This exchange took place Tuesday--I almost forgot to post it...have been a little distracted this week...you'll probably understand later this evening...
1) In the Big 12...what the hell happened last weekend??
2) What the hell happens now??
3) Rank the teams in the North. I dare you. And then I double-dog dare you to explain yourself.
4) Make your predictions for this week: NU @ MU, KU @ KSU, UT vs OU, OSU @ ATM, ISU @ TT, CU @ BU.
Bonus) How many days until Dennis Franchione resigns?
---
The Beef: In the Big XII last weekend, um….I did not see much of it. From what I can tell, OU had a freshman play like a freshman, and the Longhorns displayed worse special teams than the St. Louis Rams of a year ago and just could not get it done at home. I have said it before, Ron Prince, though having few other people’s numbers, seems to have Mack Brown’s. I think OU rebounds this week since I think UT may finally be exposed like some thought they might be early in the season. In the end, I think it just means that OU runs away with the south and UT comes back to the pack a little bit, which may or may not hurt my personal aspirations of the MU getting to the Cotton Bowl this year.
Well, as I said, I think OU ends up winning the south by a few over a couple of teams. As for the north, it is an elimination style weekend I think with MU/NU and kSU/kU. Winners are much better off and losers are going to struggle to come back from it unless another crazy weekend happens. I think ISU is really pretty bad, and I think while it was a good win for CU and they wont get blown out of games, I think they will still lose enough to come in 5th.
6. ISU, 5. CU, 4. kU (but I think they still finish the season well and make a bowl) , 3. NU, 2. kSU, 1. MU (I think my predictions for the weekend may be bleeding through here a bit) As for my explanation….yeah…I think kU does not quite get it done on the road and I think we win this weekend setting these rankings in motion. I could see NU and kSU flopping during the season, but if Okie State has figured out their offense, I think NU will struggle to keep them from scoring as much as I hope/believe we will.
I think MU by 10-14, kSU in a squeaker, OU by a good amount, OSU to go in and “upset” aTm who has had a helluva week, TT all over ISU and Baylor beating Colorado.
90 days…just after the first of the year I believe for Coach Fran.Michael Atchison: 1) (1) The world spun off its axis; (2) Texas is good, but not single-digit ranking good; (3) Oklahoma built a lead and then started dreaming about next week; and (4) Kansas and Colorado made plays on defense. The Cats beat Colt McCoy to a a pulp, and CU linebacker Jordon Dizon was all over the field in the fourth quarter.
ZouDave: 1 - Well, see, what happened was....um....it uh....we....Go Tigers? I don't know what happened last weekend, but I do know that the Mizzou/Nebraska game is no longer the de facto Big XII North Championship game because ksu and Colorado each picked up a win there was just NO WAY they were going to get. And when you consider that Missouri, the team picked to win the North and the team favored in the game against Nebraska, has to travel to BOTH ksu and CU, then the North just got a lot cloudier. And the South got smacked in the mouth, and I love it.
2) How should I know? I said there was a 0% chance that either K-State or Colorado would win on Saturday. Now, it's a free-for-all. The Kansas/KSU and Missouri/Nebraska games are huge. The losers of those games are going to need help if they hope to advance to San Antonio.
3)
1. Missouri - Because I'm a homer
2. Kansas State - Because they have the division's best win, hands down.
3. Kansas - Because they've gone all Ali-Wepner on their opponents.
4. Colorado - Because they're too mercurial for me to believe in - yet.
5. Nebraska - Because they haven't been impressive in a month.
6. Iowa State - Because they already won their one game.
4) Missouri 45 Nebraska 34
K-State 24 Kansas 21
Oklahoma 38 Texas 14
Texas A&M 27 Oklahoma State 20
Texas Tech 946 Iowa State 14
Colorado 23 Baylor 16
Bonus) That guy has made himself radioactive as a coach. Having a vagabond heart and a crushing lack of judgment is a bad combo. The rumor was he'd be gone by today, and having no other clue, I'll go with that.
2 - This weekend will unmuddy the waters a bit. There will be a clearer pecking order after Saturday, because every team in the North will have played and many of them will have played each other. We'll know more about ku after Saturday than we know after their first 4 games, we'll know if ksu means business this year or if it's just that Prince owns Brown, and we'll know if Missouri is at least serious about being the team we think they are. As for what actually happens? My rankings will probably indicate that.
3 -
#6 - Iowa State. The only easy answer. Iowa State is worse than last year. They shouldn't have won a game in the conference last year, and now they're worse. Is it possible for them to go 0-9? If it is, they'll do it. Awful team. Just horrible.
#5 - kansas. ku is clearly better this year than last, and I think they're clearly better than I gave them credit for. We still have no idea how good, and their fluffy fresh schedule so far this year did NOT harden them and their alarm clock is going off but they want to continue to hit snooze. ku will be 3-5 in conference this year, because there's not a road game on their schedule that looks good for them and I obviously don't like them in the game at Arrowhead. Much like last year, ku will probably be close in games but I still don't think they're quite good enough to pull them out. But this is definitely a bowl team, and it appears they'll have a nice foundation to build from after this.
#4 - Nebraska. This will be a tie-breaker thing. I had Nebraska picked 5-3 in the conference before the season started, but now I'm giving the nod to Colorado over them based on new information. Their passing game just isn't good enough and their defense sure isn't good enough. Their running game is probably good enough, but a good running game only gets you multiple wins when it's combined with a good defense. Nebraska is going to get beaten a few times this year by teams they don't like losing to. And they're going to lose at home to Texas A&M, who will run for approximately 861 yards against them.
#3 - Colorado. Where did this come from? Even I said before the season that Colorado won't be as bad as last year but I didn't expect this. But this is now a very real 4-4 team in conference and could easily move up to 5-3 if Missouri isn't good enough on the road. They win the tie-breaker over Nebraska in the last game of the year.
#2 - Missouri. Do you know how painful it is to put this here? It physically hurts me. But when ksu beat Texas, they picked up a win they just shouldn't have been able to get. Missouri is still as good as I thought they were, because I still think we're a 10-2 team. We're going to lose in Norman and we're going to lose in Manhattan. We'll have a better overall record than every other team in the North, but the tie-breaker is going to get us.
#1 - kansas state. Ugh. I feel dirty. But seriously, they beat Texas which wasn't supposed to happen and now their schedule is setup perfectly. They have 3 of the meaningful 4 North opponents at home, plus they have Baylor at home and travel to Iowa State. They'll probably lose down in Stillwater because OSU plays differently at home, and I think they'll lose to Nebraska in Lincoln. But at 6-2, with a win over Missouri, they win the North by tie-breaker. This won't so much be Missouri not doing something right, because we're going to go 6-2 for crying out loud, but ksu needed that other loss. We could have afforded a loss to them if they were going to be 5-3. Missouri is going to have to go 7-1 to win the North, or at least make that other loss to Colorado instead of ksu. The Wildcats just have too perfect of a schedule now. Manhatter is going to be insufferable for the rest of time. I may have to leave Tigerboard over this. I think the good that could come from this is it's entirely possible a major program comes courting Prince if he was to win the North in his 2nd season, and I just don't think ksu can keep him if someone like Michigan, Notre Dame, etc. was to offer him a job.
4 - Mizzou defeats Nebraska, KSU defeats ku, Oklahoma defeats Texas, A&M defeats OSU, Texas Tech defeats Iowa State, Baylor upsets Colorado. There has to be at least one upset this week.
Bonus - I think he will announce his resignation on Monday of next week, but he will finish the year as head coach. He's going to have a hard time getting another high profile job. Mike Price from UTEP will be his replacement at aTm. This time, however, there will be no strippers involved.Doug: 1) I was too busy wandering around Las Vegas Blvd to realize what was going on, until I stopped at the sportsbook in the Bellagio. To see the spreads next to the final scores was really stunning. I think Seth has a point, Ron Price may very well have Mack Brown's number, especially Mack Brown without Vince Young. And, I think the gap between the have's and have-not's of the conference is shrinking, how else can you explain the failure of Nebraska to cover, Oklahoma to win and Texas to even show up?
The Boy: 1) For CU-OU, I really do think it was a case of OU letting up and never taking CU out of the game mentally. Even when they were down 24-7, CU was trying harder than OU was. And by the time OU realized they were in a dogfight, they had been knocked back on their heels. A Daily Oklahoman columnist tried to say that the altitude had something to do with it, and maybe it did, but...momentum is so huge in college sports, and I think momentum had as much or more to do with it than stamina. That said, I bet there were a lot of laps being run in Norman Sunday and Monday.
2) I'm still sticking with OU to win the South, and in fact, the conference. I think the North is still up for grabs between NU, MU and... Kansas.
3) Frankly, with KU and MU missing a conference game, I think you have to basically go off the current standings, 1) Nebraska 2) KSU 3) CU 4) KU 5) MU 6) ISU
4) MU 35 NU 31 , KU 28 KSU 21 , OU 24 UT 17 , OSU 42 aTm 21 , TT 52 ISU 9 , CU 21 BU 17
Bonus) Coach Fran... even if he makes it to the end of the season, I'm pretty sure A&M fans will be ready to force him out at the end of the season, bowl or not.
As for KSU-UT...with about 6 minutes left in the first half, KSU punted with the score 7-7. The next time Josh Freeman touched the ball, they had 21 points. KSU avoided mistakes of its own while Texas peed down its leg, allowing an INT return, kick return, and punt return for TD's, not to mention throwing an additional two INT's in its own territory. KSU obviously played a part in that, but once KSU got the 10-point lead (24-14), UT was out of its gameplan and out of its element. I think it said a bit about K-State and a ton about UT--they repeatedly threw for 3 yards on 3rd-and-10, a Mizzou-with-Brad-Smith-esque thing to do. McCoy has no confidence, the staff has no confidence in McCoy, and if the score gets away from them before Jamaal Charles can establish himself, UT's in deep trouble.
As for the other two games, NU-ISU was a crap fest for a half before NU decided to look like a somwhat competent team, and BU-ATM was a crap fest for a half before ATM decided to look like a somewhat competent team. Neither game did the two favorites any favors.
2) I think KSU has a golden opportunity due to their schedule. If they continue to avoid mistakes--a pretty hefty 'if', but it's at least somewhat feasible--they really could be 5-1 before finishing up with NU and MU. But to take advantage of that opportunity, they have to beat KU this Saturday. Their North chances aren't crippled with a loss (due to the fact that they already have a road win over UT on their resume), but they're damaged. As for OU-UT, the only notable thing to mention is simply that the loser ( i.e. Texas) has almost no chance of catching back up to the pack. The winner (i.e. OU) will be 1-1, and the winner of ATM/OSU will be 2-0. A 2-game hole with that many teams in front of you is pretty rough.
3) I guess I already posted about this yesterday. 1) MU, 2) KSU, 3) NU, 4) KU, 5) CU, 6) ISU.
4) OU 31, UT 17. MU 38, NU 31. KSU 24, KU 20. ATM 35, OSU 27. Tech 44, ISU 24. BU 20, CU 16.
*) I just checked Google News to make sure he hadn't already. It appears he might weather the 'insider info' scandal for now (then again, still four days till Saturday), but he better go at least 9-3 at this point. They're looking for a reason to oust him, and 8-4 might not be enough for him.
