And yet MU is scared to play the worst power 5 football program over the last 12 years. :)

On the rise is a relative term with Kansas football. I mean, it was a pretty low bar to clear.

Guess what? If Mizzou beats WF, then we will have increased our win total under Drink each of the last 3 years (from 5 to 6 to 7). I guess that means we're 'on the rise'.

Cool.

Worst program for 10 years, now favored by a FG over a team that’s been in the SEC for a decade. #ownGoal

Hey, but do you realize how much better it is to watch your football team linger in mediocrity for years at a time and lose mid-December bowl games, than to... well, find other stuff to do every Saturday?

Wouldn't you love to be strung along every year like you're watching Alex Smith again, waiting to see if a team can rise above 6-6, just to be disappointed?

We can only dream of such an existence for KU football... we're stuck with either ignoring it or winning Orange Bowls, with nothing in between.

Yup. After going up against the likes of Georgia and Tennessee this year, Mizzou was terrified to line up against all of Kansas' 2 and 3 star athletes and grad transfers. How could we even compete?

As far as scared goes, that was Bill Self and your brave administration who was afraid to schedule a series (in football or basketball) with Mizzou for half a decade after Mizzou left for the SEC.

Butthurt cowards.

Wait, you consider a 6-7 season better than 5-5? He gets credit for playing more games in '21 and losing two out of three of them? Weird logic. :D

Few, if any, Missouri fans feel their program is on the rise. Everyone knows that KU is on the rise. And of course it's relative. Duh.

How did losing to Tennessee by 40+ make Missouri fearless?

FYP

Reminds me of the old days of scripting every KU/MU thread.

Lost 6 of 7!

Scared of playing KU!

Sort of hung with Georgia for the first half!

Basketball!

Irrelevant!

Irrelevant!

(Flips on sarcasm detector)

Read original post again . . . . .

When you line up against great to elite teams (Mizzou lost to Georgia by only 4, by the way), it tends to cause you not to be 'scared' of mediocre ones.

And, as I've said time and time again, the decision to play Kansas or not play Kansas was not left up to the players.

If you really believe a bunch of 19-22 year old highly competitive athletes are afraid to play a middling team from a lesser conference, then you clearly just don't get it.

Sagarin Conf ratings

1. Big 12 81.09
2. Sec West 80.80
3. Sec East 79.83

Wait. I thought championships are what matter? I'm confused. That's what Kansas fans always tell me. 'Win a Natty and then come talk to us'.

Over the last decade I see 6 titles for the SEC, 3 for the Big 10 and 1 for the ACC. Oddly enough, don't see the Big 12 in there.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/a...onship-history

So NOW the measuring stick for conference success is Sagarin and not titles? Good to know.

Wanna post the Sag. Conf. ratings for the last 10 years now? We'll see how the SEC and Big 12 stack up against each other . . . . . . .

The middling team in a lesser conference is….Mizzou

You also lost to Tennessee by almost 40....

You figuring in the rasslin program into all of this? You done a deep dive on softball either???

You also lost to Texas by almost 40.....

We can do this all day.

You traded one orange overlord for another eh?

Mizzou is a middling team in the SEC. Can't argue that right now.

Kansas is at best (if we go ONLY by this years results and ignore the previous decade) a middling team in the Big 12.

Anyone who rationally thinks the Big 12 is a superior football conference to the SEC is a ****ing idiot and should be institutionalized.

All I know is most years since they left, the B12 has been between the West and East. Since they went to the East they actually ended up playing a weaker schedule most years.

Who’da predicted that?

Well, considering Mizzou's record since entering SEC is *checks notes* 5-6 vs. the Volunteers.

Kansas' record since Mizzou left SEC against Texas? 2-8

It does seem like one of us has a definitive "orange overlord".

Why do I need to reread? There’s really no way to spin Missouri as being on the rise since Drinks took over.

We don’t hide from the fact that KU was the worst P5 program for a decade. Stop hiding from Missouri’s reality, champ.

Wait, where did you read that?!

At one point it was REALLY clear the SEC was just better and deeper than every other conference out there.

Recent years though, I'm not so sure. And you can look back at bowl games and other ranked vs ranked games. I think Bama and Georgia skew it a ton, but after them, look at NYD Bowls where it's like 3rd in the SEC vs 3rd in the B12 or B1G, and there just isn't that huge gap people make it out to be.

