Sec

[ozark trout fisher]

I won't waste one single word talking about how I wish we hadn't moved to the SEC. It's not a thought that matters to me anymore, and honestly, there have been plenty of good things about Mizzou's new conference this year. I've legitimately enjoyed weird, random matchups against teams like Georgia, Vanderbilt, and Florida. It's kind of like playing 12 non-conference games a year in football, and 30 in basketball. The rivalries might not be there, but it's exciting enough, at least for now.

But anyway, in terms of basketball and football, Missouri is done with with it's first year in the conference. It wasn't a disaster, but I don't think it went how any of us had hoped. Football of course was the worse of the two. I would say we swung back and forth from very competitive to total SEC doormat, depending mostly on who was injured that week. There were just enough glimpses of hope (especially when we were one stop on fourth and long from bowl eligibility against Syracuse) to make it really sting when the season ended 5-7.

But to me basketball was actually more painful. That was when we were supposed to pay back all of the teams that had destroyed us in football, where we were supposed to win a conference championship or at least come really close. That this didn't happen had to be the biggest disappointment of the sports season for me, even including football. It really looked good too. 11-2 coming into conference play, wins over Illinois and VCU, as good as anyone in the conference. Florida looked like a threat, but Missouri looked better. But then Laurence Bowers went down against Alabama. We played poorly while he was out, but for whatever reason, Missouri never truly rebounded even when he came back. There were plenty of highlights, my favorite being the huge home win over Florida (probably the one that put this team in the tournament) but I don't think anyone saw so many road losses coming. By the time the tournament came around, I'm not sure even how disappointed anyone was with the first round loss, because after all, we were only a 9 seed. But to be ranked #7 early in the season (however unfair that may have been) and see that happen is something else entirely. And then to lose the vast majority of your team to graduation/NBA/transfer, well that doesn't feel great.

So in short, I don't know how I'll remember Missouri's first year in the SEC. I guess we have to hope this was just a year of growing pains. I do think the football program will be fine, but I'm a little more worried about where basketball is headed.

[Al Agnew]

A lot of people are calling for the heads of both Haith and Pinkel, after one season in the SEC. Some of the things they don't realize is that it's a tougher venue for the players and coaches to come into a new conference. New hotels, locker rooms, procedures. New teams with no first hand experience from the year before. You can overcome that, as Texas A@M mostly did in football, but you have to be healthy and confident. Mizzou, in my opinion, was neither. In football, not only was the offensive line decimated, but Franklin was never healthy the whole year. In basketball, not only was there Bowers' injury (and even before, and after he came back, he really wasn't a confident player, too worried about the knees), but at different times Bell, Ross, and Criswell were hurt.

So I give the coaches a pass on this year. And...I think people have an inflated idea of SEC football. Yes, there are three or four teams that always seem to be as good or better than anybody in the country, but the rest of the league is no better than the Big 12 or Big 10. And those three or four teams will not always be the best in the country, at least not at the same time. I'm confident Mizzou can compete, but the margin for error is small...you must have more depth than Mizzou had last year, and eventually your recruiting must step up a notch if you are ever going to threaten for the conference championship. I'd say that two years in a row without a bowl bid, and Pinkel WILL be on the hot seat, so he'd better hope for fewer injuries, a healthy Franklin or one of the other quarterbacks stepping up, and better coaching (which, with Yost gone, is quite possible).

I have no idea about basketball next year. There are a couple of possible replacements for Pressey at point guard, but one is not a true point guard and the other will be a freshman. They have possibly a pretty decent new big man coming in, and you have to hope that Criswell will be solid, Rosburg will be improved, and Jankovic will learn how to play defense. And mainly, you have to hope that they'll play as a team, and not a bunch of guys standing around watching Pressey. It will be a rebuilding year, but I suspect if they regress from this year, and especially if they don't make the tournament, Haith will also be on the hot seat.

I think there is definitely going to be a great rivalry between Mizzou and Arkansas in basketball. But they are going to have to prove they can beat good teams to even start up a good rivalry in football.

[On The Fly 6]

Arkansas went 4-8 and that made me grin from ear to ear! I wish Mizzou luck in the sec. I was sad to see them leave the big 12, but I could understand the reasoning behind it. I didn't care too much about Colorado or A&M, but Mizzou and Nebraska leaving sucks because it eliminated some great rivalries in football and bball.

[joeD]

It doesn't matter anymore. Conference affiliation- Gone. School rivalries- a thing of the past. Player and coach loyalty- non-existent. The world of college basketball and football can be directly correlated, and directly reflects, the world of Wall Street and big business, and the self-interest and lack of any moral or ethical empathy that that world embraces. We have created "empires" of colleges and their athletic programs. Ideals of sportsmanship, fair play, and "collegiality" are ground to the earth under the boot of monetary greed. To our nations peril, colleges and universities are no longer within reach of most Americans. The monster of keeping up with the sporting Jones' must be fed, or else be left in the educational dust.

So, when it comes to Mizzou, or SLU, I just don't care anymore where or who or why they play where they do. It doesn't matter. If that's your team, cheer them on. Just pretend they're Goldman Sachs. Or Bank of America. They'll break our hearts while taking our money.

