They already broke the record? Impressive. Wonder what the longest Big 8 losing streak was.

Miss is 24th in Sagarin and Texas is 31st so it's hardly an upset. Miss is nowhere near the bottom teams of that league this year.

Texas is behind 4 League teams in Sagarin and barely ahead of 2 others so they're really nowhere close to being at the top of the League in reality. If Texas wins the League he'll have a point.

Extremes? There's nothing to argue about that. KU was a top-7 team in 2007 by any measure you want to use. There's no middle ground to even debate unless you argue whether they were 2nd best or 7th best. (If that's what you're arguing my apologies in advance)

Kansas was a top seven team, yes. That doesn't mean criticisms of their schedule were completely unfounded.

why are we talking about 2007?

It's that or basketball. /KUfan

You labeled Ole Miss a bottom feeder, not anyone else.

Where Texas ranks in Sagarin means nothing, they are at the top of the standings of the Big 12, and that trumps any computer rating.

Your dependence on Sagarin above all else is just foolish. Last time I checked, the best team in the league is determined by Won/Loss record.

Well that'll be hard to determine when there are multiple teams tied who haven't played yet. I'll take Baylor to finish higher, you taking Texas?

Because Mizzou is sorta emulating them this year, and I'm interested to see if all the criticisms about not beating ranked teams and avoiding beasts in te other division are as true today as in 2007.

We have more wins against ranked teams this year than Kansas had in 2007.

Prove it.

2>1

Feel free to check the math on a computer.

You would be, like always, incorrect.

Reminds you of Raider fans talking trash about things they did in previous decades, doesn't it.

Mizzou has beaten ranked teams this year.

Weird that Wisconsin isn't even top 25 considering that Sagarin has them #8.

Mizzou would only have to go through Florida, Georgia, South Carolina back-to-back-to-back and then play aTm and possibly Alabama. What a soft schedule...

True, just not as many as KU did.

We get it, you lost to us head to head, finished 3rd in the conference even without playing the traditional powers, bought a bowl berth with ticket guarantees that maybe are still being paid off, and you are still hanging on to that for dear life

The only team ku beat in the regular season, that was ranked at the time they played, was K-State.

23 games, I believe. K-State. KU broke that with their 24th straight loss.

KSU actually has a 27 game "non-winning" streak IIRC. Thankfully they tied KU a couple times during that run.

heh

Not sure if you realize this or not, but comparing NCAA schedules to nfl schedules is a slight bit different.

LMAO

Good call on that gambling thread, btw.

I didn't see your prediction anywhere.

I think this is the year Mizzou finally gets above the Alamo Bowl.

Always good to have goals.

I think this is the year Kansas finally wins a conference game. Next year could be a step back, though.

LMAO

Kansas has won plenty of conference games in their past.

We're talking about goals schools in the area have never accomplished.

This is why we're all pulling for the Tigers.

We've won the Orange Bowl and the Sugar Bowl. Thanks, though.

Bleacher Report did a nice piece on the top ten Mizzou bowl wins of all time. No word on when they will do one for Kansas, but it seems unlikely to be any time soon given the fact that Kansas has six wins in their 120+ year history.

One bowl win every two decades isn't really very good...even for a basketball school.

You weren't even alive then dork.

But I read about it on a computer, so you can trust me.

That's the joy about being a Mizzou fan: anything good that ever happened, you weren't alive to actually see it.

Mizzou won the Sugar Bowl and a Florida player still took home the MVP.

The disrespect was alive and well even in 1966.

Unlike your compatriot, Mizzou fans will take the win.

Took the day off, and every I've I turn on the radio, television, or computer...there's Mizzou.

Mizzou football history wrapped up in one singular gif:

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view7/413...all-kick-o.gif

God love you, bitch. You haven't had a bullet in your gun in years, but you keep pulling the trigger expecting to fire a kill shot. You're like the bad guys in Superman who wind up throwing the gun at him.

