The Myth of Missouri Football

by Owen Kemp on Aug 19, 2008 2:08 PM CDT Comment 9 comments

I've been to the message boards, some opinions are worse than others, but the overwhelming belief amongst Missouri fans can be stated in one sign held up at the MU vs. KU game at arrowhead last year. "Kansas Football a Tradition since September." I'm not here to argue Kansas has a rich football tradition or that we've been a devoted fan base for years, but can Missouri really make these claims? Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? We know tradition at Kansas, we've been fanatical about a team for years, our basketball team, but are we wrong to be encouraged and optimistic about our football team just because we don't have a rich history like a Texas or Oklahoma. The answer is no and Missouri fans can do the same, but the belief Missouri has a long and rich football history is a myth and here's why...

For the sake of argument let’s look at the last 30 years. This is not an arbitrary number, but a timeframe given to me by a Missouri fan. He rightfully claimed that in the last 30 years Missouri has been to 11 Bowls matching Kansas' entire bowl history. OK, Fair enough let's analyze those years. Since they brought it up let's talk Bowls. Advantage Missouri no doubt, but is 11 bowls vs. our 6 in 30 years really a statement of football dominance. Interesting too if you look at win percentage, in those bowls Kansas was the better program in terms of winning once they got there, not that either one should be bragging too much here. Based on the insults toward our fledgling football program I would also have to assume that Missouri's overall win loss record the last 30 years must be tremendous compared to the lowly Jayhawks. Wrong, over the past 30 years, based on both teams’ media guides Missouri has a record of 159-185-7 while Kansas has a record of 142-194-8. Hardly a major difference, you’re talking about a half a game a year difference in record and someone would have to convince me this makes one team tradition rich and the other a never was.

Don't tell me I think I've got this one figured out the perception must be the due to head to head record. Maybe Missouri has dominated us head to head over the years. Funny because I know this isn't true and the record proves it from 78-08 head to head record is 15-15 dead even. Furthermore the all time record has been well documented for its parity. How can this be? we are a flash in the pan, a tradition since September and Missouri is a football power with years of tradition, aren’t they?

Too be honest I think Missouri has a great team this year and has as good a shot as any at winning it, but the perception that they possess a far superior tradition to Kansas simply isn't true. These teams are both new on the scene and I'll admit we may be a tradition since September 07' but Missouri might be only slightly better being a tradition since September 06'. See you in November...

0 recs | Comment 9 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agreed.

Now, I think it is rather obvious that Missouri has a better football team than us this year, and that, straight up, have a ‘better’ football history than us.

But, like you correctly point out, they don’t have much of a tradition at all; their “football tradition” looks good only to some of the worst in all of college football, one of which is Kansas. So, yea, congratulations on the 17 extra victories and 5 extra bowl games over the last 30 years, but it isn’t like anyone out of the rivalry gives half a shit.

They consider both of us to be (relatively) in the same boat. Tradition-starved programs just now on the uprise. Now, their current standing is different (both in national perception and reality), as Missouri is accpeted as a legitimate national title contender while Kansas “must prove last year wasn’t a fluke”, but that is defendable because Mizzou has been solid for awhile now, where as Kansas’ 6-6 2006 season has killed the perception.

If we just win one more game that year (and there are four easy ones to choose from; @ Toledo, @ Nebraska, vs. A&M, @ Baylor) and make a bowl, we have made three straight bowl games and it is a lot easier to defend us as “a program on the rise”. But because bad luck came up and bit us in the ass in 2006, and we didn’t make a bowl, we are considered a one-year flash in the pan.

Going back to the original point, really good fanpost and I agree with it all. While Missouri does have an edge, there isn’t a big enough split between the two programs to brag about.

by rockchalk on Aug 19, 2008 7:38 PM CDT reply actions

Sorry

It’s kind of hard to understand you with the sod in your mouth like that.

No, as a Missouri fan, it’s a relevant point. There’s been discussion over at Rock M Nation about whether we’re even a football school or a basketball school. It was decided that we were more a football school, but it was close, and that was likely partially due to your domination in basketball.

However, the attitude last year that you were legit, when you were clearly, obviously, painfully not was a little irksome, hence the angst. Okay, mostly just that we hate you. And everything about you. Cheers!

Oh, and yes, we will see you in November. Glad you’re looking forward to it. We know we enjoyed it last time.

Seriously, good luck this season. Hope the non-cupcake diet goes down as easy.

by Ridiculous Matt on Aug 20, 2008 1:56 AM CDT reply actions

Hey, MAWK.

Long time, no see.

As far as your point, I don’t know if you guys qualify as either a football school or a basketball school. Now, picking between the two I think it’s fairly certain you are a football school, but I think it takes some year-after-year national relevance before you are assigned a title.

And just to make sure that this is clear; Mizzou is a better football team than us this year. I think we have a better coach, and the talent gap is narrow enough for the game at Arrowhead to be another great one, but you guys are likely going to win.

Now, as for the whole “clearly, obviously, painfully not legit” line, that isn’t true. Sure, we likely weren’t normal-schedule-12-and-1-good, or ranked-#7-good, but we were clearly one of the 15-or-so best football teams in the entire country. Not sure how much of our games you watched (a serious question/comment, as if you really only watched the KU/MU game, that would taint your view), but it isn’t like we just squeaked by the teams. We thoroughly dominated A&M, comfortably outplayed Okie State and beat the living shit out of Baylor and Iowa State and all of the non-cons (admittedly not much of an accomplishment). The only real argument for a claim that we “only” pulled off a good year because of the schedule is the Colorado escape, but everyone has off games.