Now, as always...questions from the field?The Beef: Alright…I will ask this for a roundtable question
The Boy: Honestly, the thought of a mustard and old gold mix makes me nauseous, but hey...whatever the players want to do, I'm cool with it. I'm apparently one of the few that completely enjoys the all black look, but I have also enjoyed breaking out the gold pants once a year (2005 against NU, 2006 at Tech). If they really want to do gold helmets, I'll laugh, I'll dry heave a little, and then I'll enjoy the game just as much as I otherwise would have.
With another installment of the “gold helmets” rumor….as a fan…or I guess to each of you personally, how do you feel? Would you be in favor of something like that? Or do you prefer we remain traditional (as much as we can) in that aspect?The Beef: I suppose my only problem with it would be a change to the “M” since either you go with a black “M” or you go with the new logo….either way, you change one of the few enduring things we actually have about our uniforms. And as an unabashed proponent of tradition in unis (yes, Penn State has the best with a couple of other schools), I think changing the helmet is a step in a bad direction. I would ALMOST rather gold unis, at least we have had them at SOME point…I do not recall ever seeing gold helmets though.
The Boy: As long as it was a one-game change, I'd be okay with it. Lots of teams do various throwback ideas (though you're right, gold helmets aren't much of a throwback since I can't recall them ever doing it), and I'd be okay if they broke out something interesting just once, then went back to the original...Doug: A quick glance at Helmet Project, which goes back to 1970, shows no gold helmets in MU's past.
Michael Atchison: I can't tell you how much I don't care about uniforms. I'm astonished how bat$%!t crazy it makes some people, and how much mental energy is devoted to it. If they want to pull out a special helmet, jersey or jockstrap from time to time, fine by me.
Now, the "M" has undergone some changes, from white to yellow-gold back to white to the current dark gold. What makes me wonder about MU's uniforms is the fact the yellow pants are bright yellow, instead of matching more closely with the color of the M.
Of course, I'd like to see KU add a pair of blue pants, for use with the road white or alternate red jerseys, so what the hell do I now?ZouDave: In the end, as long as we're wearing black and gold then I don't necessarily care where and how much they appear on the uniform.
If it was my call, though, I'd leave the helmets as they are now and I'd have black tops with gold pants at home, white tops with black pants on the road, and then for the blackout game at Faurot the team would wear all black.
But, that's only if it were up to me. As long as it's black and gold, I don't care. I also don't really care about the M on the helmets vs the Tiger logo, because I happen to really like that logo. But, I do respect the fact that we've had the M on our helmet for so long. If it's my choice, we leave the M, but if we change to the tiger (even for one game) it will not bother me nor make me happier.
I'm far more concerned with those idiots wearing St. Louis Cardinals hats to a Mizzou game against Nebraska!!!!!!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Mizzou Sanity Roundtable: Week 5
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The Mizzou Exchange: Jeff Ermann of Inside Mizzou
Jeff Ermann is the current proprietor of Scout.com’s Inside Mizzou site. He has done a tremendous job in the last few months of making IM a valuable source for Mizzou insider info. He was gracious enough to exchange a few e-mails with me. Here’s the latest Mizzou Exchange!
The Boy: We'll start with a pretty easy two-parter: For those who have not been paying attention, how long have you been at the helm of Inside Mizzou, and how long have you been entangled in the web that is Mizzou Sports (as a fan, writer, etc.)?JE: I've been the Publisher of Inside Mizzou Magazine and InsideMizzou.com for about five months. A few years prior to that, I covered the Mizzou hoops team for the Columbia Tribune. It was the 2003-2004 season. Quin and Co. were ranked in the top five nationally in the pre-season. I thought I was going to be at the Final Four Final Four. We all know how that went. I didn't even get to cover the NCAA tournament! A trip to watch an NIT game in frigid Ann Arbor, Michigan, was my consolation prize.
TB: I suffered through that season just the same, only I didn't have to go to Ann Arbor (or, to be honest, even watch much of the NIT game at all). I think I win that battle!JE: Here's my stance on the in-state recruiting: Everyone wants to keep the best talent at home. That's not just Mizzou; it's every school. But people tend to be parochial and also have attachments to local players and schools.
2004 was a demoralizing year all-around for Mizzou athletics--for men's basketball and football in particular--and I think you're seeing some of those scars reemerge when it comes people's predictions for the 2007 football season. They don't trust that Mizzou won't choke again like they did in 2004. The perception of Gary Pinkel's program as a whole continues to be affected by the all-around disappointment of 2004.
Which leads us somewhat into our first topic: football recruiting. Taking a macro look at the situation, one sees that Mizzou has improved from year to year all but once under Pinkel, and the facilities continue to see massive upgrades. Despite that, recruiting hasn't really improved in terms of rankings and in-state gets--in the case of in-state recruiting, it's actually regressed.
However...every class that Pinkel and Co. bring in seems to be more athletic than any previous one. They seemed to get whichever MO kid they wanted in 2003 (sans Laurence Maroney) and 2004, but those classes have arguably been less successful in terms of star power and athleticism than the 2005 class (which came on the heels of the 2004 disappointment) and--to the extent that can be measured at this point--the 2006 class. It's hard to adequately (and subjectively) compare recruiting classes at this early a stage, but there definitely hasn't been as strong a correlation between the # of top MO kids signed and the overall quality of the class as one would have thought.
So I guess I have two questions for you at this point: 1) What do you feel are the major causes of the downgrade in Mizzou's in-state recruiting, and 2) How much do you feel this matters?
The real question is, how many guys during Pinkel's tenure have left the state and become stars? I'm not talking about highly rated recruits he didn't get, I'm talking about players who then panned out in college as big-time players. Laurence Maroney is one ...
So in short, I guess I'd say it's a tad overrated. There is a lot of good talent in the state, don't get me wrong. But you want to get good players, regardless of where they come from. There's a saying that goes, 'It's not the players you miss on that hurt you, it's the ones you do get who can't play.'
St. Louis clearly does not consider MU the home school. The players there seem to favor the Big 10, Notre Dame, etc. I'm certain MU would like to do better there and the staff is trying to address it (they did already get a commitment from '09 standout Sheldon Richardson). But sometimes with the major city and the state school, problems arise or a relationship just gets stale. Being that close together, people are bound to find things they don't like. It's like family, only with family you are going to work it out regardless.
This is a phenomenon I'm very familiar with, being a Maryland basketball fan. The Terps have had cool relations with locals, and have had to watch players like Rudy Gay, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley leave the area in recent years. Like Mizzou fans, it's a major issue for Terps fans.
Mizzou is getting good players and better athletes than before, like you said. If the staff can make a big dent in Texas, that would certainly help ease the pain of not getting every top in-state kid -- and then some.
TB: We are on exactly the same page then. It's funny that you brought up Maryland--I've used that example before, but only for Durant and 'Melo...I hadn't even made the connection that Gay and Beasley were also from that area. And it's got to severely irk Maryland fans that Beasley chose to play at K-State, of all places. At least the other three chose major programs.JE: Yup, Gay and Beasley too. Of course, there is a lot of off-court baggage with some of these guys. Maryland doen't 'play the game' as much as some schools. The Terps also missed on five (five!) local McDonald's All-American's this past year. Anyways, I won't bore you with my Maryland anguish.
Sticking to in-state recruiting for a moment...by my unofficial count (feel free to add whoever I'm missing), Mizzou has potential offers out to three uncommitted Missouri kids: OL William Cooper (Hayti), DE Aldon Smith (Raytown), and DE James Moore (St. Louis). Of that bunch, who do you see committing to Mizzou? And going beyond those three kids, in your opinion, what other Missouri kids are the most likely to receive an offer?
As far as the in-state kids, I think Mizzou has a good chance with Aldon Smith. Smith might be the most physically gifted player in the state this year. He has been overlooked a bit but now is racking up some offers and is sure to get more major schools. He would be the first priority in my opinion. He does like Mizzou, but is going to go through the process before making a decision. It would be painful to see him end up at Nebraska.
Between the kids Mizzou from whom Mizzou has gotten verbals and the kids who've committed elsewhere, there honestly aren't a lot of must-get kids other than the one I mentioned. Locally at Rock Bridge, quarterback Jake Morse and receiver Chase Meijia could play their way into offers with strong senior years.
TB: My dad worked in College Park for a few years, and I own a "Fear the Turtle!" shirt, so I don't mind discussing the Terps. But I do suppose we're here to discuss Mizzou...JE: You're right Bill. it is a situation that needs to be worked on. There's one magic cure: Win, and win big.
Sadly, at this point I've found it's a relatively accurate practice for in-state recruiting predictions to just look at where the kid is from and, disregarding any and all interviews and statements, make the prediction based on that. If they're from rural MO, Mizzou has a good chance (then again Tyler Compton is from Bonne Terre, and he's going to NU). The KC area (sans Grandview), Mizzou has a good chance. From StL? Chances are iffy at best. I hate to over-generalize, but it seems Mizzou continues to fight an uphill battle against perception in St. Louis, and I'm not sure what will change that.
I thought the quotes from Robert Steeples' Mizzou visit a couple months ago (to paraphrase the DeSmet DB: "I didn't expect Mizzou to be that nice...in StL, everybody looks down on Missouri football") were amazingly revealing. His teammate, Wes Kemp, pretty much admitted that it would take one major StL kid going to Mizzou to open the floodgates...then proceeded to commit to Wisconsin. Parkway West's Blaine Gabbert (the #1 player in the state by all accounts) visited Mizzou eleventy billion times and became close friends with Mizzou commit Andrew Jones...then committed to Nebraska and attempted to get Jones to do the same.
I realize that we're both in agreement that this entire in-state recruiting issue doesn't matter as much as some would like to think it does, but...the best-case scenario for Mizzou is still an even playing field in St. Louis. Is this current disconnect fixable, or are the causes too deeply rooted? I know that Norm Stewart and Larry Smith had iffy relations with certain StL schools and coaches, but...they're not here anymore. Obviously the best possible solution to what ails Mizzou in the department of StL recruiting is winning, but...Mizzou has improved every year but one in Pinkel's tenure. Any recruit who visits—and most St. Louis kids visit at some point at least once—sees strong facilities, a good family atmosphere, and continued improvement. And yet they continue to choose even a program like Minnesota over Mizzou. Steeples might have been over-generalizing with his comments, but maybe he wasn't.
Before I move past in-state recruiting (and I promise I will shortly), I need to ask...can Mizzou bridge the gap in St. Louis? And if they can...is there any way to catch up permanently, or will the same crack begin to form the next time Mizzou has the inevitable less successful season?
You have to keep in mind that while we all are pro-Mizzou, these in-state kids have not grown up watching an overly impressive MU program. There have been a few good years, but overall Mizzou's win-loss record during the span during which, say, the last six graduating high shool classes have grown up, does not compare with those of some of the programs that come here to recruit -- Notre Dame, Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska, etc.
The first thing kids want these days in terms of football programs is playing time early. Then they want to win. If Mizzou can put together a big year this year and continue its momentum, that will heal some of the STL recruiting malaise for next year and for the future. Everyone loves a 'name-brand' program. Win and they will come.
P.S. Nice use of eleventy-billion.
TB: That's not even a real number. Yet.JE: I think Mizzou does have that. Of course, not to be redundant, but they need to do it on the field. Pinkel needs this to be his breakthrough season. Also, assuming Daniel doesn't leave early, you should have two good-to-great years in a row coming up.