Perhaps the most heated discussion point of the BCS era in college football has been the ebb and flow of conference realignment. Teams have changed conferences at a frantic rate in pursuit of greater exposure and better rankings. While fans and purists alike have dreaded the loss of traditional conference rivalries like Texas-Texas A&M, Oklahoma-Nebraska, and Missouri-Kansas, numbers suggest that the moves have largely paid off for the conferences. For example, the Southeastern Conference (SEC) home of the last seven National Championships, and already quite a popular conference in its own right, saw its number of television viewers go up by 21 percent (nearly three million new viewers) between 2011 and 2013. The difference? The conference added Texas A&M and Missouri (and their home television markets of Houston, St. Louis and Kansas City) in 2012. Similarly, the Big Ten’s addition of Nebraska as it’s twelfth team in 2011, has seen the number of weekly viewers of the Big Ten Network grow by 40 percent from 2010 to 2013 (nearly 1 million new viewers).

Unfortunately the numbers can work the other way as well. Since 2011 the Big 12 has lost Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri to other conferences. Despite replacing them with Texas Christian University (TCU) and West Virginia, the league has seen its total number of TV viewers drop by 23 percent, more than 2 million pairs of eyes in a given year.

Even with the end of the BCS this year, the conference realignment carousel will continue to spin. Pittsburgh & Syracuse join the ACC this year, with Louisville set to follow them in 2014. Maryland and Rutgers will join the Big Ten next year as well. What impact will they have on both the conference and national landscape? Only time will tell.

SOURCE: Scarborough Multi-Market Study, Release 1, 2013

Wait. Now it's just that the bottom of the league 'this year' should be beating the top?

Hell, you didn't just whiff on Saul's point, you whiffed on Stoops as well. That or Stoops is as stupid as you are.

Of course the worst teams in a conference shouldn't be beating the best teams on any given year, if that's happening than the top of the conference is shit.

His point is that it's the same 3-4 schools at the bottom every year getting waxed by the teams at the top. Meanwhile, 2 of those historically poor teams (Ole Miss and Vandy) just knocked off 2 of those historically elite ones. With a 3rd that you fellas in the Big Whatever desperately want to be a bottom dwellar also knocking off an historically elite program.

As for KU as a top 7 team in 2007 - maybe. But they only played 1 team better than them that year and that team beat them on a neutral field. And KU was rewarded for losing that game. Cry Sagarin all you want, but the scoreboard controls - in KU's best season, MU beat them straight up, won the division over them and was simply a better team. But congrats on Lew Perkins, dude did a great job of buying you a bowl bid.

Ouch, the conference gets stronger by losing Nebraska, A&M, and Missouri and tv ratings drop by 23%? Tough break.

I'm sure the Big 12 ratings will improve this year. West Virginia and TCU are really starting to prove themselves worthy of majorbring conference membership...each of them being 3-4 and all...

Plus...you know...they bring a lot to the table once basketball with their combined 24 wins last year. Mizzou only had 23.

Kind of funny really...

Mizzou has a total of 30 wins this year in football and last season in basketball...the same as TCU and WVU combined.

Of course, the number of teams concurrently dropped by 14.3% so the net is only 8.7%. And likely none of it due to losing Colorado or Mizzou.


I don't think losing Nebraska and ATM was ever good for TV viewers.

The teams the Big 12 lost cost them a disproportionately large number of viewers. The teams the SEC added a disproportionately large number of viewers.

Right, ATM was a game changer. Nobody should argue against that point.

Nobody is. The Big 12 got raped...but the teams threw a wad of crumpled up money at it as they walked out the door, and that was good enough.

It didn't seem to matter to Fox Sports, and of course Mike Slive decided to partner with the Big 12 afterwards anyway so the only people still whining about this are the Mizzouchebags.

I'm sure the gap won't be widening at all with the advent of the SEC Network next year.

Why wouldn't Slive set up bowls with the Big 12? It's been a decade since a Big 12 team won the Cotton Bowl.

Big 12 co-champion against the fifth place SEC team? 28 point win for the SEC.

Are you just parroting what you read on Mizzou boards or do you actually know the numbers?

Of course. It's still going to be a good football league w/ a good product when OU and Tx are up which is more years than not.

This year is a worst case scenario for the Big 12 and highlights on the field how expansion has hurt the league depth wise when it's cowbells aren't up.

Seems like you're the only one here who spends time on Mizzou boards.

So that's a no. I suspected as much.

So.......you think the SEC schools will be making less money with the new network than they are now?

