The Departed: Missouri Tigers Own Texas Athletics in Big 12 Valedictory; What Does The SEC Hold?
by Scipio Tex on May 7, 2025 4:49 PM CDT
in Texas Longhorns and Other Football
Email
Print
In contrast to the Aggies spectacular toe-stubbing departure, the Missouri Tigers have been as hard on the Longhorns in their valedictory tour as Texas is on women and horses. We played (Siegfried &) Roy to the Missouri Tiger in 2011-2012 and it's going to be difficult to get the blood out of our sequins.
- Missouri football beat Texas 17-5 on a shag rug laid over rubble that claimed Fozzy's knee and the remnants of David Ash's confidence. As a general rule, I never like losing games to teams whose public address announcer leads 1st down cheers
- Missouri basketball, led by former Longhorn assistant Frank Haith, blanked Texas 3-0. They went on to lose to a 15 seed in the NCAA tournament, which, though amusing, doesn't make us look any better
- Finally, Missouri baseball beat Texas 2 out of 3 this weekend to seal our ignominy
That's a clean sweep in the two major sports and in a third that some care about. Obviously, we've fared much better against Missouri historically, but it would have been nice to send them out appropriately.
As for Missouri's future in the SEC, it's a Brave New World. Particularly on the recruiting trail.
Basketball
College basketball is a national recruiting game and Missouri can adopt a broad regional/national approach. Haith will have to prove his mettle on the recruiting trails after being handed a great team full of seniors, but there's no structural reason they can't have success in basketball.
Football
Football is different. Missouri's football success was bulwarked substantially by Texas recruiting and replacing that talent pipeline isn't just going to happen by virtue of participating in the country's best football league. Mizzou showed a knack for wringing production out of Texas 3 stars and built an excellent recruiting presence in DFW and a handful of talent-rich small towns like Gilmer. Though the SEC will guarantee the Tigers a continued Texas television presence through the Aggies, they won't be playing many games in the Lone Star state and their impression level on 16 year old minds will be well south of TCU, much less Oklahoma State. Texas state recruiting won't disappear entirely, but consider these numbers:
2010 9 of 23 signees from Texas
2011 9 of 17 signees from Texas
2012 6 of 19 signees from Texas
2013 1 out of 10 commits from Texas (the other 9 are all from Missouri)
The writing is on the wall. Last year, Missouri had 35 roster players from Texas. They will be at 1/3 of that in three or four years.
More than just volume, the Texas recruiting base provided major impact players like Chase Daniel, Sean Weatherspoon, Ziggy Hood, Danario Alexander, James Franklin. Unlike Nebraska, Missouri consistently got great production out of its Texas signees, not just bodies. They had an established blueprint to show Texas athletes: here were the guys before you, here are the records they set, here's the money they're making now in the NFL. Come on up - this can be done.
Pinkel knows he has to mine alternate talent sources and Missouri is already creating a recruiting presence in Georgia and Florida, but how will the Tigers deal with a SEC recruiting world in which they're the 8th or 9th most appealing school choice on the SEC wish list and outside of the Top 10 regionally? They're not recruiting people who care about good journalism schools or a charming university town with four seasons. They're recruiting parochial ballers raised in the heart of SEC country who values regional identity, rabid fan bases, and being close to mama.
Tick off the better options: Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee. Is Missouri clearly a superior choice measured against South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas A&M, even Ole Miss? You'll have trouble convincing me. Not to mention expected incursions by Ohio State under Urban Meyer and the presence of impact local ACC schools like Clemson, FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech...
It's not just tougher competition - there are more academic hurdles and the South has a disproportionate number of interested family advisors, shadowy uncles, and helpful ministers guiding various recruitments. Trent Richardson and Cam Newton think this is slander, but I may have a point. The recruiting trails in Texas are comparatively clean, well-ordered highways with clear signage and courteous drivers, the bad exits clearly marked and known; SEC country has road blocks every three miles manned by the cast of the Road Warrior and you're never quite sure which militia you're speaking with.
The issue isn't whether Texas or SEC kids are better - the per capita data says SEC country has the nod - it's that Texas kids are hell of a lot easier to get up to Columbia and they have a track record of thriving there. Recruiting competition in Texas is several orders of magnitude weaker than the bloodsport of the SEC - even after Texas or Oklahoma eats their fill. Look at the secondary competition. Missouri is going from taking on Kansas, Baylor, and Texas Tech for that promising 3 star project from Dallas to battling Tennessee, South Carolina, and Auburn for a kid who lives on the Georgia border. That's not just a different ballgame, it's a different sport.