You mentioned 'name brand' programs...that brings me to my next thought: is it actually possible for Gary Pinkel and Mizzou to make the jump in recruiting success and stay there? I posted recently about the ‘cycle’ that seems to follow most mid-rung, non-‘name brand’ schools—in general, recruiting successes are tied directly to a mid-rung team’s success in a given season, and sustained recruiting prowess—and a break of peaks-and-valleys cycle—is extremely difficult to come by.
Am I totally off-base with this? Do you think a breakthrough ’07 season would be enough to buy Pinkel and Staff a few years of recruiting success even if there’s a step backwards in 2009 after Chase Daniel graduates?
To break into ‘name brand’ status, it seems like you’d need a number of things in place: a great coach (who wants to stay at your school), an energetic coaching staff (to beat people on the recruiting trail year after year), a rock-solid commitment from your athletic department (to pony up the cash to keep the great coach and continue keeping up with the facilities arms race), and a strong, dedicated fanbase (as your ‘name’ grows, your stadium grows, your ticket prices go up, and your fans have to keep filling the bigger, more expensive stadium). Does Mizzou have that?
I think the fans are dedicated enough to sustain success. Mizzou had 17 losing seasons in 19 years and the fans kept coming in good numbers. It would be nice to see the program play against more 'name' teams, but that doesn't seem to be in the plans for the time being.
The facilities get rave reviews from all of the recruits I speak with.
You're right, it is quite difficult to sustain that name-brand status. Mid-level teams fail at it a lot more than they succeed. But like I said, it never hurts to have that signature player like Daniel, you've got the facilities and an improving inroads into texas, now you need to put together two very good years.
TB: You’re definitely right on with the ‘signature player’ thing. Mizzou had one named Brad Smith for a few years, and the draw of playing with him him immensely helped recruiting...at first. Brad did, however, show how a ‘signature player’ can backfire if his results don’t coincide with the potential everybody saw initially. For whatever reason—Pinkel’s coaching, Brad’s own limitations (my guess), luck—the Brad Smith era didn’t live up to expectations (though it filled 30 highlight reels), and I think Mizzou and Gary Pinkel are continuing to pay for that...and will do so until they have a breakout season.JE: That's the eleventy-billion dollar question, Bill.
And yes, that breakout season really needs to come this year. As I’ve said on the blog before, another 8-4/7-5 year puts Gary Pinkel firmly in Glen Mason Territory, where he’s not a failure as a coach, but he’s not exactly a success either. He’s in limbo—constantly threatening to either break through or fall apart and get fired and doing neither—and that’s not a pleasant place to be. We only have to hope for the best for another month, though—the season’s finally right around the corner.
Switching topics now...on to basketball recruiting. Mike Anderson inherited an interesting scenario when he took the Mizzou job. There was hardly any recruiting for him to do in 2007—which hurt a little because a coach’s recruiting grace period (where recruits believe he’ll lead his team to a championship) starts immediately and doesn’t normally last more than 2-3 years. However, after not having much work to do in 2007, Anderson and staff have a seemingly infinite number of scholarships to fill for 2008. So far they have a Truman Patriot on board—PF/C Steve Moore—but there are plenty more slots to fill. How big a splash do you see Mike Anderson making in 2008?
Mizzou is in with LOTS of kids right now, but it's incredible how wide-open it all seems to be. There are precious few who you can point to and say you'll be truly surprised if they don't come to MU. Marcus Denmon is one -- the shooting guard from Hogan Prep. Keith Ramsey, a 6-8 juco forward, told me last week that MU is his favorite. He'd be a good get.
After that, it's a lot of kids who like MU, but of whom you can't exactly say MU is definitively the favorite. They're casting a wide net, which is good. The playing time is the best thing they have going, because the program's prestige isn't where it was a few years ago. Mike Anderson's name still carries a lot of weight in Arkansas, Tennessee and Alabama, but the top guys down there are very hard to pull away from the SEC.
The big fish is Scott Suggs, the 6-6 guard from St. Louis. He is the top guy on the board. We were able to get the latest news on Suggs last week, but I can't give away all of my good stuff! *cough*InsideMizzou.com*cough*
(Note: between the time it took for us to finish this Exchange and me to get it posted, Suggs committed to Washington. Damn.)
TB: Yes, feel free to pimp out your site as much as possible here. We've been impressed with how coverage there has improved on seemingly a month-to-month basis lately. Keep up the good work.JE: I have not seen Paul in person, but I have seen tape and heard the reviews, and I think he'll be able to contribute right away. He's very fast and quick, is a natural scorer and is an extremely hard worker. The first thing he did the morning after getting home from the 18 hour drive from Columbia to Florida is get back in the gym. He takes 5,000 jumpers a day and runs like a maniac. I think MU found a hidden gem here.
And speaking of coverage...you broke the Miguel Paul story a couple weeks ago. This kid came out of nowhere a while back, and now he's the first high school point guard commitment of the Mike Anderson tenure. One thing that always held Quin Snyder back was his inability to develop a strong point guard. Wesley Stokes didn't really develop too much, which led to his emergency recruitment of Ricky Clemons. After all the dust had settled there, he got Jason Horton, who was supposed to be a big-time player, but it really hasn't happened. From what you've seen in Paul, do you see him as someone who can quickly contribute and develop (a la Keon Lawrence) or someone who'll start slow and improve incrementally every year?
TB: The jumpers habit is a very good one. Lots of point guards are strong scorers in high school because they're so quick that they can get layups whenever they like. Good point guards have to have at least a somewhat capable jumpshot to be truly effective--that skill seems to have eluded both Stokes and Horton.JE: That's the big question. I'd like to say they'll get it done, and I think they can, but things are going to need to fall into place perfectly. The big questions are:
I think we're approaching the 3,000-word mark here overall, so I guess that means we should wrap up. On to the last topic...same as the first one: Football. I was up in Chicago last weekend, and a Mizzou buddy of mine asked me, "So are we really actually going to be good this year? Should I really get my hopes up?" My answer to him was the same it's been every year that he's asked that question--"Of COURSE! This year's going to be great!" I can't help myself, though that optimism is usually countered nicely with extreme doubt the week of a game. It's obvious that this is Gary Pinkel's best shot at a 10-win season, even better than the now-infamous '04 campaign. Will they actually get it done, or is an 8-4 season and a trip to Glen Mason Territory more likely?
1. Will the defense be improved significantly? WIth an above average defense, this becomes a possible juggernaut of a team.
2. Will other teams have figured out how to slow MU's offense. After what the Tigers did last year, it's safe to assume many a defensive coordinator spent many hours in the film room this summer game-planning agaist them.
3. Will the team bring it on a consistent basis and avoid the sort of letdowns that have occurred too often. They say they have, and they seem very focused right now.
There's not question this is the best shot MU has had at a 10-win type of season in many years. To give away a secret, I picked the entire schedule in our upcoming magazine, and the only loss I had was at Oklahoma. That, of course, would be a dream season.
So, to summarize, I'm slightly on the fence, but leaning more toward the side that says this will be the breakout year everyone is expecting.
TB: I'm glad to see you make predictions like me. Back when The Beef and I were doing Tigerboard Radio, I always made the super-optimistic prediction...that way I could say I called it if it actually happened. Granted, that means my predictions are usually (okay, always) horribly inaccurate, but hey...one of these days...thanks again for doing this, Jeff!
Friday, July 20, 2007
Mizzou Exchange with John Anderson (Part Two)
As we start to wrap this up, let’s go back to Sportscenter and something that is pretty timely with the announcement that ESPN Hall of Famer Dan Patrick will be leaving his post after his long run. Not to get into Dan’s reasons for leaving or anything to that end, but what does it mean to you to work in a field and for a company where your growing popularity and national exposure is leading to greater opportunities to branch out into other avenues which are similar (Charley Steiner, Rich Eisen) or not as similar (Keith Olbermann)? And not to have you tell me what your extended career plan is, but does that intrigue you to see it happen more and more?
There are two curious, and to this point, unanswered questions here at ESPN: Can you outgrow SportsCenter? What happens when anchors you get old?
In the case of Dan and Charlie and Rich I think they did sort of outgrow the show to the point they needed a new challenge. Maybe not so much Charlie who has always been a play-by-play man at heart. Keith is a different case in that he's shown no matter what the job or what the money or what the circumstances he just tends to move around. Don't know if that's a nomadic nature, some sort of general unrest, worn out welcomes or the search for something new.
In any instance it comforting to know that you're sort of always putting your resume out there on a nightly basis for someone else to see. And it's amazing, to me anyway, the value ESPN and SC has beyond Bristol, CT. Dave Revsine just went to be lead anchor at the Big Ten Network and they are thrilled to get him because of his ties to the conference, yes, but also because he brings a credibility from a decade working here.
I hope that serves me well someday too when I want to pull off a hostile takeover of my good friend Chris Gervino at KOMU.
And while I plan, for the next few years anyway, to be here. Time already served has opened doors that I wouldn't have thought possible. I wrote a book with Chi Chi Rodriguez. I get out and speak for a fee on occasion. Neither of these things would have happened if I was John Anderson Sports Anchor from Butte, Montana.
It is certainly one of the added values that does not show up in your contract and one colleagues of mine think hard about when looking at another job. I know Rich Eisen wrestled with that a great deal. Lead man at NFL Network sounds great but not if they can't see you. In Rich's case -- NFL a pretty good bet -- and it's worked out great for him. Not his hair, but for him.
The staying power of Chris Gervino should never be underestimated….ever.
I appreciate your insight on that topic, it was just something that always interested me. Of course, I long for the day when Charlie may return to Bristol, if for no other reason than his laughing fits are absolutely legendary.
And since this is going to eventually make it onto the blog, all of you who are reading this, get, out there and support John and Chi Chi
Alright…still on the topic of SportsCenter, are the broadcast “teams” by specific design or by happenstance with scheduling? For instance, you and Steve Levy (tell Steve I miss him from his days on WFAN). Neal Everett and Scott Van Pelt. The old school teams of Dan and Keith/Stu Scott and Rich Eisen. Do those come about from trial and error?
And finally….what would be your response to someone who tell you that ESPN has helped create almost an unhealthy sub-culture within athletes who strive for the highlight reel to be on Top Plays rather than focusing on the team/winning element at times?
Gervino is my hero.
The team thing has gone back in forth since I've been here. Rich and Stu and Dan sort of made up the 11 and Linda Cohn and Kenny Mayne did the 1am. When Kenny begged off of SC I paired up on set with Linda for awhile.
The Kevin Frazier came and Scott Van Pelt came and Dan Patrick went to the 6 and it was a bit of a random draw on the night time shows. And I think management was good with that idea. Dan and Keith Oberman got so big and sort of wielded so much power I don't think the brass wanted to be in a position again where the anchors held sway over the show. The show needs to be the thing and by drawing form a consistent pool of people you allow that to happen.
Then that thinking went out because feed back and focus groups declared they wanted to know who was on the show. They wanted people to identify with. That's when they put Steve and me and Neil and Scott together in an effort to put the same faces out there every night. With some Stuart Scott mixed in.
The matching was pretty easy... they try not to put Scott and I together because we're similar in style and, when he had hair, looks. Blonde, glasses. He's now bald and glasses.
As for the whole SC has spoiled athletes and team sports I've heard it before and think it's a crock.