And I could be wrong... IIRC, in the mid-2010s, they would be like 9-2 in bowls, but I think they were under .500 last year or recently.

It's like so many other things that get hyped up... the "greatest show on turf" WAS pretty great, yet the media was still calling them that like 3 years too late. The B1G was getting embarrassed in big bowl games for years before they stopped getting the benefit of the doubt. Same for Notre Dame.

I feel like the rest of the SEC outside of the top two has gotten weaker in recent years, but people still prop it up as some unbeatable conference because of those two teams.

Oh I agree that the gap isn’t as large as it once was, but it is still there. The SEC has come back to the pack a bit, but you can’t realistically hold the Big 12 up against the SEC when the last time the Big 12 had a Natty in football was, what, Texas in early 2000’s? (unless I’m missing one from Oklahoma since then)

The Big 12 has gotten better in football, no doubt, but it is still not at the level of the SEC. A big part of that is recruiting. The SEC just gets more of the top players. But that’s been the case for a long time. Even Mizzou recruiting has gotten a significant bump just from being in the SEC. That’s something you can sell to recruits. For purposes of exposure, NFL Draft attention, etc.

Need to photoshop


LOST 6 OF LAST 7

on to the sign Eli Dysfunction was holding.

nfm

Hahahahaha

LMAO

NIL lets everyone pay to play. Why go to bama and sit on the bench hoping you win a championship when you can start at Michigan State or Texas Tech and get paid to be the stud on the team?

Lol. Now that’s funny.

I have ZERO doubt that if that sign was available in the crowd, Drink would have found it and held it up.

Anybody who thinks that KU hasn’t improved dramatically since Leipold arrived is also an idiot. Know anybody with that opinion?

Interesting how you pick and choose which facts are relevant isn’t it?

One thing’s for sure…there isn’t nearly as large of a gap between the leagues as you homers like to think there is. Certainly not enough to belittle a team for being in the Big 12. The SEC has some strong teams at the top and a lot of mediocrity after. How often does Missouri even play a truly elite team like Alabama? Not very.

Btw, can you really claim to be a middling team if only 3 of 15 teams had a worse conference record?

You act like there’s a perfect system of determining a champ in CFB. It’s insanely flawed. Slightly better now with a playoff, but still very flawed. You’re relying on a committee of goofs to determine the four best teams in the nation. Who’s to say that a one loss SEC team is better than an undefeated or one loss team from another league? They give the top SEC teams the benefit of the doubt. You’re telling me their opinions carry a lot more weight than ranking systems? Why?

Preseason polls are just a killer with such a short season.

You can rank UNC #1 in CBB and if they kind of suck, they'll be gone in a few weeks or at the very worst when they hit non-con.

Football though, you assume 4 B1G and 6 SEC teams deserve to be ranked in the preseason and everything from that point forward is based on that ranking. Preseason rank Michigan State #15 for some reason. And then Purdue beats them in week 2.... well shit, Purdue must be pretty damn good, let's rank them! And then Purdue loses to unranked Indiana the following week... well shit, Indiana must be pretty decent, right?!?

Add to it a team like Ohio State not doing shit all season, but keeping their rank only because Michigan was highly ranked for reasons... or Bama being #1 by not playing anyone.

Not to say those teams aren't good, but it's all based on those assumptions made before the season started, and it's a huge domino effect that never really sorts itself out.

Of course, there's no great way around it, as you have to start somewhere... and they've tried computer rankings and what not.

I've always wanted 8 teams in a playoff and could see 12, where the top 4 get a bye and the other 8 are basically play-in games. Beats the current format of "assume Bama, Georgia, and OSU are amazing every year".

He should hold a sign that says I love Brady Cook long time.

Of course you can. Sagarin says so, and since Vegas bases their spreads on Sagarin’s predictor with abiut 95% alignment, they agree.