My advice: prioritize locking down the state of Missouri and the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City like they were CDC outbreak facilities, fill in opportunistically wherever you can, and hope that Dorial Green-Beckhams keep sprouting from the soil.
43 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You have either lost your mind.
t’s not just tougher competition - there are more academic hurdles
Or you are being ironical.
by texitect on May 7, 2025 5:06 PM CDT reply actions
Actually
SEC country has the highest rate of ineligible potential D-1 athletes by a pretty wide margin. Thus the Houston Nutt Ole Miss classes of legend with 37 signees.
That’s what I’m talking about.
by Scipio Tex on May 7, 2025 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Damn, everything makes sense to me now.
All this time I thought SEC schools were touting their high academic standards when they were saying things like “Well it’s harder to get into an SEC school.”
What they meant was: “It’s harder to get an Alabama high school graduate into college than it is to get a Texas high school graduate into college. Even if he runs a 4.3 forty and hits like a truck.”
by texitect on May 7, 2025 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Seriously.
I think I read somewhere that half of the graduates in Mississippi high schools aren’t college eligible under the most liberal interpretation possible of D-1 athletic rules.
by Scipio Tex on May 7, 2025 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions
They probably will fare no worse.
However, they will be in a real conference and not one made up in football backwaters just to get the LHN up an running.
by Flash1969 on May 7, 2025 5:21 PM CDT reply actions
Good for them and you!
I wonder who the football backwaters will be in the real conference, or does one lose backwater status by more willing association and cooperation with one’s betters?
by RomaVicta on May 7, 2025 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions
Do Missouri's Texas signees
commit late or early? I would guess later once Texas and Oklahoma have had made their decisions.
Without that information I don’t think that table is telling us much.
by DoubleB on May 7, 2025 5:42 PM CDT reply actions
No real pattern to their commitments
There isn’t historically a late Texas rush. There’s going to be a big change in their roster make-up.
by Scipio Tex on May 7, 2025 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I thought...
…all the aggy trolls were gone to the LSU boards. Did somebody forget to close the back door after they crawled out???
"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead." (Jimmy Buffett)
by coolhorn on May 7, 2025 6:17 PM CDT reply actions
Mizzou will catch at least one break
The Tigers’ second game will be at home against Georgia, which likely be minus four defensive starters due to suspensions . . . and three of those are in the secondary. An early win against the defending SEC East champs might be just what Missouri needs to get its recruiting mojo working.
by Cirque Du Salado on May 7, 2025 9:20 PM CDT reply actions
Georgia starts every season with 3-4 starters suspended
It’s like a sign of Fall.
by Scipio Tex on May 8, 2025 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Good post.
As a Mizzou fan, I have some trepidation about the move to the SEC. I’m not as freaked out as I would be if I were an Aggie fan (I think Mizzou’s financial footing is sounder), but there are things to be concerned about. I’ve thought about this some, and I agree with everything you’re said.
The good news, at least from the Tiger perspective, is that we do seem to be owning the Missouri area in recruiting. If signing day were tomorrow, this would be far and away our best in-state year ever. Some of that is the DGB afterglow, but a lot of it is our relocation to the SEC. Kids from StL and KC are very interested in being able to drive two hours and play in the best football conference in the land. We aren’t losing nearly the volume of prospects to the B1G that we were, especially from St. Louis. Will the increase in home-state recruiting, plus an uncertain future in the Atlanta area (Pinkel’s bullseye in SEC recruiting) make up for the loss of the TX pipeline? Time will tell.
One interesting factoid is that, at least as far as I can tell, ex-Tigers from Missouri who are likely to make an NFL roster outnumber ex-Tigers from Texas who are likely to do the same, 8 to 5. Maybe we make up part of the upcoming TX deficit by winning the battle for guys like Josh Freeman and Adrian Clayborn.
by Tigermad on May 8, 2025 10:22 AM CDT reply actions
Thanks for the factoid.
We definitely see things the same. I’m not optimistic about Missouri winning out in Atlanta, but just locking down the state and owning St Louis/KC guarantees a good, competitive program.
by Scipio Tex on May 8, 2025 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Tigermad Query
Some of the Aggies like to claim that Texas drove out all the schools that left the Big 12. What is your feeling about that with particular regard to Missouri? Missouri pretty much started the realignment by fishing around, I always took that as just a preference for belonging to the Big 10 due to proximity as much as anything else. What say you?