I've met and covered how many athletes -- many... and while they would like to be on SC I've not met one who wouldn't rather win.
Yes, I think kids may try to dunk like the players they see on SC and some of those kids have grown up and now compete in pro sports seen on SC but it's absurd to think we hold more power over how an athlete performs than a coach or a parent. If we do than that's a really bad coach or a really bad parent.
Great diving catches and great dunks and great end zone grabs are a product of the game and then we show them. It's impossible, I think, to be chasing down a fly ball or a deep pass and think if I dive for this or use just one hand I'll be on TV.
Baseball sold the home run with Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron long before we did.
I use this example... if we showed nothing but bunts and guys moving the runner over and sac flies every night for 6 months... would kids suddenly be begging to lay one down or give themselves up? I played Little League long before ESPN and I bunted when called upon but preferred to swing away.
Of course, I was a big hitter!
I join you at the Shrine of Chris
Thank so much for the insight, and I am sure if Van Pelt were on these emails, he would say the bald is by design….it’s what they all say.
Alright…lightning round of questions to bring this all to a close.
#1 – What would mean more to you, a national championship for Mizzou in basketball or football?
Football. By far. And preferably with a win in the Orange Bowl.
#2 – If you had a chance to be any sausage in the sausage race in Milwaukee, which one would you be?
Italian Sausage. Great hat. This may be happening by the way on Friday, August 3rd.
#3 – If the Hartford Whalers ever returned to Hartford, would it cause Chris Berman’s head to explode?
Probably not his... but if they play that song Brass Bonanza every 30 minutes mine would.
#4 – Shakespeare’s or Booches?
What day and what time of day is it? Booches before noon or anytime before kickoff. Shakes after the game or for dinner. Now that Ron's Country Boy #2 has closed, Ernie's for biscuits and gravy.
#5 – Some of the stars for the next Surreal Life have been announced, so in Sportscenter style, who’s more NOW? Randy “Macho Man” Savage or Carrot Top?
Carrot Top -- the guy is ripped these days.
#6 – Follow-up question….if asked, would you ever appear on a reality television series?
Yes... but only if it involved Gervino, Mike Hall, Chase Daniel, Derrick Chievous, Ben Lucero and Norm Stewart crashing in the house I lived in my senior year on 401 S. William St.
#7 – Best book (aside from your own) you’ve read lately?
The Devil in White City.
Also a big fan of A Fly Went By... Always a bedtime hit with the kids.
#8 – Will you, or anyone in your family, be on line to get the new Harry Potter book at midnight Saturday morning?
No chance!
#9 – People ask the I-pod question all the time….but do you even own one?
Yes -- the Nano. 60% filled with Van Morrison tunes.
#10 – Who will win the NL Central? Brew-Crew/Cubs/Cardinal Nation?
The Crew dominates! It is Milwaukee's year. '57 World Series Champs, '82 AL Champs, '07 NL Central Champs. Every 25 years like clock work. Cards allowed a mulligan. The Cubs, like the Mets, are pond scum.
#11 – Fill in the blank: “You can take the boy out of Lawrence_________
but you can't take the lawrence out of the boy." (clank) Paul Pierce missed free throw. And man did I get heck for saying that on the air one night.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Mizzou Exchange with John Anderson (Part One)
(Yes....THAT John Anderson...from ESPN. I would cut and paste, or link his bio, but ESPN has it on some fancy flash-page. If you want to look at it, go here and find his name :-)
John:
So let’s start with an easy one…ESPN related and see where the conversation takes us.
The ESPN advertising campaign has long been recognized and lauded as one of the best around. You seem to be in your fair share of commercials, along with perhaps other people’s shares. Are you always drawing the short straw? Volunteering? How is the selection process for them, and how much do you enjoy them? And did the blue shirt you won that day from the Spirit Girls really fit?
The spots for the "This is SportsCenter" campaign are a blast and, really, for most of us a sign you've really made it into the SC club. Even after I did my first few SportsCenters I still had friends who were like, "Yea, great, saw the show. When are you going to be in a commercial?"
Participation is sort of random. Our ad crew starts by rounding up people who are going to be in the building the day the athletes are available and goes from there. Rarely do you look at a script with your name on it. It will say Scott Van Pelt -- be he just worked over night and can't make the 9am shoot time so Levy or Anderson takes the part.
The spots take forever to shoot but are worth it because it gives you more time to get to know the athlete involved. And it never ceases to amaze me how much the guys/gals love doing them. The Manning brothers were terrific, Maria Sharapova unbelievable, Koybayashi a hoot eating hot dogs. We went to Vegas to film two with Tiger Woods and he could not have been better. There's a great behind the scenes feature I did with him on a DVD that came with the history of the highlight book we did for ESPN's 25th anniversary.
The blue button down oxford shirt was perfect fit. 16/36.
16/36? Wow….I don’t mean this the wrong way, but you have some pretty long arms. I mean I am 18 ½ on the shirts, and 36….maybe I have short arms….oh well.
And after some checking, the commercial with you and Ms. Sharapova is the most viewed of all the ESPN commercials placed by the World-Wide Leader on YouTube.com , that is something to be proud of and likely only so because of your far-reaching stardom J (considering her commercial with Stuart Scott has been viewed 15,000 fewer times.)
Let’s talk about your road to Bristol. You came to Mizzou from Wisconsin, what was more important to you as an 18 year old making the trek to Columbia? Running track or your career path? I think I can safely assume that “Sports Center Anchor” was not your chosen career path, at least not at that point.
Long arms, unless I'm reaching for my wallet.
Sharapova and I nearly the same height. I have her by about an inch. She brought her dog with her to the shoot. If she had kept it in her handbag she could have passed for a Hilton sister.
Shocking as it may seem I did not have a grand career plan at the age of 18. I had pretty much narrowed my post HS phase of life down to college at Mizzou for J-School or the University Wisconsin for anything else. After a decent senior year on the track I decided it would be nice to try and keep running (or in my case jumping) so I called the coach in Madison and he politely told me there was no room for me on the team because he already had a high jumper. I then called Coach Bob Teel at Mizzou and he said he'd be glad to have me. I surrendered on the spot. Hello Journalism major. Hardly a great recruiting battle. Of course, once I arrived in Columbia and got to know Coach Teel I realized he would have let anybody run for him. He gave everybody a chance and if they're weren't good enough or not dedicated enough they just sort of ran themselves off the team. He never managed to shake me even though I wasn't very good. The kid at Wisconsin, Jon Baer, a kid I knew from Tomahawk, WI ended up winning Big Ten titles. Worked out well for everybody.
And, absolutely, in 1983 nobody was thinking of a career at SC or ESPN. In fact as late as my senior year my dream job was wanting to take over for Todd Donahoe (MU great) as host on "Time Out for Trivia." Still the single greatest sports trivia show ever. Stump the Schwab cannot even compare.
Interesting, I would not have seen Sharapova as a toy dog kind of person. And to think you know someone and they surprise you like that….
To be honest, I don’t think you could have gone wrong with college. State St. in Madison was enough to win me over the one time I went there (fortunately it was AFTER I had graduated). Maybe it was the ability to eat a brat and drink a beer on campus on the Lake that did it too, but what a great atmosphere up there.
Back to your time at Mizzou, I know you were back to campus a couple of years ago as Grand Marshall of the Mizzou Homecoming Parade. What kind of experience was that for you? What was your first thought as you drove around a campus that had changed quite a bit since you had roamed there?
I actually get back to campus pretty frequently. Does once, twice a year count as frequently?
Not as much when I lived in Phoenix, obviously, but when I was in Tulsa I tried to get back for ballgames and now that I have a little bit larger paycheck I can get back for a game during the fall or the basketball game against kU.
Funny how the construction never ever ends on a campus. They're always pouring concrete for something else.
Are those columns new or have they always been there?
I miss the Shack. Shame all the T.A. slums behind the library are gone. I'm glad the law school is finished because it was a hole in the ground when I graduated.
So going back for Homecoming wasn't overwhelming in terms of physical campus change. However, it was really a neat and humbling experience to be a part of given the history of the event and the weekend at Mizzou. We were the first. It's our idea everybody else copied MU. The history and the investment the students put it to it is terrific and I was honored to be a part of it.
I also noticed that the age of the students never changes. Nobody gets older going to college apparently.
Wow….and at the end I thought you were going to pull the classic line from Dazed and Confused….about you getting older and older and them staying the same age.
As for the columns, according to former Chancellor Wallace on the day Norm Stewart resigned, there were only 5…so they must have just added the last one in the past few years.
And yes, from the distance you are traveling/have traveled, once to twice a year certainly counts. Glad to hear you have been able to be around campus as much as you have.
(More to come in Part TWO!! Stay tuned!!)
Saturday, June 30, 2007
The Mizzou Exchange: Graham Watson (Part 1)
Just in case you were thinking this had turned into a Portland Trailblazers blog, it’s time for another Mizzou Exchange!
Graham Watson is the Mizzou beat writer for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The one-time Mizzou goalkeeper agreed to take part in the ongoing Mizzou Exchange experiment. In Part 1, we focus on the upcoming Big XII football season. Enjoy!
(You can find previous Exchanges here.)
The Boy: In the last decade or so, you've gone from goalkeeping for Mizzou to covering Mizzou for the state's largest paper. Which one was more fun?
Graham Watson: Well, I can honestly say there was less pressure being the goalkeeper of the Missouri soccer team than the Mizzou beat reporter even though we were No. 12 in the country when I played my junior year. But being a beat reporter has a lot less running (though there has been some on this beat). I like the challenge of covering all the facets of Mizzou sports and even some of the drama that has come along with it. There has yet to be a boring day. It's hard not having fun covering your alma mater. I'd also be lying if I said there weren't times when I miss the simplicity of being a non-revenue sport athlete. Mizzou fans are as demanding of their reporters as they are of their players. That can be trying sometimes, but I appreciate the enthusiasm for the perfection of the school from all angles.TB: I grew up a Mizzou fan in western Oklahoma (I was born in Columbia, then my parents moved to OK)...meaning I was the only Mizzou fan I knew. I had no idea what to expect when I came up here. I was a bit taken aback by the lingering bitterness here. I mean...I can't really blame anybody--my fifth ever home football game was the '97 MU/Nebraska game...I still have the scars. I just think that, whereas Mizzou fans are just like everybody else's in a lot of ways (every school has its "____ can do no wrong" fans, its "____ can do no right" fans, and its "I'm smarter than everybody else" fans), there's a hunger here that differentiates Mizzou from other schools. Certain schools expect to win in certain sports, and it makes other losses at least slightly easier to take. OSU fans can always fall back on golf and wrestling (and until the last few years, baseball). OU fans have football. Nebraska fans have...well...every female sport. Texas fans have everything, period. Mizzou fans want to win in something, anything.
You saw that hunger a couple of weeks ago when Mizzou lost to Louisville in the Baseball Regionals. Fans who had only jumped on the baseball bandwagon the week before were crushed by the loss and lashed out at anybody they could (mostly Tim Jamieson). Mizzou had choked, blown it, squandered yet another opportunity, and proven once again that "We're Mizzou." I'm all for a little self-pity (I'm great at it...have you seen my "What If...?" posts??), but the anger there had me taken aback.