I looked up the last 7 years of his conf ratings (I figured you wouldn’t know how to). Here’s the yearly rating for each division:

2015 1. West 85.03 7. B12 75.28 9 East 72.55
2016 1. West 81.22 5. B12 75.86 8 east 73.17
2017 1. West 81.83 4. B12 78.45 9 east 72.41
2018 1. West 83.24 2. East 79.90 5. B12 77.35
2019 1. West 82.78 2 b12 79.52 4 east 77.61
2021 1. West 81.24 2. B12 78.70 6 east 75.11
2022 1. B12 81.09 2. West 80.80 3. East 79.83

Avg: West: 82.30 B12: 78.40 East: 75.43 (SEC Avg: 78.86

Net: over the last 7 years the avg SEC team is less than 0.5 points better than the avg B12.

Exactly. Those teams are basically handed playoff spots before the season begins and they just have to avoid screwing it up.

What a system!

Improved? Yes. Dramatically improved? Remains to be seen.

How often does Missouri play a truly elite team? Well, they play Georgia every year. Would you consider them truly elite? They play Bama about once every 3 years.

“Only 3 of 15 teams had a worse conference record” Interesting you chose to word it that way. First of all, there’s only 14 teams in the SEC. Secondly, only 7 SEC teams had a better conference record than Mizzou. There was a bunch of teams that finished 3-5 in conference, MIssouri being one of those. I would call that middling, along with several others. It’s not like they’re a bottom feeder like Vanderbilt (or Kansas for the last decade).

Georgia’s been really good the last 5-6 years. Before that they’d been unranked in 5 of the previous 8 years.

So you add one more loss to your record when you play Georgia once a year, and Alabama hangs a loss on you every 3-4 years. Wow, you’ve got it so rough! It’s not like KU plays Oklahoma every year and other top 10 teams.

Bragging about being in the SEC is such a joke at this point. Quit living vicariously through the accomplishments of a few much better programs. It would be like a TCU basketball fan bragging about KU’s accomplishments.

There’s isn’t a perfect system to determining a champion in ANY college sport. Basketball continually expands the field letting in more teams further watering down the field and allowing for ‘Cinderella’ teams to make deep runs in the tourney. And you hardly ever end up with the best 4 teams in college basketball in the Final Four. Heck, in just the last 5 years alone, we’ve seen two 11 seeds make the Final Four. A middling UCLA team that farted around all season in the PAC 12, barely squeezed into the field and then got hot at the right time. We’re they one of the 4 best college basketball teams in the country in 2021? Of course not. Did that matter? Nope.

And what about you guys? As a usual top 1-4 seed, you’ve been knocked out by the likes of Bucknell, Bradley, Northern Iowa, etc. Were they better teams than Kansas? Was their overall body of work for the whole season stronger than yours?

And as far as the college football playoffs and deserving to be there, this is what I know. It’s been going on for 8 years now. 4 times a Big 12 team made the final 4 (Oklahoma). Each time they went one and done. Didn’t matter if they were playing the SEC, ACC or Big 10. They promptly got booted out (usually in blowout fashion) And now your most consistent and strongest team year to year overall is leaving the Big 12 for the SEC (along with Texas), further shifting the balance of power towards the SEC.

The Big 12 is a superior conference in basketball, but they don’t measure up in football. On field results speak for themselves. And no ratings system is gonna convince anyone (besides Big 12 homers) otherwise.

Bama, Georgia, and OSU usually ARE the best teams every year. You know why? Because they get the best recruits. Look at how many Top 50 guys those programs pull in every year. Best talent usually equates to the best teams, just like in the NFL. There’s a reason the Chiefs are always a Super Bowl contender every year. They have a Mahomes. They have a Kelce. They have a Jones. Few teams can match that. And the ones that can (Bills, Bengals, for instance) are usually left standing there with them near the end in the playoffs.

So better. Got it.

How many Natty’s for the Big 12 in that time period? Or let’s go back 15 years? Now how many for the SEC?

I think you get the point now.

:rolleyes:

Bucknell and Bradley!

<div class="tenor-gif-embed" data-postid="13742445" data-share-method="host" data-aspect-ratio="1.71505" data-width="50%"><a href="https://tenor.com/view/secret-word-paul-rueben-peewee-gif-13742445">Secret Word GIF</a>from <a href="https://tenor.com/search/secret-gifs">Secret GIFs</a></div> <script type="text/javascript" async src="https://tenor.com/embed.js"></script>

No one’s bragging about the SEC. Just pointing out that they’re a better football conference than the Big 12. Not really sure how anyone could disagree with that. Sorry if it hurts your feels.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't mean it's true.

