:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51112945/GettyImages-487061594.0.jpg)
Deep-dive numbers time? Deep-dive numbers time!
Missouri Tigers (2-2) vs. LSU Tigers (2-2)
October 01, 2016 ( 7:30 PM ET, SECN )
Spread: LSU -13
S&P+ Projection: LSU (35.2-26.2)
Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.
Statistical profiles index.
Full Football Outsiders F/+ rankings can be found here.
The Basics
| Category | Missouri | LSU | ||
| S&P+ (Rk) | 42 | 19 | ||
| Category | Missouri offense | LSU defense | LSU offense | Missouri defense |
| Yards per play (Rk) | 6.62 (17) | 4.59 (26) | 5.51 (69) | 4.56 (25) |
| Yards per game (Rk) | 568.0 (4) | 340.5 (36) | 337.5 (111) | 380.8 (56) |
| Points per possession (Rk) | 2.97 (31) | 1.37 (24) | 1.79 (105) | 1.21 (16) |
| Category | Missouri offense | LSU defense | LSU offense | Missouri defense |
| S&P+ (Rk) | 33.7 (38) | 15.6 (7) | 29.7 (66) | 26.1 (43) |
| Rushing S&P+ (Rk) | 82.2 (120) | 134.1 (11) | 123.5 (19) | 98.2 (74) |
| Passing S&P+ (Rk) | 121.7 (26) | 114.7 (37) | 92.3 (99) | 115.9 (34) |
| Standard Downs S&P+ (Rk) | 108.8 (53) | 114.1 (30) | 105.0 (63) | 96.4 (84) |
| Passing Downs S&P+ (Rk) | 104.6 (71) | 153.3 (9) | 108.5 (59) | 140.2 (15) |
| Q1 S&P+ (Rk) | 116.9 (48) | 150.2 (12) | 122.7 (40) | 104.4 (57) |
| Q2 S&P+ (Rk) | 125.4 (25) | 111.1 (45) | 128.9 (21) | 112.4 (41) |
| Q3 S&P+ (Rk) | 110.9 (53) | 131.8 (18) | 111.4 (50) | 111.9 (45) |
| Q4 S&P+ (Rk) | 105.9 (65) | 107.5 (49) | 83.6 (113) | 117.3 (28) |
It's a little bit early for truly effective opponent adjustments, but if nothing else, the above '+' rankings are a reminder that schedule strength has impacted Missouri's offensive numbers a bit. (So has tempo.) The Tigers have been absurdly prolific, averaging 56 points per game over the last three weeks. But they're still just averaging 19 points against two power-conference opponents.
Still, there are some advantages here -- passing offense, passing defense, passing downs defense, etc.
Five biggest advantages (according to the advanced stats)
Missouri
- Field Position (No. 26 defense vs. No. 109 offense)
- Run Stuffs (No. 19 offense vs. No. 95 defense)
- Passing Explosiveness (IsoPPP) (No. 31 defense vs. No. 103 offense)
- Second Down S&P+ (No. 30 defense vs. No. 100 offense)
- Passing S&P+ (No. 34 defense vs. No. 99 offense)
An underrated potential advantage for Missouri: field position. If Mizzou can avoid negative plays, Corey Fatony can do some advantage even if the offense isn't incredibly prolific. And if LSU isn't generating too many big plays in response, this could become a decent field-tilting opportunity.
LSU
- Rushing S&P+ (No. 11 defense vs. No. 120 offense)
- Rushing Explosiveness (IsoPPP) (No. 26 defense vs. No. 122 offense)
- Rushing Efficiency (Success Rate) (No. 9 defense vs. No. 97 offense)
- Standard Downs Sack Rate (No. 31 offense vs. No. 109 defense)
- Standard Downs Efficiency (Success Rate) (No. 11 defense vs. No. 82 offense)
"Avoid negative plays" is about as much as Missouri can ask for from its run game -- there isn't going to be much running room.
