SEC Subplots: Tennessee will compete for the SEC East soon

[gunner]

Marty Mauck is going to be a great college quarterback. The article was spot on send basically what I told you.

He can't do it by himself, he needs teammates that can compete in the SEC, and I'm not sure that've they have very many on their roster.

 

[KBVol]

Kentucky a swing game??

No doubt, what the everloving eff is going on? It's one thing to write that we're still in rebuild mode, still a year or 2 away. But for SI's Staples to predict us last and now these idiots to say Ky is a swing game? Jesus H....

 

[bornbleddinorange]

:lolabove: This

Miami
Texas
USC
The list goes on and on lol before it gets to us.

 

[bornbleddinorange]

Probably Bama these days.

 

[gunner]

Lol.....you guys never learn. Their talent and recruits are vastly under rated.

It is possible that they are under rated, but how do you explain them going 2-6 and 5-7 their first year in the SEC with basically the same roster that they had in 2013?

It is more likely that the experts are more correct about their talent than you are, and they return to their 2012 form. 2013 was a nice year for them but to expect a team like Mizzou to win that many games in the SECE every year is completely unreasonable.

Their ceiling this season is 8 wins. They will lose to UF, Texas A&M, UGA, and SC. Their two swing games are UT and Arkansas. If they lose both they finish 6-6. In a worse case scenario they lose to UCF too.

 

[Col_Cathcart]

Lol.....you guys never learn. Their talent and recruits are vastly under rated.

They're going to be good every 3-4 years. That's the way it works when you recruit like they do. It takes time to develop the talent and you can't just plug in the next guy. They have a good coach and a good program, but to expect them to sustain the level of success they had last year is insane. They were never able to do that in the Big12.

 

[gunner]

They're going to be good every 3-4 years. That's the way it works when you recruit like they do. It takes time to develop the talent and you can't just plug in the next guy. They have a good coach and a good program, but to expect them to sustain the level of success they had last year is insane. They were never able to do that in the Big12.

That's why they will struggle in the East this year with a fourth place finish the best that they can do this season.

 

[preacherwebb]

Mizzu is rated this year based upon last year alone. The writers and sportscasters can't be looking at the roster, or the players lost from last years great season, or they would be coming up with the same conclusion many of the rest of us are ... which is, they will be on a bit of a downward slope this year.

UT is on the rise.
Mizzu is on the slide.
This year, we pass them on the way back up.

This game is pivotal, in my most humble of opinions, to UT making a bowl this year.
I believe we win, and go bowling.

:twocents:

 

[gunner]

Mizzu is rated this year based upon last year alone. The writers and sportscasters can't be looking at the roster, or the players lost from last years great season, or they would be coming up with the same conclusion many of the rest of us are ... which is, they will be on a bit of a downward slope this year.

UT is on the rise.
Mizzu is on the slide.
This year, we pass them on the way back up.

This game is pivotal, in my most humble of opinions, to UT making a bowl this year.
I believe we win, and go bowling.

:twocents:

I agree, UT must defend their home turf, and send Mizzou a message this year that UT is a young team on the rise. Winning at home against them will give the Vols the confidence to beat them on the road next season.

 

[TrueOrange]

It is possible that they are under rated, but how do you explain them going 2-6 and 5-7 their first year in the SEC with basically the same roster that they had in 2013?

They got pretty plagued by injuries in 2012, kind of similar to what happened to say UGA this season. (Sorry if this is long, but I had to hear all about it, considering the area of the country I'm in.)

Their starting RB was lost for the season from an ACL injury / blown out knee.

Of their their "top" 10 offensive linemen (I'm not sure the proper term for referring to a team's starting 5 linemen and the top 5 offensive line backups), around 7 or so were lost to injury through season. Three of their 5 starters had season-enders before the season, another starter got a bad injury in the second game of the season (he came back later in the year, around which time the one healthy starter had a season-ending injury), then 2-3 of the backups. At one point that year, it was something like 2 freshmen, a walk-on, a third-string center, and 1 starter made up their offensive line.


The starting QB Franklin was back and fourth with injury all season (possibly relative to what was going on with the line). He only fully played in like 6 of the 12 games that season. Four of the games he didn't even play in, another he had a knee injury 8 minutes into the first quarter and was out, and yet another he had to leave the game at the top of the final quarter. (edit: apparently, also missed that entire summer, shoulder surgery)

(Plus their backup QB that year, Berkstresser I think was his name...whoo boy; from the games I saw...that kid might have been the worst college QB I had ever seen play (he went 9 for 30 once...against Vanderbilt). Matt Simms would look like an all-SEC QB by comparison. There's a reason he lost the backup job to freshmen that hadn't even played games yet each of the last two off seasons.)

