouri has a weaker non-conference schedule that Nebraska.

Did Nebraska lose in Blacksburg? Yes, but that doesn't disregard the fact that Nebraska's overall non-conference schedule was tougher than Missou's.

 

[Igetbored216]

Pretty sure at the end of the season they won't be called cupcake. Illinois should single handedly give our schedule credibility beyond cupcake status. That's my argument in a nutshell. Doesn't seem like we're making progress here.

Yeah, Illinois looked decent in the 30-0 blowout win by Ohio State in which Illinois rarely got past the 50 yard line. Illinois is not a good team this year, so that's not a very good argument.

 

[DocNice]

Doc, it's not just about comparing wins. Kudos for trying to steer the conversation into less murky waters for MU, but you can't simply remove the VT game from existence.

The NU/VT game is the elephant in the room. It is the single most important game on either team's (MU or NU) non-con schedule. That game taught the Huskers more than a season's worth of Sunbelt opponents would.

There will be no intimidation factor in CoMo this year. We've already played a better team in their house with louder fans.

Missouri cannot duplicate the speed of VT on defense.

Missouri cannot duplicate the environment at Blacksburg.

Missouri cannot duplicate Beamer Ball.

These factors do not bode well for the Tigers.

I agree VT was worth more than a season's worth of Sunbelt opponents. I don't think it was worth our schedule. "Learning" that your QB folds like a cheap lawn chair against a good defense doesn't help you. Okay, low blow. He may be capable of more, and he may get better from the experience. But he also may have been exposed is my point. Learning that you can shut down a one dimensional offense that plays into your strengths tells you almost nothing about how you'll fare against the powerful offenses of the Big 12. And learning that your special teams are not as good as VT doesn't mean you'll be better than Mizzou. We don't need to intimidate you to beat you, because IMHO we're just plain better.

And if you don't think we're as fast as VT on defense. Sigh. Listen, I know VT has a great defense. Mizzou aspires to be so good. But if you think there are a lot of teams in the country FASTER than we are on defense, then you haven't been watching. Mizzou may lack many things, but speed is not one of them. You sure as heck better not think you're going to run past us or around us this year. Helu is not going to beat Sean Weatherspoon or any of our other LBs to the corner. And you're not easily going to get behind our secondary.

If you take away NOTHING ELSE from this conversation, remember this one thing: If you beat us, it won't be because you were bigger or faster. It will be the old fashioned way, with better blocks and consistent execution.