Thanks.
by RomaVicta on May 8, 2025 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Complicated question
Back in 2010, there were actually two things going on. First, the state of Missouri’s buffoon governor, who probably was not in the loop, publicly shot his mouth off about how wonderful being in the B1G would be. Second, there was a very serious, very private effort on the part of the university to negotiate entry to the B1G. The B1G was very interested too, but they wanted Mizzou to accept second-tier status in the B1G Network for a few years, the same deal that Nebraska eventually took, but Mizzou wouldn’t do it. After the coaches had already been informed that Mizzou was going B1G, negotiations broke down, and the B1G took Nebraska instead. You’ll never find an official source that will say this, but this is what I’ve pieced together from message-board insiders whom I trust. (side note: I hope that somebody, someday, writes a well-researched tell-all book about this!)
So yeah, Mizzou had a wandering eye. I don’t believe for a second, though, that Nebraska, Colorado, and A&M weren’t at least as wandering. I’m also quite confident that Texas had its second through fifth options lined up. All of this came out in the press very quickly, but under-the-table negotiations had been going on for a long time before they started leaking. ‘Point is, I don’t know that any school with options (which excludes the hapless Kansases and Baylors of the world) can claim to have clean hands here.
As for why this happened, I think it has to do with a) Aggie big brother syndrome, which has existed forever, and b) discontent from members of the old Big 8. Remember, before the B12 started, the Big 8 was a Kansas City-centric conference. Then, all of a sudden, the Big 8 schools find themselves in a conference with Texas, which is a college-sports leviathan, and they don’t have the same power and influence that they used to. Mix this with the undeniable Longhorn swagger (“We’re Texas” is a statement of importance, not of fact), and a lot of the old Big 8 schools got very unhappy (exception being Oklahoma, which is now joined at the hip to Texas forevermore). The Big 8-ers claim that Texas wants to decide everything for its own benefit; Longhorn fans claim that Texas is an animal more equal than others and should be treated accordingly (it’s not our fault, says Texas, that we are richer and more powerful than you will ever be).
I think there’s an element of truth to what both sides were saying. However, the outcome of it has been that the schools that could leave the B12 for more equitable pastures elsewhere have now left. 99 percent of Mizzou fans will blame that on Texas, and I think Texas shares the blame. Perhaps the moral of the story was that the conference was doomed from the beginning, that what the Nebraskas and the Mizzous wanted could never be compatible with what Texas wanted. I regret it, but it is what it is.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Thanks
I appreciate the thoughtful response.
by RomaVicta on May 9, 2025 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions
I’ve never bought the reasoning that Texas ruled the Big 12. The Big 12 is a direct democracy whereby every school gets a vote, so Texas alone cannot decide how things are gonna be. A majority of the members have to decide that a measure benefits them as well in order for it to pass.
It seems to me that every school that left are poor sports b/c they didn’t win at the ballot box.
But I do agree that the Big 12 leftovers that were eyeing the Big East are the only ones who can claim to have clean hands here.
by Joetx on May 9, 2025 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Y yo lo mismo
I don’t see how Texas could have bullied anyone once the conference was established. All of UT’s bargaining power would have been at the point of creation. That said, most votes went 11-1 against Nebraska (who can claim a bone to pick, but it would seem with all the other schools of the Big XII who voted as Texas did). The later defectors voted with Texas on the issues they feel Texas dominated.
They seemingly could have formed blocs to get their way where they believed they weren’t getting it. The only card the big schools could play was willingness to leave the conference. Ironically, the schools claiming wrong were the ones who played that card.
Texas surely flirted with other conferences and likely used a bad tone in some conflicts. I don’t dismiss altogether claims that the University of Texas can act in arrogance.
A note, I didn’t mean to cast Missouri’s desire to leave the conference in anything but a neutral light. I think it was the initiating act that changed the conferences, but it’s their right to do what they think is best for themselves. I also appreciate that even though there evidently were ill feelings held by some regarding UT, they didn’t create a disgusting, self-immolating public morality play about escaping a bully in order to associate with more likable bullies.