All that was just on their offense. I'd have to check regarding their defense...maybe something with a LB or two and a starting corner?

It is more likely that the experts are more correct about their talent than you are, and they return to their 2012 form. 2013 was a nice year for them but to expect a team like Mizzou to win that many games in the SECE every year is completely unreasonable.

Their ceiling this season is 8 wins. They will lose to UF, Texas A&M, UGA, and SC. Their two swing games are UT and Arkansas. If they lose both they finish 6-6. In a worse case scenario they lose to UCF too.

I'm not sure people are picking them to do anywhere near that 12 win range again, are they? (I'm certainly not.) The SDS's article pretty much calls them, at best, a dark horse for the East, mostly due to their schedule (so pretty much, they're not going to win it.)


The norm for that coach, though has been around 8-ish wins; it seems like they're just expected to fall back around that.

Here's how they've done under him:

Missouri Tigers football under Gary Pinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2001 4-7, 2002 5-7, 2003 8-5, 2004 5-6, 2005 7-5
2006 8-5, 2007 12-2, 2008 10-4, 2009 8-5, 2010 10-3
2011 8-5, 2012 5-7, 2013 12-2



Their recruiting level pretty much stayed the same, so that could open up some for debate (not saying I'm arguing a side here). On one hand, the coach apparently has some reputation for coaching up lesser star values. On the other hand though, I'm not sure - in return - how strong their depth really is when it comes to being able to cope with injuries (or a misfire on judging/recruiting a player).

(I'd also think UCF's going to have a huge fall off; Toledo or Indiana would be more likely for a worst-case scenario loss.)

 

[TrueOrange]

They're going to be good every 3-4 years. That's the way it works when you recruit like they do. It takes time to develop the talent and you can't just plug in the next guy. They have a good coach and a good program, but to expect them to sustain the level of success they had last year is insane. They were never able to do that in the Big12.

Pretty much. I think a good comparison is being similar to Ole Miss. They'll have some good/great seasons, but they're never really going to break through their ceiling (and they'll mostly end up falling around average).

 

[sjt18]

Don't look now but SC has the number three ranked class, and SOS has been recruiting top 15 type teams consistently.

He has 27 commits. I am pretty sure they are done. According to Rivals they have 2347 pts and a 3.48 star avg. Last year that would have made them 5th or 6th in the SEC. IOW's, they won't likely stay at #2 in the SEC or top 10 in the country.

They are recruiting with the big boys under Spurrier the past 4-5 seasons.

In his entire time at USCe, he has finished 8th in the SEC about half the time- just below the middle. His best class was 4th. Next best was 6th, everything else was 7 or 8.

By comparison... he is NOT recruiting with the big boys. He's not getting as many elite players as some... he's just doing a lot more with them. Give the guy his due.

Even at UF, he never built his reputation on being a top 5 type recruiter, he just evaluated and developed better than most.

Precisely my point.

The class he has right now for the 15 cycle is sick. Same for aTm, Bama, and you know UGA, UF, Aub and LSU will all be in or around top ten. Cutthroat league these days, where half of the rivals top 100 are going to one conference every year, the SEC. Butch has his work cut out for him, gone are the days where UT can just out talent everyone not named Florida or Bama, TV money made it so.

That is part of why I have continually argued here (and been attacked for it) that UT could not afford a "good" coach or one that meets expectations. UT needs an ELITE coach. If Jones doesn't show he is one... then he has to go.

I like what he's done in recruiting and development. If he matches that in game week and gameday... then UT has its man.

 

[sjt18]

Not only did they lose all of their best players to the NFL or graduation, the players they are replacing them with aren't very highly recruited. Mizzou hasn't had a top twenty five recruiting class in the last four years. Even Kentucky and Vandy have recruited more highly rated prospects, and have had top 25 five classes.

They have a great system and are very good at developing their players. But they have to have some "stars" to build around with players that have been in development. I don't see the stars they need on either side of the ball.

I don't see the components in their team this year to maintain success.

 

[sjt18]

Marty Mauck is going to be a great college quarterback. The article was spot on send basically what I told you.