Of course there's no perfect system, but March Madness/NFL playoffs/etc give all high-level teams a chance. You can't say that there are only 4 high level teams in CFB each year. Therefore, terrible format. Especially given all the inherent biases.

In CBB, you don't lose your chance at a nat'l championship because your star player misses a game in the regular season, or because of a tough early season loss when you weren't playing your best ball. Or because some idiots just don't perceive you to be on the level of a few other teams.

UCLA is actually a better example of my point than yours. Here was a team that finished with a few more losses than the top teams (a couple of which were very fluky losses under wild circumstances) and they were perceived to play in a weak conference, so they were given an 11 seed by a subjective committee. Turned out the Pac-12 was far better than people realized and they dominated the tourney, with a lot of convincing wins over much higher-seeded teams. They were a way underrated conference and they proved it. And the best of them was UCLA. If not for a half-court prayer at the buzzer (vs one of the best teams in recent years), they'd have played for a national title. Anyone who says that UCLA didn't deserve to be there is foolish.

Now let's imagine if CBB used the same system as CFB. Last year's playoff selection would have been Gonzaga, Baylor, Arizona and KU. Only one of them even reached their regional final. Are you telling me that Baylor would have deserved it more than UNC? Baylor was a shell of what they were early on. And by any metric, UNC was playing as well as any team in the nation for the last month of the season. That SHOULD matter a lot more than what happened early in the year. You shouldn't be penalized for peaking at the right time. They mowed through the tourney field and had KU down 15 at halftime of the nat'l title game. Yet, in a 4-team playoff, they would have been about the 30th team considered.

And Duke was probably the most talented team in the country, yet they wouldn't have made the cut either. Gonzaga was an overrated team that was there more due to reputation than achievements. And Arizona was another slightly overrated team that feasted on a fairly weak schedule.

A four team system is a joke. Period. For a thousand reasons.

jfc im here to watch ku fans continue to cry about mizzou rejecting them for prom.... not read high school essays.

There’s been zero qualitative diff between the leagues for the last 7 years.


In fact, your “worst team of the decade” weighed down the B12 so much with their shitty play that even a bad team would’ve made the B12 better overall

Wasn’t advocating for college basketball to use the same system. Just pointing out that no system is perfect and each has their own inherent flaws. I think they should have kept CBB at 64 and quit watering it down by adding teams. Just makes it more likely that the best teams won’t be there in the end.

And I think college football is perfect with a 4 team playoff, but of course the NCAA has to go and **** that up too (expanding to 12 by 2026) so I guess you’re getting your wish there.

Georgia only has 3 appearances including this year and OSU is .500 in CFP games.

When it comes to Alabama, I totally get it and not trying to overstate the advantage and act like they wouldn't win it every other year anyway. I saw something a few years ago where they apparently had a depth chart of FIVE running backs that ended up as NFL starters (IIRC). It's ****ing insane.

But, look at Ohio State last season... they lost to Oregon (which vaulted OU like 9 spots into the top 5) and they were still in the final spot in the CFB before getting raped by Michigan, who was ranked #5 despite losing to the only ranked team they played all season. Then Ohio State has to pull off a miracle to beat a 4-loss Utah team.

Had they beaten Oregon, they still would have made the CFB to probably get brutalized by Alabama. And of course OSU has been destroyed multiple times in CFP games as well.

Does it matter a ton who gets brutalized by Alabama? Probably not some years. But, other years they aren't clearly the favorite, it might.

And during March Madness, coaches and kids are gaining experience in big games and it matters down the line as they become upper classmen.... in CFB, not nearly so much, because while Bama and OSU have years of that experience and just know how to win those games, other teams are left just hoping they'll slide in at #4 every several years... and they usually shit their pants.

Same reason Missouri wanted to join the SEC... to be the best, you want the experience of playing the best. Well, in CFB, that's a pretty damn short list and it just feeds the machine that is Alabama football.

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/g1yuxgumu6W8H7DZ3F" width="480" height="400" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/theoffice-episode-8-the-office-tv-g1yuxgumu6W8H7DZ3F">via GIPHY</a></p>

I couldn't care less if the SEC is best. I just think it's hilarious when people act like you're in the NFL while everybody else is playing FCS teams. It's so over the top and laughable. If you weren't one of them, you'd see how absurd it is.

