I don't fundamentally have a problem with you putting Missouri where they are. There are, after all, 8 ranked SEC teams ahead of them in the polls. But to say they're not a good football team? That's ridiculous. When they beat BC, people said, well maybe BC just wasn't that good. And when they beat Vandy, they said Vandy wasn't that good. No, they don't have an elite win, but good teams beat bowl teams, and Missouri has already beaten 3-4 likely bowl teams and played a top 30 strength of schedule. The defense that you say is not good is 16th in scoring defense and top 10 in total defense. Perhaps that's why this level of analysis is better picked up by the bigger channels. Just, you know, basic research. As for the eye test, have you actually watched them or just looked at the scores? Some of the close games were not that close on that field. And losing to Texas A&M and Alabama on the road isn't exactly a grand indictment on the face of it. Plus, there were extenuating circumstances. We lost our starting QB in the first quarter at Alabama, and the defense that you say is not good held Alabama pretty well in check for the first half of that game despite our backup QB being an interception machine. The only real ding against the defense was Texas A&M, which was admittedly humbling. I would point out, that A&M did the ole switcharoo at QB at the last minute. We prepared for one scheme (running QB) and they came out with another. LSU knows something about that too. And A&M had some very close calls that probably makes that a more competitive game in the first half. I'm not suggesting we would have won that game. A&M's D-line dominated our front after all. But a pass interference flag getting picked up and a lineman about 4 yards downfield negating a TD are momentum swinging plays. That "eye test" you talk about looks very different if we have a competent QB at Alabama and is 21-10 (maybe closer, we were physically in that game) and A&M is 33-17 instead of an embarrassment.
I don't fundamentally have a problem with you putting Missouri where they are. There are, after all, 8 ranked SEC teams ahead of them in the polls. But to say they're not a good football team? That's ridiculous. When they beat BC, people said, well maybe BC just wasn't that good. And when they beat Vandy, they said Vandy wasn't that good. No, they don't have an elite win, but good teams beat bowl teams, and Missouri has already beaten 3-4 likely bowl teams and played a top 30 strength of schedule.
The defense that you say is not good is 16th in scoring defense and top 10 in total defense. Perhaps that's why this level of analysis is better picked up by the bigger channels. Just, you know, basic research.
As for the eye test, have you actually watched them or just looked at the scores? Some of the close games were not that close on that field. And losing to Texas A&M and Alabama on the road isn't exactly a grand indictment on the face of it. Plus, there were extenuating circumstances. We lost our starting QB in the first quarter at Alabama, and the defense that you say is not good held Alabama pretty well in check for the first half of that game despite our backup QB being an interception machine.
The only real ding against the defense was Texas A&M, which was admittedly humbling. I would point out, that A&M did the ole switcharoo at QB at the last minute. We prepared for one scheme (running QB) and they came out with another. LSU knows something about that too. And A&M had some very close calls that probably makes that a more competitive game in the first half. I'm not suggesting we would have won that game. A&M's D-line dominated our front after all. But a pass interference flag getting picked up and a lineman about 4 yards downfield negating a TD are momentum swinging plays. That "eye test" you talk about looks very different if we have a competent QB at Alabama and is 21-10 (maybe closer, we were physically in that game) and A&M is 33-17 instead of an embarrassment.