Wofford
Buffalo
Louisiana Monroe
West Virginia
KSU
Iowa State
Kansas (this week)

Wow

Their opponents have more losses to FCS schools than wins against BCS schools.

LOL @ anyone associated w/ Bill Simmons trying to talk to me about college football.

There's like 4-5 guys at the 4 letter that know enough about the sport to listen to & the rest are pro sports honks that babble off box scores & casual perception devoid of insight.

His 90210 podcast is legendary though. Pure gold.

Interesting. I would have thought losing 38-0 to Maryland would have been more damaging than losing by 31 to Baylor. I mean...at least they scored 42 points against Baylor.

I guess it's like choosing which rape was worse.

Mizzou fans don't get to talk about soft schedules this year.

True. Other than Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Texas A&M, and possibly Alabama, we only play a few bowl teams.

Simple minded national mediots getting all caught up in shiny gadgets IE offense. Same thing happened last yr after the Baylor/WVA game w/ no one paying any attn to the fact that neither one of em play any defense.

Now this yr Baylor appears to be pretty good and honestly I wouldn't want to play them but the jury's out until they play someone w/ a pulse to see if they can stop anyone. Was that Kstate game a blip or a harbinger?

It's the only game they've played on the road all year.

Hey Bitch...what does Sagarin say about Baylor's schedule versus Mizzou? I can tell you whose is harder, but I know you need a computer to tell you.

Yeah, nothing is more interesting than the perennial Bama-LSU field goal fest. Thank God I don't watch a minute of that shit. 9-6 OT game? Knock yourself out Warpaint.

You'll have to forgive the SEC if they don't tailor their games to the tastes of Kansas football fans. No wonder you like Baylor so much. If you just look at the scores, you can pretend you're watching basketball.

Who you play is always a factor

Not taking that into account is silly & will lead a person to all sorts of erroneous conclusions

Mississippi State started 7-0 last year and they sucked. One of the worst 8 win teams from a major conference that you could find. Why? B/C their schedule was back loaded. They dodged the East heavies and got hammered by the three SEC elite teams they played and lost by 17 to a 4th (Ole Miss). I would venture to say that Mizzou in our broken down state could have beaten them.

As down as the Big 12 appears to be Baylor has yet to play any of the big boys and has already struggled w/ one of the little ones. While I think Baylor is probably pretty good I'm not certain of it and in no way do I think they are elite from a national perspective.

Everything you just wrote applies to Mizzou as well. The SEC-E isn't very good this year.

I'm not really getting into taste in terms of style of play. Just that points scored doesn't necessarily = ability. Nor does a lack of points scored. Which is part of the reason why figuring this stuff out can be as difficult as it is at times.

That's an entirely different conversation altogether.

Mizzou has wins against five teams who are better than anyone Baylor has played this year...and the closest margin was 15...with two of them being on the road.

The concept should be applied to anyone.

To your point the East is a shell of itself due in large part to Fla & GA being gutted by injuries. We're going to find out a lot about MU this weekend & against aTm & OM. On the extreme end if the Tigers lose or win all of those games our season will be viewed in dramatically different ways as will our wins over UGA & Fla by virtue.

You would agree though that those LSU-Bama games are horrible. Right?


As for Baylor, they're ranked ahead of Mizzou in Sagarin. We'll see how it all plays out in the end. Maybe they both suck, maybe they're both great. But Baylor can score on anybody in the country. Even ATM scored 40 on Alabama.

5!? That's a reach.

Anyone want to bet that the SEC East doesn't have more players drafted this year than the entire Big 12?

That 9-6 game wasn't particularly well played IIRC. But they were the two best teams in the country that yr & I prefer it to a 70-63 pillow fight between what was ultimately a couple of 5-6 loss also rans.

If we're talking about style a low scoring & a high scoring game can both be well played or not so much. I would say I prefer good football to bad football regardless of whether it's low or high scoring. All those things being equal I would like more scoring than 5 fg's for sure.

If we are talking about Mizzou vs Baylor I think that game in a bowl would be very competitive & am not sure who would win although I'd pick Mizzou b/c I'm skeptical of Baylor's defense & think MU would get to the QB enough to slow them down in what would still be a high scoring game.

In a few weeks we should have a better handle on that.