As for how anyone could disagree....well, Sagarin currently disagrees, so there's your answer.

Btw, what does "better" actually mean?

I think most people agree that the SEC has been better at the top for a while now. Alabama is better than Oklahoma. Georgia in recent years has been better than any Big 12 team. But are the top teams all that matter? That seems to be all that people like you consider. Are the middle teams consistently better? Are the bottom-feeders better?

As we talked about, Missouri rarely even plays Alabama, and Georgia is one game on their schedule. Stop acting like you face murderer's row and everybody else has it easy.

This year, KU and MU both faced a team that made the playoff. They also both played another top 10 team. Plus another top 20 team. Each played three teams that finished in the final top 25.

Correct, no difference. Except recruiting success, major bowl appearances and, you know, that little thing people affectionately refer to as ‘natty’s’. But other than that, no difference.

And it’s not ‘my’ “worst team of the decade”. It is THE worst team of the decade. Less wins, by far, than any Power 5 team in FBS. Do I need to post the link yet again?

https://cfbsaturdays.com/most-wins-i...-years-mobile/

“Recruiting success”

Who cares? Wins and losses are all that matters

Mizzou will never win again, you guys are safe, no need to beat a dead horse.

Yeah, I generally hate Cinderella teams across all sports... it's a fun ride until they get so far, and then they typically fail spectacularly.

I think 12 makes sense assuming they give 1-4 byes and let 5-12 play in... I'd personally like to expand to 6 and give the top 2 byes and have always thought 8 was more than enough, but we'll see.

There are already plenty of blowouts, so I'm not sure this would actually make it a ton worse... we may just determine 5-12 is just as bad as the typical 4 seed.

I think it could have some advantages in the long run though as schools get more opportunities to play in meaningful games... the rest of the bowl system is a complete joke of meaningless games.

And I was just pointing out that it's silly to act like everyone has a fair chance in CFB. The BCS system was awful and I think the playoff is only slightly better.

Only one of the four 1 seeds in the '22 NCAA tourney belonged. How do we know that doesn't happen in CFB? There is no way to know, other than to allow more teams in.

There are too many teams in the NCAA tourney, but at least you know that every team with a viable chance has a shot.

Most of us agree that they were the worst Power 5 team for a decade. Which is why it's a little strange that you think posting 6 wins in a strong conference is only slight improvement. Doesn't add up...

Recruiting success is what leads to better talent which is what ultimately leads to better win-loss records.

You think it’s coincidence that the same teams (Alabama, Ohio St., Georgia, Clemson, etc.) are there at the end every single year?

It’s because they consistently pull in the best recruits year to year. It gives them a HUGE advantage over everyone else in the field.

Not sure how you can’t see that.

Yeah, unless your in the CFP or a New Years Six bowl, it really doesn’t matter. The rest of the bowls are pretty much meaningless. It’s just a money grab to get fans of schools to travel and for bowls and their corporate sponsors to peddle their products.

I guess the kids get a little SWAG so that makes it more bearable for them, although it’s getting to the point now where so many guys are opting out that’s it’s almost not even worth playing some of these games anymore. The team you see play in the bowl game is NOT the same team you saw during the regular season (due to injuries, injury concerns, opt outs, transfer portal, etc.)

SEC has dominated reciting forever. Why aren’t they producing better teams than the B12? The data clearly shows they aren’t.

But where do you draw the line?

Okay, CFB decides to expand to 12, but then there’s a group of teams muddled together after the Top 5 or so, how do you decide which teams get to go and which ones get left out in the cold? Generally, in college football, the Top 4 or 5 teams are gonna be the ‘best’ teams and the teams that deserve to have the opportunity to play for a championship. A team that is 9-3 and finished 3rd in its conference and finished ranked #12 on the season had a great year. But do they deserve to play for a Natty? IMO, hell no. But that’s what will be happening in the new ‘expanded’ playoff. And just wait till we start hearing all the crying from the #13 team and the #14 team and the (you get the idea). WE should have been in instead of the #11 team or the #12 team! It will get unbearable listening to all the bitching and complaining from fanbases, coaches, players, boosters, administrators, etc. So then we’ll eventually cave into the bitching and expand again! Yea. Now you’ve got an extremely watered down field of teams, most of which have NO business having the opportunity to play for a National Title getting the Oprah treatment. Eventually no one will care about the CFP if it heads that direction.