[ozark trout fisher]

I agree that the Arkansas rivalry will be fun in basketball, but as much as the SEC folks talk about it, I'm starting to wonder if it will ever happen in football. Let's get it on the schedule, foks. They're our "permanent rival" but our first four SEC west opponents will be A&M (twice), Ole Miss, and Alabama. And no official word that the Razorbacks will actually ever be on the schedule. Really????

For all of the talk otherwise, I think it's looking like the Aggies are our real "rival" in the west. No offense to Razorback fans, but with Manziel maybe at A&M for three more years, I don't think I like that idea much.

[Quillback]

Yep I agree, a Mizzou vs Hogs annual football game would be a great thing and create that rivalry atmosphere. Currently the "official" AR rivalry game is with LSU for the boot, but I just don't sense that heated rivalry feeling, especially from LSU. It's just a manufactured rivalry IMO.

[ozark trout fisher]

A bit off topic, but I took my first real look at Mizzou's 2013 schedule. I like the way it looks, honestly. Unlike last season, we get all four of the non-conference games done at the start of the year-and there's a really good chance we'll be 4-0 at that point. The only really easy game is at home against Murray State, but you wouldn't think they would lose to Arkansas State or Toledo either. Indiana on the road is probably the biggest question mark, but they haven't been a bowl team in awhile. It's not inconceivable that it could be a loss, but I really think that heading into the SEC this team should be 4-0.

But after that there's 4 straight games where Mizzou will probably be significant underdogs. And yes, that includes a road game at Vanderbilt-obviously not an easy win these days as they're coming off winning 9 games. That also includes South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia, and I don't need much of an explanation there. It's just a terribly brutal way to open in the SEC. So unless things go fairly unexpectedly (and of course, there's a great chance they will, Mizzou would be 4-4, and 0-4 in the SEC. If that does happen, it's about whether the team can handle 4 straight losses and hold together. Because if they can, there would be plenty of opportunities to grab 2 or 3 more wins and get to bowl eligibility. Missouri is likely to be favored at home against Tennessee and on the road at Kentucky. A road game at Ole Miss will be tough, but unless their recruiting class is incredibly productive in year one, that should be winnable also.

So if Mizzou stays healthy and doesn't let the rough midseason schedule get to them, they probably have a much better opportunity to make a little noise this year than last season. Bowl eligibility should be expected. I think that they will end up 6-6 or 7-5, but I do think 8-4 is possible if they can pull just one big upset. It's also (remotely) possible that they could get beaten down in October and never really recover. But I wouldn't count on that happening again-it's just not a trend for Gary Pinkel teams.

[Quillback]

I'm not a fan of a team starting off with a cupcake schedule then jumping into the SEC dogfight, Arkansas has been doing that the last couple of years and it seems that this sets you up for failure. I think a team needs to play at least one good opponent so you get a chance to see where the holes are and hopefully make some adjustments if needed, get off to a bad start in the SEC and next thing you know, you're hoping your team can qualify for some bowl in El Paso.

[ozark trout fisher]

I'm not a fan of a team starting off with a cupcake schedule then jumping into the SEC dogfight, Arkansas has been doing that the last couple of years and it seems that this sets you up for failure. I think a team needs to play at least one good opponent so you get a chance to see where the holes are and hopefully make some adjustments if needed, get off to a bad start in the SEC and next thing you know, you're hoping your team can qualify for some bowl in El Paso.

I agree with you in principle, but the problem is, it was one of those tough non-conference opponents that cost Mizzou a bowl game last year. While everyone else was playing cupcakes late in the season we had to schedule a tough Syracuse team instead, and lost a heartbreaker. So maybe scheduling tough non-conference opponents just isn't always the right thing to do, especially when your goal is probably more like 7-5 or 8-4, not winning the national championship. Plus, there are a couple teams on the schedule that should push Mizzou at least a little, especially Toledo and Indiana, and maybe against Arkansas State. If Mizzou doesn't come out and play well, any of those three teams could get the win. So it's not like it's four creampuffs and then the SEC. They'll be challenged early in the season, it's just that they probably shouldn't actually lose. Of course, anything can happen though.

[ozark trout fisher]

I went to the spring game today....if you watched it let's hope you are a fan of defense. The offense looked really crisp for the 2-3 possessions where James Franklin was in the game (given how he performed much better than any other QB and then was benched made me think that maybe the coaching staff had seen enough to consider him the starter, but I could be totally wrong.) But when Maty Mauk and Corbin Berkstresser were in the game it didn't look great. I think they had two picks each, Mauk's coming one right after the other. Mauk did show that he can really run. There weren't many QB runs because if a QB was touched he was down, but still Mauk broke off for a couple of 20-30 yard gains. He didn't look great passing it, though. He really has a tendency to throw it into tough spots where he can get picked off. Berkstresser had one really good deep pass, but like Mauk had two picks, though only one was his fault. But we've seen a lot of Berkstresser so I don't need to say much. He looked about the same as last year. He has a great arm and can make any throw, but the accuracy isn't elite and he isn't the runner that either of the other options are. I would be a bit surprised if he won the job. He could be a good quarterback, but I'm just not sure he's the best fit for Missouri's spread.

Honestly, our defense looked good, but it was hard to know how much of that had to do with our offense. Like I said earlier, based on what I saw I'm guessing Franklin is the fairly entrenched starter. But I could be completely off. The other interpretation was that Mauk and Berkstresser played more because they are really the main contenders. I just don't think that's the case, though.