Five Factors
| Category | Missouri offense | LSU defense | LSU offense | Missouri defense |
| EXPLOSIVENESS | 1.41 (23) | 1.38 (101) | 1.38 (31) | 1.12 (25) |
| EFFICIENCY | 43.9% (56) | 32.0% (15) | 37.2% (110) | 37.6% (38) |
| FIELD POSITION | 32.2 (37) | 29.4 (70) | 27.4 (109) | 26.2 (26) |
| FINISHING DRIVES | 5.4 (37) | 3.0 (9) | 4.4 (90) | 4.2 (39) |
| TURNOVER MARGIN |
EXPECTED: Missouri 1.05 (50) LSU 0.15 (70) |
ACTUAL Missouri 2 (34) LSU -1 (71) |
||
Offensive Footprint
| Category (Rk) | Missouri offense | LSU offense |
| Adj. Pace | 10.2 (10) | -13.3 (126) |
| Plays per game | 85.8 (9) | 61.3 (125) |
| Possessions per game | 15.0 (9) | 11.8 (113) |
| Std. Downs Run Rate | 50.7% (108) | 62.7% (51) |
| Pass. Downs Run Rate | 28.1% (90) | 35.4% (54) |
| % of solo tackles | 87.3% (8) | 58.2% (126) |
From a styles perspective, it's almost impossible for Mizzou and LSU to be any different offensively. Mizzou plays with extreme tempo; LSU plods. Mizzou forces solo tackles; LSU forces gang tackles. Mizzou is very much pass-first; while we don't know how LSU will attack the MU defense -- and it's possible the new offensive leadership comes out of the gates a little pass-heavy -- it has been reasonably run-heavy to date.
Defensive Footprint
| Category (Rk) | Missouri defense | LSU defense |
| Std. Downs Run Rate | 58.8% (70) | 63.7% (32) |
| Pass. Downs Run Rate | 31.5% (85) | 31.6% (82) |
| Overall Havoc Rate | 18.9% (39) | 15.7% (74) |
| Front 7 Havoc Rate | 10.1% (58) | 9.3% (75) |
| DB Havoc Rate | 8.8% (18) | 5.7% (80) |
| PD to INC | 46.2% (1) | 32.7% (68) |
Even with LSU's pass rush, neither Mizzou nor LSU have been particularly disruptive with their defensive fronts. They haven't yet, anyway.
When Missouri has the ball…
Standard Downs
| Missouri Offense | LSU Defense | ||||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | Edge | |
| Standard Downs S&P+ | 108.8 | 53 | 114.1 | 30 | LSU |
| Standard Downs Success Rate | 49.3% | 47 | 37.5% | 16 | LSU |
| Standard Downs IsoPPP | 1.32 | 21 | 0.97 | 109 | Missouri big |
| SD Line Yards per Carry | 2.89 | 78 | 2.85 | 72 | |
| SD Sack Rate | 0% | 1 | 8.2% | 23 | Missouri |
The silver lining to Mizzou's complete lack of a run game is that it hasn't been that costly yet. Mizzou has protected Drew Lock well and has been able to stress defenses both horizontally and vertically even without a strong ground game. We hope the Mizzou run game is improving, but the way Missouri uses its passing game can approximate a ground game regardless.
That said, it's still going to be difficult to remain efficient on standard downs against this defense.
Passing Downs
| Missouri Offense | LSU Defense | ||||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | Edge | |
| Passing Downs S&P+ | 104.6 | 71 | 153.3 | 9 | LSU big |
| Passing Downs Success Rate | 31.3% | 70 | 20.3% | 15 | LSU big |
| Passing Downs IsoPPP | 1.75 | 67 | 1.71 | 79 | Missouri |
| PD Line Yards per Carry | 2.63 | 111 | 3.84 | 105 | |
| PD Sack Rate | 0% | 1 | 13% | 20 | Missouri |
No matter the down, LSU holds the efficiency advantage and Mizzou holds the explosiveness advantage. How well is LSU preventing big gainers, and how well is Mizzou avoiding three-and-outs? Those answers could determine whether MU is able to find any sort of field position advantage.