You can’t treat college football like college basketball. They’re different sports with different physical requirements that require different turnaround times for games, more significant injury risks. How many extra weeks you gonna take away from these kids forcing them to play all these additional games if they happen to be ‘lucky’ enough to be one of the chosen. Does anyone give a shit about potential injury risks to these kids, several of which will be playing on Sunday’s soon enough. I guarantee their parents do. And probably their agents. And hell, the kids themselves. ‘Gotta look out for me’. Can you blame them? So you’ll see ‘Star’ players pulling out of CFP games on a regular basis because who wants to risk a future career of millions and lifetime security for your family to satisfy an organization that wants to subject them to additional injury risk by playing a drawn out CFP that instead of only 2 games is now 4 games (and eventually more than that if they continue to expand, which they will). How do I know that? Because it’s all about money and at the end of the day the NCAA will make as much profit off these teams and players as they can because they don’t give a damn about what happens to them when they’re finished with college and ready to head off to their future NFL career. (or whatever they choose to do in life after football)

They’ll squeeze them for every last dime they can, damn the future consequences of those actions though.

Mark my words. Expanding the CFP will ultimately ruin college football and the players will end up being the collateral damage from it.

But the NCAA won’t give one flying ****.

And THAT’s why you keep it at 4. It’s fine the way it is.

The SEC has won 5 of the last 7 National Championships, 11 of the last 15. You know how many the Big 12 has won in that time period?

It would seem to me they ARE clearly producing better teams than the Big 12. If they weren’t, you would occasionally see a Big 12 team win a Natty. Or at least even play for one . . . . .

I like how your data doesn’t consider on the field results.

I think 12 would be a pretty good number, but I'm not pounding the table for any changes. Just saying it's silly to pretend like there are only 4 teams that have a legit chance to win it all.


A team that is 9-3 and finished 3rd in its conference and finished ranked #12 on the season had a great year. But do they deserve to play for a Natty?

Well, you have to look at a lot more than just their record. What if they have the best QB in the country, and only lost those games because he was injured half the year? Should they have a chance? What if they had a lot of new pieces or new coaches, and it took them awhile to hit their stride but they dominated down the stretch? What if they played a far harder schedule than some of the teams above them with 1 or 2 losses?

Can you imagine if a basketball season had only 12 games, some of which were against scrubs out of conference, and from that they selected 4 teams out of 363 to compete for a nat'l title? LOL. Do you think they'd "get it right" consistently? I don't think anybody has any clue of who the top 4 teams are in CBB right now. You might as well just draw names from a hat.

Again, you're focusing solely on a few teams at the top of a 14 team league. They might be better at the very top, but that doesn't make the league as a whole better. And it doesn't mean that Missouri is facing a gauntlet every year, while KU is facing nobodies.

There have been some years in Big 12 basketball in which KU was facing a ranked team in every other game, including teams in the top 10. If another league has only one ranked team, but that team wins the tournament, was their league better and was the conference slate tougher?

It's absolutely mind boggling why it's taken 100 years for CFB to take the money grab and expand the playoffs... I'll never understand it, even with the lack or parity.

And if it's taken this long, I don't know why anyone would be worried about it being a slippery slope... yeah, team #13 will bitch, but if you have 3 or 4 losses, it's mostly going to fall on deaf ears.

Hopefully it helps level the playing field (which would probably take decades)... and I do agree that expanding it too quickly would water it down.

And, again, you can’t compare college basketball to college football. They’re two entirely different sports with different variables, inherent injury risks, physical demands, recovery time, etc. 12 basketball games is not in any way equivalent to 12 football games so not even sure why you would make that analogy.

A chance? Well sure. Every team could have a ‘chance’. But we’re talking Dumb and Dumber odds here. So what you wanna do. Put every team in FBS (120 approx.) in one giant college football playoff that goes on for 6 months to determine a champion? That way everyone got a chance. That’s reeruned thinking.

