Quote from: bennyl08 on Yesterday at 08:54:02 amFeel free to show me some other quantifiable metric. Do a deep dive on the pro-days and what not of players to show that Mizzou has had better athletes or something.

Citations needed...

LOL. I'm sorry, but why 'should' that be the case? Playing a more talented schedule typically means you can recruit more talented players, sure. But, if you throw LaTech into the SEC for 10 games and then let them play back in the G5 conference the final 2, they aren't going to suddenly be better. They are going to be beat down, probably mentally scarred, and possibly somewhat traumatized (see Brandon Allen after his 2012 game against Bama).

Again, citation needed. There is zero logic or evidence to come to the conclusion that you come to.

Man, your 'understanding' of my 'theory' (and hypothesis would be the better term, not theory) is wildly off.

1. Not better than Mizzou in EVERY metric. Head to head matchup is certainly a metric and we lose that metric by a landslide. Defensive end talent has also decidedly been in Mizzou's favor for a long time.
2. Not for some 'strange' reason. For a very normal reasons that I've explicitly outlined.
3. You keeping saying things like 'so physically less talented' or 'so much talent advantage'... Do you think I'm comparing Mizzou to a G5 school? How big of a talent gap do you think I'm claiming? What record do you think that I'd claim should be more representative? I'll give you a clue, I don't think it 'should' be 8-2 in our favor.

I realize exactly how odd and strange the theory you have posted sounds. It's also not remotely in the same ball park as anything I've said.

Again, with the exaggerations. I'll ask again, how big of a talent gap do you think the evidence I've presented suggests?

I'm not twisting anything. I'm presenting the evidence. You are then twisting and exaggerating that evidence into a nice little strawman, twisting what I'm actually saying into indeed a nutty and bufoonish argument that is easily defeated rather than facing the reality of the argument that I actually present.

First off let me say I don't believe there is any metric on gauging if a team Has Mailed it in or quit or is not playing hard from start to finish. With 80+ schollie players and a host of coaches it's near impossible to develop any measuring system to determine if the TEAM has checked out, from the stands or watching on TV.

You seem to believe you can tell this with measurable analytics based on common opponents etc.. I say it's near impossible to measure it using any of those components you mentioned.  How many Players quit on the Ark. squad that played the majority of the snaps? All of them, 3 of them, 4 of them, maybe only the offense quit or the defense? This is just a contrived assumption to explain away a better team beating the hogs on the regular.


Now as far as the NFL/Pro day analysis as I said that is a PUSH. That means Ark. and Mizzou top flight difference makers are basically Equal in talent.  My assertion is that our non-drafted talent is better, because GP/Drink do a better job at finding hidden gems and then maximizing their potential and those players are what has put us over the top versus Ark.  It's not that complicated to figure out. Our bottom in talent performs at a higher level than Ark. and does it most seasons. 


The LA tech analogy is like comparing Apples to Kiwi Fruit..... LA tech doesn't have Ark or Mizzou talent that is taking a extreme view point of what I was saying. Ark. is in the SEC and Recruits at a higher Level than any G5 program. They are built for the rigors of the West and should be up to the task. Using the West as a excuse for a poor performance yearly versus Mizzou is just that a excuse. It's not like Mizzou is playing in the Mountain West.

I'm not sure what you don't get about my premise that Mizzou would wear down at least equally in the East as Ark. in the West do to the difference in physical talent if you take the Recruiting rankings as valid which you do because you site them a lot to point out Ark. is a head of Mizzou talent wise. Mizzou is usually a 30-40 in the team rankings closer to the back end of the P5 squads than the front end... Ark is usually in the 20's closer to the top end. Now I don't buy that the Rankings are valid after the top 15 teams or at least are not that accurate. But you again appear to think Ark. has more talent and therefore should win more games based on the rankings.  You are the one pointing out the rankings not me.

