SteelClip49
1/18/2008, 02:43 PM
maybe this can be combined to the other thread where they were announced as national champs by a computer poll, but even though Mizzou isn't talking via the media like they were prior to the Big XII Title Game, I wonder how much talking they are doing right now about Oklahoma. Yes, Oklahoma proved they were and are the better team because of a 2nd win but considering how Missouri dismantled McFadkansas and Oklahoma lost to WVA like we did, I seriously wonder how much talking Missouri is doing right now? Not that it matters but I am just curious. I wonder if Missouri is talking about how fortunate we were again or how embarrassing it is for them to have lost to Oklahoma and Oklahoma turns around and gets owned by the Mountaineers. Every year has a different theme but one same continuous theme for every college football Saturday is, ....It may be the same team showing up but it is always a different team playing; no team plays the exact same way as they did the week before or the week after..... I would agree that Missouri ended up being the best team in the nation but not worthy of the national title because of the fact they lost to Oklahoma twice.
I do wonder a lot and perhaps this should be on a Mizzou board but I am not a member of any of their boards so it's best I ask over here. This was an odd season and out of all the teams that made the biggest surprise was Kansas and Missouri.
As said earlier, I think Missouri ended up as being the best team in 2007 but has no rightful claim to the national title.
Kansas, imo, not the best but considering they have the talent, discipline and coaching staff, and ended up with the best record among BCS conference teams (12-1), they deserved to be the national champions.
West Virginia, USC and Georgia may have a claim as well but those three (all with 2 losses) had 1 loss to an under .500 team.
LSU, imo, didn't deserve to be in the game but they were there and won. But I figured, no matter how close or how big they won by, it was Kansas that deserved some co-credit.
CFB fans across the nation felt Kansas didn't deserve a top 5 ranking or even a share of the national title based on schedule strength and even the polls had that notion. But wasn't it the polls who had Kansas #2 going into the game against Missouri? Weak schedule and yet they end up as #2 prior to the loss. Now KU is a fraud and Missouri is proving they are now the best team in the land and that is when all the talking started.
Kansas drops several spots in the AP and Coaches but they dropped only 2-3 spots in the BCS. Kansas went out and defeated BCS #3 Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl but fans, polls want to disregard that because as a whole, they didn't play anyone worth a damn. It's as if the polls had a sudden change of heart despite kaving KU as #2 just weeks before.
The Kansas fans I have talked with really have no beef other than they felt they deserved to be in the AP and Coaches final top 5. Hell, you go 12-1, win the Orange Bowl and finish with the best record among BCS conference teams. But no...it didn't work for them.
However, with Missouri's top 5 ranking, I seriously wonder if they think they could beat Oklahoma right now based on how they dismantled Arkansas and how West Virginia tore Oklahoma apart. It doesn't matter but that will never stop the talking, even if the media isn't showing it because the season is over now. IMO, I think the polls are confused themselves. Non-BCS participant Missouri who has 2 losses to Oklahoma finishes above Oklahoma and 1 loss BCS bowl champion Kansas who came back on them just to lose by eight. Nonetheless, it's great to have 4 XII teams in the top 10 but I seriously question the validity of Missouri and really how great they were at season's end because it sure didn't show against Oklahoma.
BTW, sorry for rambling on and on about issues already obvious and apparent. I just wanted to see if there were any other angles and comments people wanted to make regarding Missouri and their overall validity and what little case they have for 2007.
I do wonder a lot and perhaps this should be on a Mizzou board but I am not a member of any of their boards so it's best I ask over here. This was an odd season and out of all the teams that made the biggest surprise was Kansas and Missouri.
As said earlier, I think Missouri ended up as being the best team in 2007 but has no rightful claim to the national title.
Kansas, imo, not the best but considering they have the talent, discipline and coaching staff, and ended up with the best record among BCS conference teams (12-1), they deserved to be the national champions.
West Virginia, USC and Georgia may have a claim as well but those three (all with 2 losses) had 1 loss to an under .500 team.
LSU, imo, didn't deserve to be in the game but they were there and won. But I figured, no matter how close or how big they won by, it was Kansas that deserved some co-credit.
CFB fans across the nation felt Kansas didn't deserve a top 5 ranking or even a share of the national title based on schedule strength and even the polls had that notion. But wasn't it the polls who had Kansas #2 going into the game against Missouri? Weak schedule and yet they end up as #2 prior to the loss. Now KU is a fraud and Missouri is proving they are now the best team in the land and that is when all the talking started.
Kansas drops several spots in the AP and Coaches but they dropped only 2-3 spots in the BCS. Kansas went out and defeated BCS #3 Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl but fans, polls want to disregard that because as a whole, they didn't play anyone worth a damn. It's as if the polls had a sudden change of heart despite kaving KU as #2 just weeks before.
The Kansas fans I have talked with really have no beef other than they felt they deserved to be in the AP and Coaches final top 5. Hell, you go 12-1, win the Orange Bowl and finish with the best record among BCS conference teams. But no...it didn't work for them.
However, with Missouri's top 5 ranking, I seriously wonder if they think they could beat Oklahoma right now based on how they dismantled Arkansas and how West Virginia tore Oklahoma apart. It doesn't matter but that will never stop the talking, even if the media isn't showing it because the season is over now. IMO, I think the polls are confused themselves. Non-BCS participant Missouri who has 2 losses to Oklahoma finishes above Oklahoma and 1 loss BCS bowl champion Kansas who came back on them just to lose by eight. Nonetheless, it's great to have 4 XII teams in the top 10 but I seriously question the validity of Missouri and really how great they were at season's end because it sure didn't show against Oklahoma.
BTW, sorry for rambling on and on about issues already obvious and apparent. I just wanted to see if there were any other angles and comments people wanted to make regarding Missouri and their overall validity and what little case they have for 2007.