Moving on to football...I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave Matter: what can we reasonably expect out of Mizzou this coming season? Barring an early loss, Mizzou could actually be favored in 11 of 12 games this year. The schedule is set up perfectly--of the four conference teams they lost to last year, they only have to face one on the road this season. Daniel will have the maximum number of weapons available to him this season (before Franklin, Rucker, probably Temple, and maybe Coffman all depart). Will the offense make up for an inexperienced-but-fast defense?
GW: I understand a lot of what you're saying. It does, at times, seem like this school is cursed when it comes to athletics. I'm originally from California and for much, if not all, of my young life, the world revolved around pro sports. Now, of course, USC is the city's pro sport. I was always a big UCLA fan growing up. Yeah, I saw that Tyus Edney game. And to be honest, at the time, I was elated. But that was then...TB: It does seem like every Missouri fan and pundit who picked huge things in 2004 is still a bit scarred by that, and they're worried about Missouri being underwhelming once again. I'm trying to ignore 2004 because, despite the same coaching staff, this team couldn't be any more different.
On to your question...
I like what the football team can do on offense this year. Chase Daniel is going to assert himself as one of the best quarterbacks in the country. He has a ton of playmakers and an urgency to get things done. With that said, it's going to be on the offense to carry this team, and that might not be enough to win it a conference title. I liken the early looks of this team to Texas Tech a few years ago. You know, when they had the best offense and the worst defense. It got the Red Raiders a bowl game, but they never were a title contender.
If you look at the top offenses from a year ago, the bulk of them were not in the national title picture. I mean, teams such as New Mexico State and Hawaii. Great offenses, great quarterbacks, but incomplete teams.
That's what Mizzou will have to overcome. I am going to be one of the few media folk to like the Tigers over Nebraska for the North. I think Nebraska is going to have a rough non-conference go and possibly enter the Big 12 season 2-2. Also, the Tigers have a more favorable conference schedule. Nebraska is going to have a hard time playing at Mizzou and Texas. And the fact that the Mizzou/Nebraska game is early plays into the hands of the Tigers, who should be undefeated by that point.
Overall, I think 9-3 is likely and 10-2 is possible (with a bowl game waiting in the wings). Could this team win 11 regular season games? I don't think so. I think Oklahoma is a loss, and there is going to be a weekend where the offense can't put up enough points to compensate for the defense, maybe against Texas Tech. But who knows? In 2004, the offense was supposed to be the juggernaut and the defense was suppose to be the weak link. It ended up just opposite. So for scenario like that to happen this year, or even for both sides to be spectacular, would be utterly Mizzou.
Big things were predicted in 2004 because of Brad Smith and a strong D-line. In 2003, teams were slowly catching on as to how to shut down #16. Pinkel saw this and attempted to make some adjustments in the off-season ( i.e. making Brad more pocket-based), and they just didn't take...either because Pinkel and Yost didn't do it right or because Brad was simply limited in his instincts. Everybody always blames Pinkel for 'changing' Brad, but that misses the point to me. He saw that in '03 teams like Kansas and (to a lesser extent) Colorado were starting to figure out how to slow Brad down, and he knew something proactive needed to happen. He was right, too--every team we played in '04 was ready to stop that QB option play that got Brad about 90% of his yards in '03...seriously, I can't remember it working until the Iowa State game. Of course, he could have added different packages and figured out different ways to get Brad in open space (kind of like what eventually happened in '05), but he wanted Brad to be an NFL quarterback...and Brad wanted Brad to be an NFL quarterback, so their adjustments were made with that in mind.
Of course, they didn't work. Brad thought too much when he stayed in the pocket, and playing like an NFL-style QB just never became instinctive for him. Brad was one of the most unique players in recent history--nobody had more distinctive strengths and debilitating weaknesses in one package. In '05, new adjustments were made with that in mind, and things started looking up again (to an extent...6-5 was still a bit disappointing).
That was a really long way of illustrating that I don't think '04 has anything to do with '07. The offense does not run through one person anymore, and there's no single adjustment that defenses can make to slow things down. Of course, the D-line that was a strength in '04 is possibly the biggest question mark on the team in '07...the defensive end position, at least.
I am curious, though, how much it will affect the defense if the offense is as successful as it could be. At some point, an efficient offense can become too efficient when it starts wearing its own defense down. It doesn't matter that you can score 40 points if your defense is too tired to stop the other team from scoring 40 too. I think Missouri's '07 defense will be at best a squad of playmakers--guys William Moore, Ziggy Hood, Lorenzo Williams, and Sean Weatherspoon might not be amazingly consistent, but when they come up with something, they come up with something huge--but at worst it will be another version of the bend-but-don't-break defenses to which Mizzou fans have become quite accustomed. It will still be better than the typical Texas Tech defense, especially this year's Texas Tech defense, which I'm pretty sure has all of two healthy scholarship defensive tackles. (Missouri, of course, has another advantage over the typical Texas Tech team--they play in the North.)
So here's my next question: acknowledging that the offense will be huge and the defense will be iffy, who is the most important player for Mizzou in '07? In other words, whose performance could potentially make the difference between an 8-4 seaon and 11-1? My initial opinion was Stryker Sulak, then Ziggy Hood...but a case can be made for about 12 different guys.
GW: Are we talking defensive player or any player? Because if it's any player, then Chase Daniel has to be the most important guy on the field.TB: Yeah, but we know what he's going to bring to the table, just like we know about guys like Franklin, Coffman, and Rucker. My thought was, who's the wildcard? Meaning, if this person ends up taking his game to the next level, it could make a substantial difference. Offensively, my pick is Tony Temple. We know what he can do, but he still has to hold onto the ball. That wasn't a problem in the last two games of the year, when he was absolutely torching Kansas and Oregon State, but that's a pretty small sample size.
Defensively, I waver between Sulak and Hood and maybe Sean Weatherspoon or Van Alexander. You know what you're getting from guys like Lorenzo Williams and Brock Christopher. If one more playmaker emerges from the front 7, the defense really could surprise (I'm really confident in the secondary). But who will that be?
GW: Well, you kinda took a couple of my answers there. I agree that this has to be the year Tony Temple silences his critics. He's bigger than he was a year ago and continues to buy into the program. Now, we have to see whether that translates into something positive on the field. If it does, it could make Missouri a very scary team. I have a feeling Chase isn't going to want to run as much this year (call it a hunch), so that will make the roll of Temple and his backup (perhaps Derrick Washington) even more important.TB: I'd actually half-forgotten about Derrick Washington. Between Washington and Gilbert Moye, I'm hoping that one of them can turn into an immediate upgrade at the kick returner position. Earl Goldsmith has decent instincts, but he just doesn't have the speed; for Greg Bracey, vice versa.
Defensively, one of Missouri's ends has to prove it's a threat to get to the quarterback. That's it. If Big 12 quarterbacks have time to go through their progressions, they will pick Mizzou's defense apart, no matter how good the secondary might be. And yes, the linebackers are going to have to prove they can play. So much has been made of Van Alexander, but injuries have made him almost irrelevant. In all honesty, the linebacker I think is going to make a difference on this defense is Luke Lambert. I know people want Michael Keck to be this amazing player, but I think Lambert is going to come along first and make the biggest difference in the shortest amount of time.
Overall, it's going to be consistency by these defensive guys. That was something that was missing a year ago. And yes, there was fatigue, but you know what? Get used to it. The defensive players should be training harder in anticipation of playing more. They saw it last year and should learn from it. That comes from the strength and conditioning staff on down to the captains and the younger players. Guys like Lorenzo Williams and ZIggy Hood should be leaders in encouraging the rest of their defensive teammates to train harder than they have in their lives. They will play twice as much as the offensive players, and they should be ready for that physical strain. I think that also plays to the defensive reserves and whether there's enough depth to sustain this defense. I think there is, but it's young, inexperienced depth. Perhaps, getting up big on some of the non-conference opponents can help Mizzou alleviate that inexperience.
I'm thinking Big XII offenses as a whole might have a huge season...I wrote profiles of all the Big XII teams during Spring Football, and I started noticing that almost every team in the conference lost their DE's from last year. First of all, 9 Big XII DE's were drafted in April. Second of all, there was one non-senior on the All-Big XII 1st and 2nd teams. And finally, just look at Phil Steele's All-Big XII DE's (1st-4th teams):
1st: Ian Campbell (KSU) - the only non-senior on the All-Big XII list last year, and the only proven stud at the DE position.
1st: Chris Harrington (ATM) - solid, dependable, relatively unspectacular...and apparently the 2nd-best returning DE.
2nd: Drew Hudgins (CU) - JUCO transfer
2nd: Nathan Peterson (OSU) - talented and explosive, but so injury-prone that he's only started 8 games in three years.
3rd: Jake Ratliff (TT) - uhh...yeah...had 3.5 sacks last year. That's decent for Texas Tech, but not necessarily the Big XII.
3rd: Brian Orakpo (UT) - I'd actually have him on the 2nd-team, but he really hasn't proven a ton either.
4th: Stryker Sulak (MU) - with 12 career starts, he's somehow one of the most experienced DE's in the league.
4th: Barry Turner (NU) - strong freshman year in '05, but did almost nothing last year...kind of like Sulak (though Sulak did more than Turner).
Everybody is going to be trying to piece together a new pass rush. Granted, that will be a bigger issue for the Missouri's of the world than the OU's and Texas's, but it's still an issue for everybody. That can't be a bad thing for Mizzou.
So the top 2 in both the North and South are almost unanimously agreed upon in some order (MU and NU in the North, OU and UT in the South). Who do you see having the best chance to crash the party in each division? Most seem to say KSU in the North and ATM in the South. I'm not sure agree, but I'll let you take the first stab at it. :-)
GW: In the South, I think it's a toss-up between A&M and Oklahoma State. I think there is a lot of talent on both teams. A&M might be the more rounded of the two, but Oklahoma State possess the ability to score quickly and score in bunches. Even with Woods gone from the receiver position, it still return most of its key players from a team that surprised a lot of people a year ago.TB: You pretty much nailed the teams I was going to choose. In the North, I think Colorado is the wildcard simply because they're going to have so much new blood at so many new positions. That, however, doesn't usually lead to immediate success. I don't think they have a prayer of winning the division, but I definitely think they'll play a considerable role in determining the North champion, as they host both Nebraska and Missouri.
In the North, I'd look for Colorado to be an obstacle. The Buffs are going to get beat up in the non-conference (they play Arizona State, Florida State and Miami), but I think they are going to come out a better team for it. Quarterback Cody Hawkins has shown talent and it seems like young quarterbacks tend to thrive in this conference. I think the longer the season goes, the better Colorado will be. Will they challenge for first or second? Maybe, but I think the push will come too late.
As for the South...have you seen ATM's schedule? It's murderous. They could be a much better team than they were last year and go 8-4. Their conference road games are against Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Nebraska, and they will host an angry Texas team itching for revenge. If they can threaten in the South with that schedule, power to them.
I think Oklahoma State is the sleeper in the South. They have a manageable schedule--they host Tech and Texas and have a super-winnable road game against Baylor, though they do have to travel to Norman, College Station and Lincoln--and the most explosive offense in the conference. Their defense is made up of a lot of playmakers, though they'll be playing with a heavily retooled D-line. They probably don't have enough to threaten OU or UT in the South, but it wouldn't be a complete surprise to me if they did.
(Stay tuned for Part 2 later this week!)