Of course, Mizzou applied the foot to us on most of the important playing fields, so the Tigers don’t have to slink away with a tearful look over their shoulders.
by RomaVicta on May 9, 2025 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I think the very laissez-faire nature of the B12
was and is a structural benefit to Texas, as shown by the LHN and similar endeavors. Not all the pro-Texas votes went down 11-1. For example, back when Weiberg was still the B12 commissioner, Mizzou was definitely in favor of the B12 Network, but Texas and a few others were able to veto it. Were the original B12 signatories naive in signing off on a system like that? Sure. However, I think everybody expected Texas to be a little less ruthless and a little more collegial with its freedom than Texas turned out to be.
I certainly haven’t seen anything said here about Mizzou that I thought was unduly critical. Hopefully, I’ve been equally evenhanded in my treatment of Texas. Though Mizzou is my undergraduate alma mater and my first love, I also did graduate from UT Law, and I still remember my time on the 40 Acres kindly.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions
I had always heard that UT and Dodds were strongly in favor of Weiberg’s proposal and wanted the conference to move forward with a network and that there was little interest amongst the rest of the conference. And it was only after it was shot down that UT started exploring what to do with its Tier 3 rights.
Could be wrong on this — but that is my memory.
This along with many other conference issues are areas where every school now claims to have been in the right, but I vaguely remember reporting on this while it was going on, and that UT wanted Jack Swarbrick to replace Weiberg - who the thought was would be more aggressive with moving the conference forward - while others sided with Beebe.
by Big(g) Ern on May 9, 2025 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
The only school w/ a “legitimate” bone to pick w/ the Big 12’s rules & structure is NU. Effectively taking away the open door of admitting partial qualifiers (I don’t know if the Big 8 allowed non-qualifiers in) marked the beginning of the end of NU’s dominance AND leveled the playing field for the rest of the old Big 8. I don’t see how any old Big 8 school can complain about that.
As for the rest of the issues Texas won on at the outset (location of the conference’s headquarters & the choice of commissioner), those weren’t big deals. Dallas has more Fortune 500 companies than KC has, so it makes sense to place the Big 12’s HQ where there is more business being conducted. Plus, it’s not as if KC hasn’t gotten favorable treatment in terms of hosting Big 12 tournaments. And, as we’ve seen, commissioners come & go.
Finally, there is NO WAY Texas & a few other schools are able to veto anything, unless they make up the majority. We’re not dealing w/ inane U.S Senate rules here, whereby a minority party can screw everything up.
by Joetx on May 9, 2025 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Honestly, I think that's a little naive.
That’s kind of like saying that in the political realm, my vote counts the same as the votes of the Koch brothers or George Soros, so therefore, I have as much political power as they do. In real life, money always talks, and money usually gets what it wants. Texas has money.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Enjoying the discussion, Tigermad
My recollection is the same as Big(g) Ern, but I probably just read it on the internet and can’t be sure.
As for naivete, your vote does count the same as those of the Koch brothers or George Soros or anyone else. Their influence comes in impacting the votes of representatives. How could Texas or any rich powerful school sway the voter for Iowa State or Missouri to act against the interest of their institution in the way that a rich supporter can sway the vote of a Congressman?
Texas’ only real card, as far as I can tell, is the threat to leave. It’s sort of a nuclear option that can’t be wielded too much. Texas alone leaving the Big 12 would not have doomed the conference anyway.
Should any Iowa State fan be reading this, I don’t scorn your team. In fact, I have a man crush on your football coach and the achievements of the Cyclones over the last few years. Also, I would have been happiest had the Big 12 remained intact as it was.
by RomaVicta on May 9, 2025 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Here's a Nebraska blog post from a couple years back
that purports to quote Dodds and what he has “always” believed about conference networks.
http://betteroffred.fantake.com/2010/05/19/big-12-network-dodds-to-conference-eff-you/
Also, here’s a relevant blog post from Berry Tramel, not my idea of an impeccable news source, but hey. . .
http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2011/09/20/big-12-football-expansion-talks-blinded-us/
I haven’t found anything that said that Texas SUPPORTED the 2006 B12 Network proposal.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions
From your Tramel source:
“Beebe actually pushed for equitable revenue sharing but was voted down by the Big 12 power brokers: Texas, OU, A&M and Nebraska. Beebe’s predecessor, Kevin Weiberg, pushed for a Big 12 Network. He was rebuffed by the same set of schools and instead went to the Big Ten and formed that league’s network, and now is doing the same at the Pac-12.”