Hell, while we’re at it, let’s just expand the NCAA Tourney to 363 teams, give them all a ‘chance’ and that way every one can feel good about their participation trophy and the fact they got a shot to play for a Natty. Nevermind the fact that 85 to 90 percent of them didn’t even deserve that chance in the first place. I mean, it’s dumb enough now that college basketball basically allows about 20% of their teams into the post season tourney with a ‘chance’ to play for a Natty.

I mean, I get WHY they do it ($$$$$$), but it’s still stupid.

TBT is so damn cringe. Ughhhh.

Would it surprise you to know that in the 11 Natty’s that the SEC has won in the last 15 years, 6 different teams have hoisted the Trophy. That’s damn near half the conference (and was before Mizzou and TAM joined in 2012). So it hasn’t just been a couple of the same teams dominating every year. The only exception to that rule is Alabama. But Alabama has had ‘down years’ (by their standards) and other SEC teams have stepped up in their place to compete for a Natty when that’s happened. Hell, even Mizzou would have had a shot to play for a Natty in 2013 had they been able to beat Auburn. They hung with them for 3 quarters of the SEC Title Game, but ran out of gas in the 4th. But they were that close. It’s the whole idea of a ‘rising tide will lift all boats’ in action.

And that’s mainly due to the talent difference between the SEC, as a whole, and other conferences. Which all goes back to recruiting. I think it’s funny that so many people wonder why the SEC has been a dominant force in college football for so long. Just look at the recruiting rankings. You think a team like Mizzou could pull in a Top 15 class (and they did just that in 2022) in any other conference outside of the SEC? Fat chance.

Of the Top 20 recruiting classes in 2022, the SEC had 9 of them. The next closest was the ACC with 4, then the Big 10 with 3, the Big 12 with 2, PAC 12 with 1 and Notre Dame.

And that tells the story of why the SEC is ALWAYS playing for a Natty at the end of a season (often 2 teams). Because they play more talented teams in conference throughout the season.

It’s really not all that surprising.

Welp, I said I would stop posting in this thread after today and I’m a man of my word (yes, I realize it’s technically after midnight).

To all you Beakers: it’s been fun going back and forth the last week. Good luck to your football team against Arkansas (likely a loss) and your basketball team (likely a whole bunch of wins) going forward. It’s been real.

See you in the other threads. TBT out.

Dodging KU just like Coach Drink.

Wait, you’re saying that any team outside of the four in the playoff would have extremely low odds? Are you serious? Did you forget that Alabama didn’t make it? All because they lost to a good team on the road by 1 point in OT.

TCU finished with a great record but they don’t scare me any more than a handful of other Big 12 teams right now. They had the benefit of playing a weak non-con and barely escaped in several games. And they just lost to K-State. Who’s to say that K-State wouldn’t have a better chance of advancing in the playoff?

Every year there’s controversy regarding teams that didn’t make the cut. It’s ridiculous to act like all the other teams face astronomical odds.

Gregggg was a good coach, terrible person. Once players realized it, they started leaving in droves. If not for a couple guys he lucked out on, Gregggg would just be considered another in a long line of good for mid major coaches.

Congrats on winning the Orange Bowl!


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MIZZOU BASKETBALL IS BUILT DIFFERENT THIS YEAR <a href="https://t.co/XUXPQlwrzi">pic.twitter.com/XUXPQlwrzi</a></p>&mdash; Jack Parodi (@jack_parodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/jack_parodi/status/1604194700595826688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 17, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Mizzou lost their bowl game and for some reason it’s reignited the hate between our proud institutions. What better thread to settle scores than this one.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Mizzou?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Mizzou</a> would’ve beaten <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Kansas?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Kansas</a>. <a href="https://t.co/6oGkRGV7vN">pic.twitter.com/6oGkRGV7vN</a></p>&mdash; Message Board Geniuses (@BoardGeniuses) <a href="https://twitter.com/BoardGeniuses/status/1606492584578351105?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 24, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Will drop this in here too.

so, you guys any good this year?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It’s only right that TRob is getting his jersey retired this Saturday against Mizzou <a href="https://t.co/xjsKwtW4Kd">pic.twitter.com/xjsKwtW4Kd</a></p>&mdash; Aint No Seats Podcast (@AintNoSeatsPod) <a href="https://twitter.com/AintNoSeatsPod/status/1731842243420463184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>