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
The Mizzou Exchange: Chad Moller
The Boy: Baseball earned a #1 NCAA seed a year after making the Super Regionals. With a new brand new coach, Softball went from losing record to playing for the Big XII title on the last day of the season. Wrestling finished #3 in the nation. In a rebuilding year, Volleyball came within one game of back-to-back Sweet Sixteen appearances. Football's been to three bowl games in four years. Men's basketball made giant strides in their new coach's first year at the helm. A Mizzou golfer qualified for the Masters. It's too much of a softball to ask how you think things are going, but instead I'll ask a) what's been the biggest surprise for you in the last year or so, and b) what's made the biggest difference for the continued improvement of the athletic department as a whole?
Chad Moller: We have had a lot of high-level successes by individual sports over the past few years, so while every accomplishment is something we’re all excited about, for me personally, I’d have to say the biggest thing I’m most pleasantly surprised with has been the ascension of wrestling. I’ll digress a little bit first and tell you that when I got my start in the business (in 1992 as a graduate assistant in this office – which back then was known as the Sports Information Office, for what it’s worth), the sport I first handled was wrestling. My first year working with the sport, the great Shaon Fry made it to the title match at 167-pounds, and that was the most thrilling thing I’d ever experienced. I got totally ingrained with the program, hanging out with the guys on road trips (lots of stories I could tell there but probably better not – if you’ve never traveled with wrestlers, let me just say it’s a cultural experienceJ), getting to know them, getting geeked about wins and feeling really depressed about losses. I fell in love with the sport right away and the amount of hard work and dedication and sacrifice that I saw those kids make day after day was really impressive. I continue to say to this day that I don’t believe any sport takes more discipline and dedication than wrestling, and I don’t say that to demean the efforts of any of our other 19 sports, but that’s just how I see it.TB: Me too!
Anyway, back when I was working with the sport, we were a top-30 to top-25 team nationally, which was good, but we were not competitive in the Big 8 – fifth out of five teams, and very far behind the fourth-best team. With all of that, the program kind of backslid over the next few years and had some character issues with some of the kids, and when the decision was made to change coaches in 1998 or so, there definitely was the consideration for dropping the sport altogether. I wasn’t part of the decision-making team at all, but I do know that it was a very big potential (maybe as much as 50-50) that we’d drop the sport because it wasn’t in such good shape, and then we’d be more in compliance with Title IX and it would help the budget, so on and so on. There were definitely some compelling reasons to do just that, but thankfully, we found Brian Smith and he was someone that was given a chance and he’s obviously taken the ball and run with it.
Coach Smith had some challenges, and I know he’s said before that while he always believed he could do it, that there were times when he wondered if it would be able to happen. Our facilities were just awful for wrestling when he took over, but when Mizzou Arena opened up, that allowed wrestling to take over the 4th-floor practice gym (where Kelly Thames and myself both tore our knees up playing basketball, doh!!), and they have converted that into one of the best wrestling rooms in the nation. It’s an absolute recruiting tool for the program, and Coach Smith has done such a great job of eliciting financial support for his program with his support club and other program benefactors, that he’s just a master to watch at that, in addition to his coaching.
So to get back to the more specific answer, I’d say that because of the state of the program – both competitively, and how bad the facilities were at the time he took over – I’d say that how wrestling has grown has been the most surprising. If you would have told me in 1998 that in 2007 we’d be maybe just a handful wins at the national meet away from winning a team national championship, I’d have thought you were crazy. It’s been fun to watch for certain, and it will definitely be interesting to see how they can keep it going with the loss of Ben Askren and Matt Pell, but with the recruiting class that Coach Smith has coming in, the future is definitely bright.
In terms of answering your second question, I’d say the biggest thing that has helped us step up overall is the development of our facilities. You can’t do those things without money of course, so you could argue that the money overall has been responsible, but the most tangible aspect of the money has been the facilities that we’ve been able to build because of the financial support. There hasn’t been one sport that hasn’t benefited immensely over the past 5-6 years from facility improvements, and that does nothing but help them in the recruiting battles out there. We used to get negatively impacted in recruiting because of our facilities, but now that is not the case. I remember back before the Mizzou Aquatic Center came online, Brian Hoffer wouldn’t take recruits over to see our old pool at the Natatorium because that was so awful that anyone who saw it would never come here. And not too far in the past, we didn’t have a softball, track, soccer or tennis facility, so I have no idea how we could have had any success in those sports (imagine the recruiting pitch – ‘well, we sure want you to come to Mizzou, we don’t have a track, but we want you to come run track for us’!!).
On an aside, we just had our annual Senior Staff Retreat, where the senior team sequesters itself for a couple of days and does the team-building and planning thing, and maybe the most interesting thing I took out of it was some thoughts that Pat Ivey, our strength coach, threw out there. He was talking about how we’re trying to build a championship-caliber program for all of our kids, and that he felt the new dining hall and all the other aspects of the newly-opened Mizzou Athletics Training Complex (MATC) has been the single-most important thing he’s seen. The dining hall, specifically, he feels is the best thing we’ve ever done for our kids. It might seem like a little thing, but in our previous facility, the dining hall wasn’t big enough to serve all of our sports, and really only football and maybe 3-4 other sports were able to eat there – the rest had to fend for themselves on campus or elsewhere. That created kind of a “class” system, where the sports who ate there felt privileged, while the sports that didn’t eat there felt second class, if you will. Coach Ivey really feels that since the new hall opened up, and every night now all of our kids get to eat there and interact, that it is a huge intangible for the mindset of our kids. It obviously is a positive for the sports who previously couldn’t eat there, but interestingly, he felt that the biggest benefit might be for the sports that could eat there before. He said that he felt that “brought them down a notch” so that they realized they’re not above anyone else, and kind of has helped instill a greater sense of community and things of that nature that he feels are really important to building a championship mentality.
So with all of that excitement, it’s time for us to finally break through and get some championships! It’s been absolutely amazing how we haven’t been able to win anything for so long – you would have thought that one would have washed up on the beach by now, but luck just hasn’t been on our side. This past year was a prime example – we had the best wrestling team we’ve ever had in our history, and a team that was the third-best in the nation. Unfortunately, it just happened to be the second-best in the Big 12 Conference, so no team title. If we had only won two or three matches that didn’t go our way at the Big 12 Championships, the title drought would be over, but that’s how it goes. I really believe that we will break that door down this next year somewhere, and hopefully it will open the floodgates.
I know I can’t wait for football to get started, I just feel like we’re on the verge of a special season. I hope that our fans will have something to rally behind and feel good about, because they deserve it, and our kids deserve it too...
Thanks for the chat, look forward to more of this anytime...
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Mizzou Exchange: Dave Matter (Part Two)
Let's continue with Part Two of my conversation with Dave Matter. In his last response, Dave mentioned Mizzou's lack of success against ball-control teams.
The Boy: The most frustrating game you mentioned was ATM. Iowa State moved the ball shockingly well, but that was a full-team collapse on Mizzou's part. With A&M, the Mizzou defense absolutely dominated in the box in the first half. Goodson and Lane had no room to run whatsoever. At halftime, Lane had 13 carries for 44 yards (19 of which came on 2 carries in the last minute when ATM was running out the clock...before that, 11 carries for 25 yards), Goodson 7 for 14. In other words, in the first 29 minutes of the game, ATM RB's combined for 18 carries, 39 yards. Mizzou got nailed by a couple ATM bombs in the 1st quarter (one play-action and one trick play), but that was fine. If ATM can't run the ball, they can't win.
The problem was, here was the time of possession for Mizzou's 1st half drives: 0:50 (ending in a fumble), 2:09, 1:31, 0:37 (fumble), 0:42 (fumble), 3:23. Three turnovers and a self-inflicted time of possession of less than 10 minutes in the first half pretty much spelled doom for the defense. Despite a strong defensive gameplan, Mizzou was gashed for 83 yards on 15 carries by Lane and 57 yards on 8 carries by Goodson. Yes, ATM was aided by curious Mizzou play-calling and the worst fake field goal attempt ever, but that game was decided in the first half, and it was in no way the defense's fault.
From that point on, though, the defense seemed gash itself just fine without help from the Mizzou offense (except against NU, anyway).
The way this discussion is headed, it really does sound like the most important Mizzou player in 2007 could be Ziggy Hood. He was unbelievable against Murray State and Ole Miss (that's not saying a lot), but after he came back from the foot injury he was pretty much invisible (though I believe he said he wasn't any better than about 70%). If he's an Okam-esque difference maker, the defense will have no choice to be solid. And if the defense is solid...well...
So let's wrap up the football talk with another quick pick. Quick—who are the most underrated and overrated players in the Big XII? Here are mine (sans Mizzou, since I can't contain my bias):
Underrated (offense): WR Adarius Bowman (OSU). I realize he was 1st-team All Big XII, making it hard for him to be underrated, but he so rarely gets mentioned among elite players, and his stats (60 catches, 1181 yards, 19.7 per catch, 12 TD's in 2006) are absolutely insane.
Underrated (defense): DB Reggie Smith (OU). He's gotten some recognition, but his impact on the OU defense has been beyond significant. In the two years before his arrival in Norman (2003 and 2004), opponents averaged 8.56 and 8.12 yards per pass. That's bad. In '05 and '06, opponents averaged 6.34 and 7.89. When he's healthy (not a given), he's a big-time difference maker.
Overrated (offense): TE Martellus Bennett (ATM). Got on the 2nd-team All Big XII list last year completely and totally because he was a 5-star recruit in high school. He had a nice year (38 catches, 3 TD's), but not as good as Martin Rucker or Chase Coffman. Really, though, this is just a) residual bitterness from his getting HM All Big XII in '05 over Coffman, and b) future bitterness from when he inevitably gets picked higher than Coffman in some preseason magazines.
Overrated (defense): LB Bo Ruud (NU). Really no better than Corey McKeon or Stewart Bradley last year. He had a fantastic game against MU (7 tackles, 1 sack, 1 FF, 1 FR, 1 INT), but that was his only standout game. He was a big-play guy like Marcus Bacon (2 other FR's, 2 other FF's), but he only had three games with more than 6 tackles...not all too hot for an LB. In all, he's got a nice nose for the ball, but not so much a nose for the ball-carrier.
Dave Matter: Good points on the A&M game. The Aggies won't be any easier to beat this year. They'll have one of the five best running games in the country this year. Rugged, experienced O-line. A pulverizing powerback in Lane. And I think Goodson has a chance to be the best back in the Big 12 this year, though playing with Lane will affect his stats, especially touchdowns. I've been guilty of riding the A&M bandwagon in the past, but I was considering picking the Aggies to win the South until they stunk up the Holiday Bowl against Cal.TB: Because I'm a gigantic nerd, one of my summer projects is entering 2006 play-by-play data for Big XII teams and figuring out different measures of quality and success. For instance, the writers of Football Prospectus (www.footballoutsiders.com) define a "successful play" as...
As for underrated/overrated...