Texas, OU, A&M and Nebraska, according to this, opposed the Big 12 Network. So how is this Texas hegemony?
The first link conveniently only condemns Texas and you have to get through a spray of venom to get to the relevant quote from Dodds about preference for an individual network. Further, nobody thought it would be a big money maker back then.
Texas couldn’t persuade the Aggies to share a network because nobody thought there would be sufficient ROI. The Aggies didn’t want to take the risk, and then whined when the risk paid off.
by RomaVicta on May 9, 2025 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Again, I am not necessarily disagreeing with you as this is just my memory, and I have no solid evidence to back it up — so you very well could be right.
But… I seem to remember that Weiberg pushed the conference network, and UT and Nebraska were initially receptive. I thought both ended up hiring consultants to study the issue, and both ended up being at least lukewarm supporters of Weiberg’s efforts, but both also began exploring how to monetize their own Tier 3 rights given that other conference members had little interest.
I thought this was one of the few areas that Nebraska and UT found agreement on.
by Big(g) Ern on May 9, 2025 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Bad analogy
Comparing the governing structure of the Big 12 w/ that of the U.S. government is like comparing apples & oranges. Like I said above, the Big 12 is a direct democracy. The U.S., OTOH, is a representative democracy. You can buy politicians. Unless you have proof Texas bought the presidents/chancellors & athletic directors of other Big 12 member schools, whether Texas has money is immaterial.
by Joetx on May 9, 2025 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Given their reliance on TX high school recruits...
…I found it very strange that Mizzou chose Arkie as their permanent cross-division rival, instead of going w/ A&M when: a) MU needs the annual exposure in TX; b) they have a history w/ the aggys; & c) them & the aggys were the last 2 invitees.
I figured Arkie made the proposal in order to eliminate another competitor for TX high school recruits, & MU was dumb enough to take them up on the offer.
by Joetx on May 8, 2025 2:35 PM CDT reply actions
I'm not sure how much choice they had in the matter
And the SEC wanted to integrate the two new additions and not just have them square off against each other.
by Scipio Tex on May 8, 2025 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions
I don’t see how pairing the 2 newest additions w/ the prior 2 newest additions is integration, especially since Arkie & the Other USC were formerly permanent cross-division opponents.
But I agree that MU most likely didn’t have much say in the matter. It’s funny how they whined about not being equal partners in the Big 12, but now they’re being told who they’ll play & where.
Karma is lovely.
by Joetx on May 8, 2025 11:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't forget also that Kansas is now refusing to play us,
and Mizzou fans are desperate for a natural geographic rival.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions
But don't you think it hurts you not having an annual presence in TX?
Plus, I think Arkie has its hands full w/ its Brass Boot rival (LSU) & its relatively recent renewal of a former SWC rivalry (A&M).
by Joetx on May 9, 2025 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions
No question. The drying up of the TX pipeline
is the single biggest reason for Mizzou fans to be concerned for the move to the SEC. On purely practical grounds, it would have made the best sense to keep the Collies as our rival. I wanted to see that, in fact. However, there’s more than practicality at stake here.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Kentucky or Tennessee?
When Tennessee can reach into Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina to get kids, you get the late 90s. When they can’t, you get 7 assistants leaving for lateral jobs in one off-season. That orange T this year stands for Titanic, except everyone’s already left the boat.
Kentucky just can’t get anyone, period.
I could see Missouri pulling off what the Vols accomplished during the Fulmer years, grabbing enough kids from neighboring states. They’re the only school in the East running their type of offense, which eases things a little bit and shifts who they’re competing against once you dip below the 4-stars. They also don’t have to sell kids on getting massacred by LSU and Alabama every year.
Finally, in the East, they seem to have an interesting opportunity. Georgia seems stuck with a coach too good to fire but not nearly good enough to fulfill the program’s potential. South Carolina’s as good as it’s ever going to get. Florida and Tennessee could theoretically come back to their glory years, but there are real structural obstacles to that.