So, yea, the “cupcake diet” no doubt helped us, but we still win 9 games (just as we will this year) pre-bowl with this year’s schedule last year. Not BCS-great, but Holiday Bowl-good, for sure, no matter what people claim.

Wow, that was an incredibly long response…

by rockchalk on Aug 20, 2008 2:11 AM CDT up reply actions

As a Missouri fan

I thought two things when I saw the “KU Football: A Tradition since September” sign:
1. That’s hilarious
2. Doesn’t that work both ways?

Matt made several great points, especially about the football school v. basketball school distinction. Let’s be honest, Missouri claiming to be a “basketball school” in the Border War probably isn’t the best idea – no one (at least on the Missouri side) wants to see the comparisons between the two schools. But with football, I think the direction of the program comes in to play. People expected an improved Missouri team last year (maybe not 12-2 improved, but they still expected something), whereas it seemed Kansas caught everyone by surprise. I think it was the blessing of expectation. And if we’re talking “direction of the program,” I won’t even bring up the basketball programs.

As for being “clearly, obviously, painfully not legit,” I think that point was 100 percent legitimate until the Orange Bowl. The non-con proved nothing, the “quality” of Baylor/ISU wins mean little, and the wins over Nebraska and Oklahoma State were tainted by the fact that they were, well, late 2007 Nebraska and any season Oklahoma State. I think where you were hurt the most were the close games with a schizophrenic Colorado team and a Kansas State team that imploded after the Texas win.

What’s a shame is that Kansas should truly be an outstanding football team this year – better than last year, even – and no one may notice. I think 9 wins this year would be FAR more impressive than 12 wins last year, especially given the offensive woes of Virginia Tech.

As much as I want to say the divide between the programs is huge, I can’t sit here and say Mizzou football has left KU in the dust. I think that’ll show in 2009 once this senior class has called it a career and the true test of Mizzou’s staying power hangs in the balance.

http://www.RockMNation.com
Chance McDanielson for Heisman

by RPT on Aug 20, 2008 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions

I agree with just about everything you said.

To be honest though, I had a pretty good laugh when I saw the “Tradition since September” sign. It was legitimately funny, IMO.

But seriously, very well said.

by rockchalk on Aug 20, 2008 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Your objectivity is refreshing...

However, the “clearly, obviously, painfully not legit” thing could not be more wrong.

If that’s the case, Ohio State was “clearly, obviously, painfully not legit” ever. Can anyone even name their best win? Michigan? Penn State? And don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they legitimately belonged in the title game but they were still a pretty good team.

By that logic, until MU won at Arrowhead how were they legitimate? Because they beat Texas Tech at home (so did OSU)? Because they only lost @ OU by 10 bc they scored a last minute touchdown?

Now obviosuly MU was a legitimate team last year and that was “proven” @ Arrowhead and in the Cotton Bowl, but it was also plenty on display nearly every game you watched. Perhaps Kansas didn’t “prove” their legitimacy until the Orange Bowl, but if you watched them play and saw how they won, it was pretty obvious that they were one of the better teams in the country.

Part of winning, especially in the college game, is beating the teams you’re supposed to. And that’s exactly what KU and MU did last year. Part of taking the next step toward relevance is winng a few you’re not supposed to. Thus far, only Kansas has done that, and obviously not with any consistency…

by hiphopopotamus on Aug 20, 2008 12:50 PM CDT reply actions

back in the day

I thought KU had a pretty good football tradition? I know in recent times, we have had a fairly long run of below average seasons, but cmon now. We used to be very good at football. You know why they package student football and basketball tickets together? Because students used to not go to any of the basketball games (after a rough period a long way back). We have won some huge games, we have lost some huge games. We also have a few NFL hall of famers that wore the Crimson and Blue, 2 of which might be in the top 5 runningbacks of all time! I think KU has way more history and tradition in football than KSU and Mizzou and i dont think its all that close. History is a big word and people tend to throw it around a bit too much. 20 years is barely history and i think people should do their research before stating ridiculous remarks.

by bkmhoxx on Aug 20, 2008 3:45 PM CDT reply actions

I'm With HipHop...

(Did you write the Deadspin preview, BTW? Great stuff if you did.) The fact is, if Nebraska had the exact same squad as KU last year, and played out their schedule in the exact same way, no one would have cared about the schedule. They would be too busy with their “Big Red is Back, Baby!” storylines, and would have likely tossed them into the national championship game (after all, their one loss would have been better than tOSUs, right?). Because Nebraska legitimately does have the tradition of excellence.

In no sport does “tradition” play a bigger role than college football. Why? Because sports writers are lazy. They want the easy storylines. And nothing is easier than going to the 5-10 “Tiffany” programs, writing up a preview, and then following that storyline throughout the season.

Missouri, with its above average journalism school, realizes this, and is trying some Rovian tactics to convince the world that they’ve got enough history to be up there with the big boys. We’ll see how that works out for them (haven’t y’all already lost your two best o-lineman to injuries? Hope that isn’t a trend).

And if we’re going by actual recent national success, then Mizzou has to be a wrasslin’ school, doesn’t it? Of course, they haven’t won it all in that, either.