Underrated (offense): Colt McCoy, QB, Texas. Bring on the hate mail. I'm going to get blasted for this because so many people outside of Austin think McCoy is overrated, but take a look at his numbers from last year: 68 percent completion; 29 TDs to 7 INTs; 161.8 QB rating (13 points higher than any other Big 12 QB). True, he only threw for 197 yards per game, but he also attempted only 24.5 passes per game, just the sixth-most in the league. He did all of this as a redshirt freshman who succeeded one of the greatest college players of our generation in Vince Young. Missouri fans like to credit McCoy's superior stats to Texas' supporting cast, but I don't buy it. Texas had a better O-line in '06, but I'd take Temple, Franklin, Coffman, Rucker, Ek, Perry, Saunders, Alexander over Texas' 2006 backs and receivers. In my opinion, McCoy didn't get enough credit for 2006. I love the QB rating statistic, and McCoy's was better than that of Brian Brohm, Brady Quinn, Zac Taylor, Chris Leak, Chad Henne and Chase Daniel ... and only eight-hundredths of a point behind Heisman winner Troy Smith.
Underrated (defense): Chris Harrington, DE, A&M. Not a flashy player but holds up well against the run (ranked fourth among Big 12 linemen in tackles last year with 59) and can get after the quarterback (7.5 sacks in '06). He seemed to make a lot of big plays last year in games I watched and was one of the more productive and versatile linemen in the league. Only made honorable mention All-Big 12, though. Silly voters.
Overrated (offense): Bret Meyer, QB, Iowa State. I hate this pick. I really struggled coming up with someone, so we'll pick on the Cyclones. I've never been really wowed by Meyer. His best season was 2005 when he threw 19 TDs to 10 INTs and had two great games in wins over A&M and K-State. But he took a huge step backward last year. Not all of that was his fault. The talent around him was depleted, but he threw as many or more INTs than TDs in seven of eight Big 12 games last year. This won't come off sounding politically correct, but because he's a black quarterback foolish people assume he's a dangerous runner. That's not the case at all. He's averaged less than a yard per carry the last two years. Great pick on Bennett. Though he does have some value steering A&M's run game, he's given way too much credit as a receiver when there are much better receiving tight ends around the league.
Overrated (defense): Alvin Bowen, LB, Iowa State. I don't doubt that Bowen might be a fine linebacker, but I'm always amused when the leading tackler on a horrendous defense gets recognition based on nothing more than his number of tackles. Most of the time that's just an indictment on what's probably a terrible defense that never gets off the field. To his credit, Bowen actually led the country in tackles last year...and was honored with first-team All-Big 12 recognition thanks to voters who do nothing more than read the stat sheet. Do you know who Tim McGarigle is? He's a second-year Rams linebacker (scout team last year) and he's the NCAA Division I-A career leader in tackles. He played at Northwestern from 2002-05. His junior year, Northwestern ranked 119th in total defense. That's dead last. No team was worse. But he got lots of tackles and was a consensus first-team All-Big Ten pick. You can't tell me Michigan, Ohio State and Iowa didn't have five or six better linebackers but had fewer tackles because their defenses didn't stink. OK, I've turned this into a rant, but I've always said it'd be much more enlightening to track missed tackles rather than made tackles.
- Gaining 40% of needed first down yardage on 1st down
- Gaining 70% of needed first down yardage on 2nd down
- Gaining 100% of needed first down yardage on 3rd or 4th down
So as I enter the play-by-play data, I can start looking at what percentage of a defender's tackles prevented a 'successful' play for the opposing offense and what percentage of a QB's plays resulted in 'success' as defined. I'm also looking at the difference in success levels in close situations versus blowout situations. And again, because I'm gigantic nerd, I'm really looking forward to what this will all say. Unfortunately it takes about 45-60 minutes to enter one game, and last I checked, a lot of games were played last year. I'm through about half of Mizzou's season thus far, though, so I'm making some headway. And I'm always looking for suggestions regarding what else to look for in these stats...
Moving on to softball...Mizzou plays SIU at 4:30 Friday. These two teams played on March 21, and SIU scored a 1-0 no-hitter by Cassidy Scoggins to move Mizzou to a medicore 22-17 on the season. However, Mizzou got hot after that game, winning 15 of 20 to end the regular season. How different is this team than the one Scoggins (who I assume will start Friday's game) shut down eight weeks ago?
(Note: This message was sent a day or two before Friday’s NCAA Regionals. Dave’s response below was posted before Mizzou’s loss to DePaul on Saturday. My next response was made after Mizzou’s loss to DePaul on Sunday. Just thought I’d point that out in case there is any confusion in tenses here.)
DM: The biggest difference with the softball team has been the healthy return of junior pitcher Jen Bruck. After having a baby in January, she has remarkably played all season, but she's just now getting some pop back in her bat and building endurance to pitch with little rest. I've really been impressed with her poise and toughness this season. It's not like she's coming off an ankle injury. She carried a friggin' human being for nine months, gave birth in January, and a few weeks later was zinging fastballs and taking cuts at the plate. That's toughness. She's as intense a competitor and as I've covered at MU, and that includes a lot of football players over the years. She's turned what could be considered a tabboo subject into a blessing and hasn't let it affect her play. She slammed a home run to the deepest part of the park here in Carbondale yesterday. If she keeps that up and has enough strength to be effective on the mound (she's a finesse pitcher, doesn't overpower hitters with a lot of velocity and strikeouts) the Tigers should win this regional and could put a scare into Oklahoma at the Super Regionals.TB: Looks like in the end, it appears the lack of K’s and easy outs cost the Tigers. Defense really seemed to hold Mizzou back in the last month of the season—for starters, Jen Bruck had 16 E’s! Mizzou gave up fewer unearned runs (53) than they scored (69), but most of their losses down the stretch were littered with unearned runs.
Wow. That paragraph almost makes me sound like a softball writer.
Softball is such a bang-bang sport that K’s and easy outs seem pretty vital. Luckily for Mizzou, they were very young this year. With another year of experience, Bruck means that she might be able to get a few more easy outs next season; plus, the likelihood of finding a strong #2 pitcher increases, as Jana Hainey (7-5, 3.25 ERA, 0.69 K/IP) was only a freshman and Megan Dennis (9-3, 3.55 ERA, 0.57 K/IP) was a sophomore; however, neither was much of a strikeout pitcher, so that leaves the door open for somebody else (no idea who...maybe incoming freshman Lisa Simmons?) to emerge.
Since we’ve crossed the 4,500-word threshold (!) at this point, I guess it’s about time we wrap this up. So I’ll hit you with three rapid-fire questions:
1) How far does Mizzou baseball go this year?
2) On a scale of 1-10, how much does Blaine Gabbert’s commitment to Nebraska hurt Mizzou?
3) I’m preparing for more “What If...” explorations this summer. I’m pulling together a “What If Mizzou Joined the Big Ten in 1996?” piece as we speak, and I’m sure I’ll be looking into Tony Van Zant as well (hopefully I can figure out how to pull box scores from that far back. Also, I stumbled across a recruiting article from 1996 saying that Sebastien Janikowski visited Mizzou that fall, so I’ll probably be exploring that one (glutton for punishment am I). Any ideas? Am I missing some obvious ones? I thought about the Fifth Down as well, but I’m not sure I’m mentally ready for that one just yet.
DM: 1. There's no reason to think Missouri baseball can't make it to Omaha for the CWS. Tigers will most likely host a regional and depending on the matchup in the super regional, they should have the pitching and defense to make a run. Before any of that business, they'll be hungry to capture that elusive Big 12 championship this week in Oklahoma City.TB: In a way, I think Big Ten Football is in a Big XII Basketball-esque state of flux. Lots of new blood (aside from Michigan and Ohio State, of course) and lots of uncertainty as to who’s going to end up where in the pecking order. Bielema took a perfect first step in replacing Barry Alvarez; Fitzgerald is going to go through some growing pains since not only is he super-young, but he was also thrown into the job with little preparation; the Brewster hire might have been a reach, but he seems to have gotten off on the right foot recruiting; and Dantonio was a relatively safe hire...and half the time, it seems like safe hires backfire.
2. If 1 is pain-free and 10 is excruciating, then I'd put Gabbert's decision currently at a 6. Recruiting is way too unpredictable to accurately predict how this will affect the team, especially considering MU can still grab another highly ranked QB in this class. But MU would probably never had otherwise had a chance to sign the No. 1 QB in the nation except for the fact that he played in the state. Looking at it that way, it's a real blown opportunity.
3. Good question on the Big Ten scenario. Based on nothing more than budget and backyard talent-base, I'd say MU would be in the second of three tiers among the Big Ten's football pecking order. Right there along with Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue and maybe Illinois. A few steps ahead of Indiana, Northwestern and Minnesota, but nowhere near the power status of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin and Penn State. I think MU would tap into the Chicago recruiting market if it played in the Big Ten, maybe Michigan, too.
Across the board, there might be a little more parity in the Big Ten than the Big 12, and that fact could give MU a chance to make a splash there, especially with an offense that goes against the norms in that league. We've seen Northwestern and Minnesota put together some stunners over the years, and even Illinois assembled a contender or two the last 10 years. Over the same span, you haven't seen the bottom feeders in the Big 12 (Baylor, Kansas and to some degree Missouri) pull off those sorts of victories and special seasons.
This is way off topic of your question, but one thing the Big Ten has right now over the Big 12 is some exciting young coaching talent: Bret Bielema at Wisconsin, Pat Fitzgerald at Northwestern, Tim Brewster at Minnesota and Mark Dantonio at Michigan State. Seems to be a little more energy in the Big Ten based on these younger coaches' arrivals.
And yes, I think we’d fit in pretty well there. Especially when you consider how the divisions would almost have to be broken up (if they did it geographically, anyway): Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Northwestern, and Wisconsin in the ‘West’ division and Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, and Purdue in the ‘East’. That doesn’t really seem too fair, but in the mid-‘90s, when they would have been creating the divisions, Northwestern and Wisconsin were almost on par with the UM/OSU/PSU troika, so it really might have happened that way.
Anyway, before I go too far down that road...here are my quick answers to my own questions above:
1) I still worry that Mizzou relies on too many freshmen to make it to Omaha, but still...hosting a regional as a #1 seed, there’s really no excuse not to make the Super Regional. And there, it will really depend on the matchup. Kudos to Tim Jamieson, though...a few years ago, a friend of mine from OSU told me that opposing schools loved Jamieson because a) he was an amazingly nice, thoughtful guy, and b) his Mizzou teams were always extremely beatable. He and his staff have really stepped it up a notch both in coaching and recruiting, and he deserves some serious commendation for the job he’s done this year.
2) I’d say Gabbert’s commitment elsewhere is a solid 8. He might be a total bust, just like he might have been had he come to Mizzou, but his biggest impact might have come with the 2008 recruiting class Mizzou could have compiled had he committed here. The way the dominoes were arranging themselves, this could have been a major seal-the-borders class. As it is, the class should be fine—especially if another solid QB comes Mizzou’s way and Mizzou does as well as they might do this year—but for now it’s another recruiting what-coulda-been.
Well, thanks for being the guinea pig on this experiment. I think it turned out pretty well! We’ll have to do this again sometime.
DM: No problem.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The Mizzou Exchange: Dave Matter (Part One)
I’m totally ripping off Bill Simmons’ “Curious Guy” bit with this, but a new Mizzou Sanity feature is going to be The Mizzou Exchange, where I (or somebody from the blog) exchange e-mails with somebody at least remotely Mizzou-related. I promise it will be more interesting than it sounds.
First up? Dave Matter, football/softball beat-writer for the Columbia Tribune. Dave also has a lovely football blog, Behind the Stripes, on the Trib website. This conversation got pretty long, so I've broken it up into two parts. Part Two will post tomorrow.