I personally think Mizzou is going to come out of this much better than people think, and TAMU much worse.
by G.O.F on May 8, 2025 10:17 PM CDT reply actions
Also, remember that Pinkel's greatest strength as a coach
Is player evaluation and development. Mizzou is Wisconsin Lite in our ability to recruit to our system, and a Missouri HS kid who stays home is far, far more likely to make it to the NFL than one who goes to Nebraska or Arkansas. We get the most out of our talent, as opposed to, for instance, a Tennessee. Most of the guys who have gone league from Mizzou have been three-stars. If things go well, I think Mizzou will win eight or nine games every year. The competition will be better, but so will the recruiting. However, if we can’t establish ourselves in SEC recruiting, the future doesn’t look so good.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions
well argued. often seems hard to find anyone willing to use reason and logic in these realignment debates.
my guess is that both a&m and mizzou have a tough first couple of years making the transition. i actually think mizzou’s offense will do pretty well in the sec - arkie & auburn showed that you can put up some points if you have even the semblance of a creative offensive scheme, and i think mizzou has some talent on the offense.
i think it will take both schools time to recruit the kind of defensive personnel that can handle sec style running games. i see mizzou losing a lot of games in the trenches and having a defense that is exhausted by halftime and leaking like a sieve late in games.
by Big(g) Ern on May 9, 2025 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Mizzou will go to SEC style scheduling
Have 3 wins guaranteed OOC, go 5-4 in conference, proclaim victory while championing the SEC’s difficulty. The middle tier SEC formula is well-established. No reason Mizzou or A&M can’t achieve it.
by Scipio Tex on May 9, 2025 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions
I think you're basically right. One correction, though.
Ain’t no way that the SEC goes to a nine-game conference schedule. The coaches won’t stand for more than eight. We’re looking at six division games, one rivalry game, and one rotating game, at least until and unless the SEC goes to 16 teams. Look for everybody to schedule 4 OOC patsies, go .500 in conference, and cue the victory celebration. I think Mizzou is that good, and on our up years, good enough to challenge for the division crown, provided that the recruiting doesn’t go into a nosedive.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions
The differing play styles will make it interesting, that's for sure,
and Mizzou ought to benefit from the relative novelty of its offensive schemes. We’ve never been able to field Texas-level offensive talent (or rather, the offensive talent that Texas ought to have), but we are so committed to our system on offense that it gives us a puncher’s chance against anybody.
Defense is different. I like our defensive system, but it’s not as distinctive, which means that we’re competing with everyone else for 320-pound, cat-quick DT’s, and there aren’t enough of those guys to go around. Our DL coach might be the single best position coach on the staff, but still. . . Statistically speaking, a B12 defense has to defend against a substantially higher number of plays per game than an SEC defense, but you could argue that the SEC offense is going to dish out more pounding per play than the B12 offense (although Mike Leach may beg to differ).
What we’ve seen from Pinkel defenses against more run-oriented teams is this: As long as the DL is healthy, we’ll do OK. Once guys start going down, though, we don’t have the depth to plug the holes effectively (one of the main places where our medium-level recruiting shows up). In 2006, the run defense collapsed when we lost our best DE; in 2010, we lost our starting nose tackle for the year in the OU game, and thereafter, the run defense was a sieve. My guess is that we probably have two DT’s who have the physical tools to start in the SEC. I don’t think we have three of them. We have guys who can steal snaps, but nobody who can bear the load. So, yeah, especially late in the season, run D may well be a concern.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions
It’ll definitely be interesting. Over the past decade, Arky has routinely runs up leads on top SEC teams while the opponent just keeps landing body blows with power running games. They may have to punt frequently, but they tire the routinely undersized Arky defense down. By the second half, the other team is scoring at will and typically has made some defensive adjustments to slow Arky down.
I see a lot of possible similarities for Mizzou in the first year or two. I just think it will take time to get the right personnel after spending the last decade building defenses adjusted to defend air-raid/spread offenses.
by Big(g) Ern on May 9, 2025 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Not a bad analogy.
Come-from-ahead losses are the mark of a team with a good scheme and inferior talent. We may well see some of that from the Tigers this fall. In terms of personnel, oddly enough, our LB corps is already full of run-stuffers rather than hybrid types. Likewise, in terms of fitting the run-support mold, our safeties may not be big, but at least they’re slow!
On the DL, I don’t think you’ll really see a change of emphasis there either. Mizzou hasn’t really had one of those 230-lb pass-rushers since the middle part of the last decade. All the non-situational guys are 260+.
by Tigermad on May 9, 2025 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Start posting about the Longhorns
- Barking Carnival on Facebook
- Follow @BarkingCarnival
- Follow Barking Carnival on your Android Device!
- Subscribe to Barking Carnival Stories
Related FanPosts on Barking Carnival
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