Mauk may be a "great" college QB some day... but he's proven no more than Dobbs in reality. He just had guys around him who were capable of making up for his deficiencies. He won't have that this year.

The article made assumptions not supported by fact... I guess they have "experience" too.

 

[gunner]

They got pretty plagued by injuries in 2012, kind of similar to what happened to say UGA this season. (Sorry if this is long, but I had to hear all about it, considering the area of the country I'm in.)

Their starting RB was lost for the season from an ACL injury / blown out knee.

Of their their "top" 10 offensive linemen (I'm not sure the proper term for referring to a team's starting 5 linemen and the top 5 offensive line backups), around 7 or so were lost to injury through season. Three of their 5 starters had season-enders before the season, another starter got a bad injury in the second game of the season (he came back later in the year, around which time the one healthy starter had a season-ending injury), then 2-3 of the backups. At one point that year, it was something like 2 freshmen, a walk-on, a third-string center, and 1 starter made up their offensive line.


The starting QB Franklin was back and fourth with injury all season (possibly relative to what was going on with the line). He only fully played in like 6 of the 12 games that season. Four of the games he didn't even play in, another he had a knee injury 8 minutes into the first quarter and was out, and yet another he had to leave the game at the top of the final quarter. (edit: apparently, also missed that entire summer, shoulder surgery)

(Plus their backup QB that year, Berkstresser I think was his name...whoo boy; from the games I saw...that kid might have been the worst college QB I had ever seen play (he went 9 for 30 once...against Vanderbilt). Matt Simms would look like an all-SEC QB by comparison. There's a reason he lost the backup job to freshmen that hadn't even played games yet each of the last two off seasons.)

All that was just on their offense. I'd have to check regarding their defense...maybe something with a LB or two and a starting corner?



I'm not sure people are picking them to do anywhere near that 12 win range again, are they? (I'm certainly not.) The SDS's article pretty much calls them, at best, a dark horse for the East, mostly due to their schedule (so pretty much, they're not going to win it.)


The norm for that coach, though has been around 8-ish wins; it seems like they're just expected to fall back around that.

Here's how they've done under him:

Missouri Tigers football under Gary Pinkel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2001 4-7, 2002 5-7, 2003 8-5, 2004 5-6, 2005 7-5
2006 8-5, 2007 12-2, 2008 10-4, 2009 8-5, 2010 10-3
2011 8-5, 2012 5-7, 2013 12-2



Their recruiting level pretty much stayed the same, so that could open up some for debate (not saying I'm arguing a side here). On one hand, the coach apparently has some reputation for coaching up lesser star values. On the other hand though, I'm not sure - in return - how strong their depth really is when it comes to being able to cope with injuries (or a misfire on judging/recruiting a player).

(I'd also think UCF's going to have a huge fall off; Toledo or Indiana would be more likely for a worst-case scenario loss.)

Injuries are part of the game , and yes they had a lot of injuries in 2012. But, so did UF, and UGA last season. If both of those teams were healthy Vandy and Mizzou have two more loses last season.

The biggest reason Mizzou won the East last season is because they peaked at the right time and were healthy when other teams were NOT.

If UT doesn't beat SC last season, SC wins the East and maybe the SEC.

 

[sjt18]

It is possible that they are under rated, but how do you explain them going 2-6 and 5-7 their first year in the SEC with basically the same roster that they had in 2013?

They had injuries to critical players in '12 but they did benefit from Dooley's debacle. That record is about what they were worth.

Last year they had NO injuries... plus the schedule just laid down in front of them as one opponent after another lost players to injury before playing Mizzou. This year the players aren't missing because they're injured... they're missing because they aren't there.

It is more likely that the experts are more correct about their talent than you are, and they return to their 2012 form. 2013 was a nice year for them but to expect a team like Mizzou to win that many games in the SECE every year is completely unreasonable.

Good point. Their recruiting is improving but they're still going to be at or close to the bottom of the SEC. Beattie may think that doesn't matter... but it will except for unusual years.

Their ceiling this season is 8 wins. They will lose to UF, Texas A&M, UGA, and SC. Their two swing games are UT and Arkansas. If they lose both they finish 6-6. In a worse case scenario they lose to UCF too.

Mizzou could lose to Toledo. The game is away. MU needed big plays from Franklin at home to win last year. It was 24-23 at the half. Toledo out gained them for the game. They needed the 3 INT's they got also.

Then... they play UCF who finished 12-1 last year.