Also it does appear that you are now walking back from some of your belief that Ark. isn't SO dominate in most metrics. Tradition, talent, etc.   You have pointed that out that Ark. has the Dominance in most Categories over Mizzou and that the Reason for the on field disparity is that Ark. has just mailed it in and checked out versus Mizzou. Coupled with Reasons like the overwhelming West schedule has brutally beat you down while Mizzou has caked walked through a Easy Breezy East schedule. 

I'm just trying to get a handle on what your do believe? And to what degree NOW you think the Hogs are better than Mizzou. Because if you read your posts you seem to be saying that Ark. should dominate Mizzou with a Metric advantage in most categories. I've never seen you say that Mizzou and Ark. should be  about equal in Win's and Losses 5-5 over a decade or even a 6 to 4 split in the Hog favor. I do recall a host of posters in multiple threads saying that Ark. should beat Mizzou 8 or 9 times out of ten once the Hogs get it right. I can't recall if you are one of them but from the tone of your post that is what I garnered from your analysis.

I was just pointing out that I don't buy that the Hogs quit or that the Hogs schedule was so brutal that it demoralized the Hogs to the point Mizzou had a stroll in the park game every year. I also made my case that I think that using Drafted players in the NFL doesn't tell the whole story at all in the overall talent of both teams. Because between Mizzou and the Hogs that is a push NFL wise. It's the bottom talent that has made a difference. Same goes for the Recruiting rankings that analytic is flawed to a Great degree once you get past the Blue Bloods.

 

Quote from: HognitiveDissonance on Today at 01:04:22 amWas it a block or a charge?

Moving screen

Incredible week by the ladies.
Keep playing like this and they'll be in good shape to advance, but golf is fickle.

Quote from: #1 STUNNA on Yesterday at 01:44:37 pmSounds like Thiero got in the way.

Was it a block or a charge?

Quote from: rzrbackhogfan on May 02, 2024, 08:23:59 amIt isn't a negative on AR. Yes on all of the colleges Nick was more into AR than anyone else.  But I dont think he was looking for a big college career and had his sites on the NBA.  Not saying anything bad about Nick Smith but he was definitely a 1 and done.  TB was not a one in done and so I just feel he fit in more with the college basketball player role.

That's a fair way to put it concerning NSJ.
Nuance.
There is some truth on both sides here.

Quote from: DOGALUM on Yesterday at 11:30:52 pmEvidently one of us knows what a PREFERRED walk on means.   It is not the same as just a regular walk on. 

He is guaranteed a roster spot.   

(a walk on and a preferred walk on are not the same....just so you know)

Preferred Walk On means he is guaranteed a roster spot in the spring.  And, if he makes the squad, he will receive a scholarship when one becomes available.  Nothing more.

Quote from: DOGALUM on Yesterday at 11:19:23 pmYou, like the other guy who said "no risk" are wrong.  The risk is guaranteeing a roster spot for a man who hasn't played football in a decade.  Long shot at a potential reward.  That roster spot may or may not cost the team but to say there is no risk is just not true.   

We have roster spots every season given over to guys who won't see the field.  So does every other team in the nation.  Surely you understand that, right?  Counting Walk-ons, we have 105 roster spots.  So the risk is negligible.  The reward is unlikely, but far from "luck", since our coaches saw fit to let the guy have a shot.

Heck, if he ever gets on the field we will gain publicity from the move.

So, even if he completely fails and is useless, we lose nothing and you are wrong.

State governments still will have their say. Not saying they are going to buck the trend, but even with revenue sharing, it would make them state employees at most institutions. This isn't just up to conferences.

Not to mention Title IX, once a school shares revenue, the women are going to demand equal shares (I know the revenue that football makes and women's sports do not) but is not going to stop it.

If the players keep pushing, they won't like the results.

I may be coming down with a slight case of homerism but I have a good feeling about him too.

That headline is just wrong. The top 87 players aren't all committed. There are a lot of players available.