The Boy: We'll start with something relatively obvious. Gabe Dearmond of PowerMizzou recently made a preliminary 10-2 prediction for Mizzou football in '07. Last year I looked at the schedule and saw 9-3, so I gave Mizzou a 1-game 'get real' penalty and predicted 8-4 (I guess that would make Iowa State the 'get real' penalty). This year? I too see 10-2, so I guess that means I'm going with 9-3. Granted, we're still our months out, but...what are your general thoughts at this point?DM: I tried to make this point on Chris Gervino's KOMU show the other night, but I'll try to explain it better within my preferred medium.
TB: It definitely seems that there are many different forces at work for this team. On one hand, you have the 'they're clichés because they're true' clichés like "Defense wins championships" giving you all sorts of red flags. Looking at the personnel, this team almost shapes up like those Jerry Glanville-era Falcons teams (right down to the all-black jerseys!)...their offense could crush both opposing defenses and their own defense with its efficiency. On the other hand, you look at the schedule and realize that, barring injuries or an unexpected loss, Mizzou really might be favored in 11 of 12 games this season despite the defensive question marks. It's hard to get a grasp on what should be expected when so many factors take your opinion in so many directions.
This time of year, when preseason polls start to mass produce, offense is overrated and defense is underrated. I have no doubt MU will have one of the five most prolific offenses in the country this year. But will that translate into 10 wins if the defense isn't better than average, too? I'm starting to have my doubts.
Consider this: If MU returned a top-10 national defense that only loses a lineman and one defensive back but has question marks all over the offense, I think the general expectations for the 2007 season would be severely different. Fans/media would be alarmed. The stout defense would be overlooked because everyone would be more concerned about who's going to be the leading rusher, receiver, etc. When it comes to making predictions, we (and I mean, all of us, media, fans, bloggers, etc.) don't seem to appreciate a loaded defense as much as we do a loaded offense. And it usually leads to bad predictions. Take Notre Dame last year. The return of Brady Quinn and all those spectacular offensive players hypnotized people into overlooking a seriously flawed defense that hadn't made any significant upgrades. The Domers were a popular top-three pick. What happened? Irish didn't play much defense and were outclassed by Michigan, USC and LSU. On the other hand, there wasn't a lot of hype for teams like Rutgers and Wisconsin even though they returned the bulk of their defense. Those two finished the year ranked No. 4 and 5 in total defense and lost a combined three games.
That being said, or typed, I only see three teams on MU's 2007 schedule that should cause much concern: Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Nebraska. All three play a physical style that Missouri doesn't seem to match for four quarters. The losses MU suffered to those three last year explain why Gary Pinkel has talked so much about the Tigers' needing to get more physical, especially up front.
Also, it'd be unwise to overlook both Illinois and Ole Miss. We fall into the trap of looking only at an opponent's previous season record, which would indicate MU will whip both these teams. But Illinois was competitive against the best of the best in the Big Ten last year. Ole Miss has recruited well, and duh, the game is away from Columbia.
Also to consider, Pinkel has never won in Boulder or Manhattan.
With all of that in mind, I still think MU can outscore most teams. I'm saying 9-3, with losses to OU, A&M and one we won't see coming. I'm still deciding if I'll pick the Tigers to win the North, and I'm leaning toward them over Nebraska. But I didn't leave the spring with a lot of confidence in the defense's ability to get off the field and become spectators of the Chase Daniel Show (like the rest of us are.)
The defense as a whole is obviously a giant concern, but really, to me it boils down to the defensive end position. Lorenzo Williams and a healthy Ziggy Hood (along with Jaron Baston and Charles Gaines) should be fine at DT; Sean Weatherspoon and a healthy Van Alexander should bring more attitude and speed to the LB position than Marcus Bacon and Deke Harrington did (though the team will obviously miss Bacon and Harrington's experience); the CB's should be strong; the safety combo of William Moore, Pig Brown, and Justin Garrett should be capable of replacing David Overstreet and Brandon Massey's production. Lots of "should's" there, but you get my point. It really comes down to whether some combination of Stryker Sulak, Tommy Chavis, Jaysen Corbett, Tarell Corby, and maybe John Stull can provide a pass rush. That group should be decent against the run, but if Mizzou can't pressure the QB, then the entire unit will obviously suffer.
Speaking of DE's, when I was doing my spring previews last month, I noticed something quite strange. Almost everybody in the conference lost their top DE's from last year. Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa State, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State all have to replace their top pass rushers. Combined with the fact that almost every top team (sans Nebraska and Oklahoma) now has an experienced QB running the show, I think we're going to see some unbelievable offensive numbers in the conference this season (led by Missouri, Oklahoma State, and obviously Tech). I might be placing too much importance on just one defensive position, but that discovery was still pretty interesting to me.DM: I agree that they're should be some real explosive offenses in the league this year. Oklahoma State will be one of those under the radar teams that people will expect to make a push, but again, no D. When the Tigers and Cowboys play in 2008, expect another shootout classic.
TB: There's a feast-or-famine quality to William Moore's play. If there's a big defensive play, chances are Moore was involved. However, if there's a massive breakdown, chances are Moore was involved. He's going into his junior season, though, and knowing the progress that both Jason Simpson and David Overstreet made during the sophomore-to-junior jump, I'm pretty confident that Moore will reach a higher level of consistency in '07. That alone could make a significant difference in this defense.
What happened to Big 12 defenses? Not too long ago, the Big 12 consistently had three or four of the top defenses in the country. You could count on Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas State, sometimes Nebraska and A&M, having an elite D. That's not the case any more, and I'm not really sure if it's a trend or a coincidence. OU ranked No. 16 nationally, and that was the best D in the league. Next was Texas at 24, then MU at 39. I don't think it's a lack of talent. Texas had three of its defensive backs from last year drafted, two in the first round, but played terribly against the pass last year.
As for MU, even with the questions on defense, I think the Tigers will be favored in every game but the trip to Oklahoma, possibly the home game against A&M. But as long as the defense is shaky, you're vulnerable to one of those games like Iowa State last year where the offense goes into a lull and the pressure is put on the D to make a stop.
I like the tandem of Williams and Hood in the middle, but if you have an injury there, you're in BIG trouble. I never saw much out of the backups all spring.
I think there's great potential at linebacker, but we've said that for years with this team.
Weatherspoon plays with the kind of passion this team doesn't always display on defense, but you still have to tackle.
As for the secondary, I'll miss David Overstreet, one of my favorite personalities I've covered over the years. But anyone that put him on their postseason All-Big 12 ballot last year, and I know of at least one major newspaper in this state that did, should have their voting privileges revoked or at least put on probation. Let's just say I didn't think it was Overstreet's best season. He played on a bum knee most of the year, and it showed when he had to defend the pass. In retrospect, I think he would have made a better outside linebacker than a safety. He was a pretty good tackler in the box but couldn't cover many Big 12 receivers. I think the Tigers will be just fine with Willy Moore and Pig Brown, two athletes that can hit and play the ball.
You touched on another point—Mizzou is going to have some serious hitters this year. Granted, it doesn't matter how hard you hit if the hits come after 15-yard gains, but...Moore, Brown, Weatherspoon, and Alexander are all heavier hitters than their predecessors. Plus, guys like Brock Christopher and Darnell Terrell don't shy away from contact either. That could be important considering how much the defense will likely be on the field this season—it won't matter as much that they are losing their legs late in games if the opposing offense is too.
As you can see by now, I'm always able to talk myself into being encouraged by something, even Mizzou's defense. It's a natural talent, really. If/when I need a douse of cold water, though, I look at some numbers.
Something I looked at recently was per-game and per-play averages for Big XII teams—what a normal team would have expected to gain and give up versus teams on the schedule and what Mizzou (and other Big XII teams) actually did gain/give up. Here's what I found.
Against Mizzou's 8 Big XII opponents, a normal Big XII offense could have expected to gain about 135.0 yards on 4.0 yards per carry. Mizzou averaged 112.5 yards on 3.4 yards per carry...about 84% of the normal team. A normal offense could have also expected to gain about 221.7 passing yards per game on 6.8 yards per attempt. Mizzou averaged 273.5 yards per game on 7.6 yards per attempt...about 119% of the normal team. In all, Mizzou (386.0 yards per game, 5.6 yards per play) achived about 102% of what the normal offense would achieve—the 8th-best figure in conference (OSU was #1 at 119.3%). Not bad, but not quite as hot as one would have expected the numbers to be. Of course, the offense peaked in the final two games, and rarely does a team return nine starters (and every major skill position contributor) from a good offense, so I do still expect big things here (especially against the degraded defenses we mentioned), but that keeps things in perspective a bit.
As for the defense? A normal Big XII defense could have expected to give up about 150.3 rushing yards per game on 4.3 yards per carry against Mizzou's Big XII opponents. Missouri gave up 184.1 on 4.5 yards per carry (this figure was skewed tremendously by poor showings against KSU and ISU...Mizzou was right on average in the other 6 games)...about 115% of the normal team. A normal defense could have also expected to give up about 215.7 passing yards per game on 6.9 yards per pass. Mizzou gave up 191.5 yards per game on 6.9 yards per pass...about 95% of the normal team. In all, Mizzou (375.6 yards per game, 5.5 yards per play) allowed about 102% of what a normal defense would allow. This is a small sample size, but a few things stand out to me here—a) the Iowa State game destroyed the overall numbers, b) percentages for the defense got worse across the board after Brian Smith's injury, and c) opponents ran the ball more than normal against Mizzou, likely because the run defense was a bit worse than the pass defense, and more likely because ball control was quite important against the Mizzou offense. The offense may not have achieved that much more than the typical Big XII offense, but the threat of the Mizzou offense made the opposition change its own typical offensive gameplan.DM: You touched on something there about the "threat" of Missouri's offense affecting the opponent's offensive strategy. I think that's a HUGE factor, and it's something Gary Pinkel talked about a lot this spring. Just look at what good ball-control teams did against the Tigers last year: Oklahoma gashed them with Allen Patrick, one of the most violent runners I've seen in the Big 12 the last few years; A&M used the Lane/Goodson combo to play keep away the second half; Iowa State's fullback turned into John Riggins for a day against the Tigers; and even though Oregon State's back didn't finish with 100 yards, the Beavers controlled the clock throughout the second half tossing short passes to the back and tight end and mixing in occasional runs. The Tigers were lucky to score a lot of points early against Kansas and Kansas State, or their running games would have been able to do the same.
I think the D's ability to toughen up against the run and take teams out of second-and short and third-and-short situations will define the season. I just don't understand why Missouri struggles so much in that area. I'm not big into Xs an Os, but playing a lot of zone D should theoretically free up your defensive backs to help against the run. And it's not for a lack of intensity among the coaching staff. I think it's more about personnel. Finding big, beefy D-linemen that can outmuscle offensive linemen AND run around and make plays is the hardest chore in recruiting. There just aren't a lot of players like Texas' Frank Okam, a guy that doesn't make a lot of tackles but he's so strong and powerful that his mere presence makes the guys around him better. I laugh when valuable pluggers like Okam are left off the all-conference teams while the D-end that racked up 10 meaningless sacks for some hack defense gets voted on.
I think Lorenzo Williams is a very productive college nose tackle and one of the best leaders Missouri has had in the Pinkel era. If he can play bigger than his size and combine with Ziggy Hood to give the D a solid nucleus in the middle, the Tigers can improve in that area. But I'm just not sold on the front four, not yet at least.