Mizzou is a team that I believe will tumble hard.

 

[gunner]

They had injuries to critical players in '12 but they did benefit from Dooley's debacle. That record is about what they were worth.

Last year they had NO injuries... plus the schedule just laid down in front of them as one opponent after another lost players to injury before playing Mizzou. This year the players aren't missing because they're injured... they're missing because they aren't there.

Good point. Their recruiting is improving but they're still going to be at or close to the bottom of the SEC. Beattie may think that doesn't matter... but it will except for unusual years.



Mizzou could lose to Toledo. The game is away. MU needed big plays from Franklin at home to win last year. It was 24-23 at the half. Toledo out gained them for the game. They needed the 3 INT's they got also.

Then... they play UCF who finished 12-1 last year.

Mizzou is a team that I believe will tumble hard.

If they lose to Toledo or UCF at home they aren't the program that I think they Are. They are better than that.

As far as last season they had a lot of luck along the way, it was the perfect storm for them. Their two most impressive SEC wins were over Vandy and Ole Miss. Yes, they beat UT, UGA, and UF, but I seriously doubt they will beat all three of those teams in the same season ever again.

 

[sjt18]

If they lose to Toledo or UCF at home they aren't the program that I think they Are. They are better than that.

They are a good program. Pinkel has taken lemons and made lemonade for years now. He simply does not recruit enough talent to stay consistently at the top.

As far as last season they had a lot of luck along the way, it was the perfect storm for them. Their two most impressive SEC wins were over Vandy and Ole Miss. Yes, they beat UT, UGA, and UF, but I seriously doubt they will beat all three of those teams in the same season ever again.

I don't think MU would have beaten UF or UGA if they had been healthy. UT would have given them a much better game had Worley been available.

I think convenient bounces last year turned an 8 win team into the East champ.

 

[gunner]

They are a good program. Pinkel has taken lemons and made lemonade for years now. He simply does not recruit enough talent to stay consistently at the top.


I don't think MU would have beaten UF or UGA if they had been healthy. UT would have given them a much better game had Worley been available.

I think convenient bounces last year turned an 8 win team into the East champ.

I concur.

 

[sechamp2012]

Mizzou plays in the East plays 2 top 25 teams

UT plays in East plays 6 top 25 teams

 

[MustafaRasta]

I took 4 showers today after I had to acknowledge I kept liking your posts Sarge.

You're accurate on Mizzou and you state the case I can't for the life of me figure out why other paid analysts can't put in the five minutes and come to the same conclusion.

Pinkel's teams have always been in a rotation from down to up and back again over a 4-5 year period. They lost a butt ton of talent and Mauck is suspect.

You're point comparing him to Dobbs I also find accurate even if it's tough for some to swallow. Despite the ton of talent surrounding Mauck and despite the fact he was a RS freshmen(not a true freshmen who just stepped on campus a few months ago) he had an ugly completion percentage and made most plays with his legs on the run to athletic talented receivers.

Mizzou's recruiting class rankings are an example of how good a coach Pinkel is and how he develops talent. This could be why there record fluctuates between 5-7 and 10-2 every couple of years. It takes time to develop players.

This is something our friends at USU are about to find out. They are only looking at their last 3 years of success and missing that despite their winning record the recruiting classes have stayed in the 100-120 range. It takes time to develop that talent and they are unable to rely on underclassmen let alone true freshmen to come in and fill those gaps.

:hi:

 

[daj2576]

They had injuries to critical players in '12 but they did benefit from Dooley's debacle. That record is about what they were worth.

Last year they had NO injuries... plus the schedule just laid down in front of them as one opponent after another lost players to injury before playing Mizzou. This year the players aren't missing because they're injured... they're missing because they aren't there.

Good point. Their recruiting is improving but they're still going to be at or close to the bottom of the SEC. Beattie may think that doesn't matter... but it will except for unusual years.

Mizzou could lose to Toledo. The game is away. MU needed big plays from Franklin at home to win last year. It was 24-23 at the half. Toledo out gained them for the game. They needed the 3 INT's they got also.

Then... they play UCF who finished 12-1 last year.

Mizzou is a team that I believe will tumble hard.

Here is an interesting graphic for people who believe that Pinkel is a coach who tends to over achieve with his talent. It is a brief snapshot, but is (more or less) indicative of what he has done over his whole career, sans last year.

As a general rule, Pinkel does not over-perform on the aggregate. He might jump up and beat a team he shouldn't but he also tends to lose to teams he shouldn't. Those who believe what happened last year is sustainable are both in for a big surprise and ignoring his long term tendencies.

 

[daj2576]

I took 4 showers today after I had to acknowledge I kept liking your posts Sarge.

You're accurate on Mizzou and you state the case I can't for the life of me figure out why other paid analysts can't put in the five minutes and come to the same conclusion.

Pinkel's teams have always been in a rotation from down to up and back again over a 4-5 year period. They lost a butt ton of talent and Mauck is suspect.

You're point comparing him to Dobbs I also find accurate even if it's tough for some to swallow. Despite the ton of talent surrounding Mauck and despite the fact he was a RS freshmen(not a true freshmen who just stepped on campus a few months ago) he had an ugly completion percentage and made most plays with his legs on the run to athletic talented receivers.

Mizzou's recruiting class rankings are an example of how good a coach Pinkel is and how he develops talent. This could be why there record fluctuates between 5-7 and 10-2 every couple of years. It takes time to develop players.

This is something our friends at USU are about to find out. They are only looking at their last 3 years of success and missing that despite their winning record the recruiting classes have stayed in the 100-120 range. It takes time to develop that talent and they are unable to rely on underclassmen let alone true freshmen to come in and fill those gaps.

:hi:

Pretty solid analysis. I would argue, however, that even including the years that Pinkel over performs in relation to talent that his aggregate effect is pretty close to zero.

 

[SmokeyFTW]

In the East alone, UGA, UF and SC are recruiting just as well as UT and teams like Mizzou have never built their program on recruiting ratings. UT gets better, but the competition does as well. from the West, Bama, Aub, LSU and aTm with the way they are recruiting now are going nowhere. This is not the old SEC, throne where UT, UF and Bama out recruited everyone and dominated. New age conference, even the MSU's, Ole Miss's and KY's of the world are starting to recruit well. Navigating the SEC has never been harder, especially with Bama as a common opponent.

Recruiting sites are the TMZ's of college football. They do stuff, say stuff, and write stuff just to make money. It's all about the Benjamins.....

So my theory is, these recruiting sites are just evaluating a lot more kids these days than they used to. That's why it seems, to me, that there are more highly touted recruits to go around these days, and everyone can get a descent recruiting class. More stars equal more money for their site(or that bama has to pay the recruits) lol figured I would just throw that in there.

By no means an I talking down our class's. I believe we actually have good and great talent coming in, but I think some teams are getting some hyped up kids by these sites, and they're that way because there parents could pay for that extra star.

That's why I think people should not pay to much attention to the stars, and the stars are what decides if you have a good recruiting class. So you shouldn't pay much attention to the class ranking either, but instead judge the class 3 4 5 years down the road. Then decide if it was a good one or not.

On a side note, I would love to have multiple 3*, blue collard, leave there heart on the field, and fits the system being ran perfect. Than a 5* that is recruited just because they're a 5* cough cough USCw.

 

[daj2576]

Recruiting sites are the TMZ's of college football. They do stuff, say stuff, and write stuff just to make money. It's all about the Benjamins.....

So my theory is, these recruiting sites are just evaluating a lot more kids these days than they used to. That's why it seems, to me, that there are more highly touted recruits to go around these days, and everyone can get a descent recruiting class. More stars equal more money for their site(or that bama has to pay the recruits) lol figured I would just throw that in there.

By no means an I talking down our class's. I believe we actually have good and great talent coming in, but I think some teams are getting some hyped up kids by these sites, and they're that way because there parents could pay for that extra star.

That's why I think people should not pay to much attention to the stars, and the stars are what decides if you have a good recruiting class. So you shouldn't pay much attention to the class ranking either, but instead judge the class 3 4 5 years down the road. Then decide if it was a good one or not.

On a side note, I would love to have multiple 3*, blue collard, leave there heart on the field, and fits the system being ran perfect. Than a 5* that is recruited just because they're a 5* cough cough USCw.

Aren't you arguing against yourself with that last paragraph? Your thesis appears to be that stars don't matter, yet then you claim to want a team full of three stars (by the way, the bulk of top 25 teams are three star players).

Generally though, your thesis is wrong. Class rankings are highly predictive of that team's success. Stars do matter, at least if you are concerned about how well your team is going to do over a series of games. If your point is that stars don't ALWAYS matter, I would agree.