When LSU has the ball…
Standard Downs
| LSU Offense | Missouri Defense | ||||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | Edge | |
| Standard Downs S&P+ | 105.0 | 63 | 96.4 | 84 | LSU |
| Standard Downs Success Rate | 40.1% | 112 | 44.4% | 52 | Missouri big |
| Standard Downs IsoPPP | 1.26 | 27 | 1.28 | 23 | |
| SD Line Yards per Carry | 2.94 | 72 | 3.04 | 90 | LSU |
| SD Sack Rate | 1.9% | 31 | 1.6% | 109 | LSU big |
Here's where the massive unknowns come into play. Under normal circumstances, it appears Mizzou would have a pretty big efficiency advantage and that the keys would be how many big plays LSU can manage. Now the questions are more of the "Will Leonard Fournette play?" and "Will LSU be changing its play-calling tendencies a lot?" variety. That could balance out Mizzou's efficiency advantage ... or make it quite a bit bigger. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Passing Downs
| LSU Offense | Missouri Defense | ||||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | Edge | |
| Passing Downs S&P+ | 108.5 | 59 | 140.2 | 15 | Missouri |
| Passing Downs Success Rate | 30.8% | 74 | 23.3% | 24 | Missouri big |
| Passing Downs IsoPPP | 1.72 | 72 | 1.79 | 66 | |
| PD Line Yards per Carry | 3.89 | 28 | 1.53 | 6 | Missouri |
| PD Sack Rate | 9.5% | 84 | 10% | 42 | Missouri |
Honestly, the biggest scare for me on passing downs is that Missouri loses track of the running back, be it Fournette or Derrius Guice. Keeping either from finding wide swaths of open space is Goal No. 1 for this defense whether Fournette plays or not. But if the flares are under control, Mizzou should be able to close out drives.
Individual Passing Stats
| Team | Player | Ht, Wt | Year | Comp | Att | Yards | TD | INT | Comp Rate |
Sacks | Sack Rate | Yards/ Att. |
| Missouri | Drew Lock | 6'4, 220 | SO | 96 | 162 | 1508 | 14 | 3 | 59.3% | 1 | 0.6% | 9.2 |
| Missouri | Marvin Zanders | 6'1, 200 | SO | 6 | 7 | 46 | 1 | 0 | 85.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 6.6 |
| LSU | Danny Etling | 6'1, 215 | JR | 40 | 71 | 433 | 3 | 1 | 56.3% | 4 | 5.3% | 5.5 |
| LSU | Brandon Harris | 6'3, 218 | JR | 13 | 25 | 139 | 1 | 2 | 52.0% | 2 | 7.4% | 4.8 |
| LSU | Justin McMillan | 6'2, 196 | FR | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 19.0 |
Individual Rushing Stats
| Team | Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Rushes | Yards | TD | Yards/ Carry |
Hlt Yds/ Opp. |
Opp. Rate |
| Missouri | Ish Witter | RB | 5'10, 200 | JR | 57 | 209 | 2 | 3.7 | 2.7 | 21.1% |
| Missouri | Damarea Crockett | RB | 5'11, 220 | FR | 34 | 210 | 3 | 6.2 | 3.8 | 55.9% |
| Missouri | Alex Ross | RB | 6'1, 220 | SR | 20 | 72 | 0 | 3.6 | 1.6 | 25.0% |
| Missouri | Marvin Zanders | QB | 6'1, 200 | SO | 16 | 124 | 2 | 7.8 | 6.2 | 62.5% |
| LSU | Leonard Fournette | RB | 6'1, 235 | JR | 67 | 386 | 2 | 5.8 | 5.1 | 41.8% |
| LSU | Derrius Guice | RB | 5'11, 212 | SO | 29 | 239 | 1 | 8.2 | 12.6 | 37.9% |
| LSU | Danny Etling | QB | 6'1, 215 | JR | 13 | 75 | 1 | 5.8 | 4.4 | 46.2% |
| LSU | Nick Brossette | RB | 6'0, 209 | SO | 5 | 40 | 0 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 80.0% |
| NOTE: Quarterback run totals above do not include sacks (which are counted toward pass averages below) or kneeldowns. | ||||||||||
Any big play Mizzou generates from the run game will be a bonus. I'm just hoping for steady three- to four-yard gains.
Actually, that statement persists no matter who has the ball. Holding Fournette/Guice to three- or four-yard gains would be lovely.
Individual Receiving Stats
| Team | Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Targets | Catches | Yards | TD | Yds/ Catch |
Yds/ Target |
Catch Rate |
| Missouri | J'Mon Moore | WR | 6'3, 205 | JR | 51 | 26 | 434 | 6 | 16.7 | 8.5 | 51.0% |
| Missouri | Dimetrios Mason | WR | 6'0, 185 | FR | 23 | 16 | 207 | 0 | 12.9 | 9.0 | 69.6% |
| Missouri | Emanuel Hall | WR | 6'3, 205 | SO | 18 | 13 | 241 | 2 | 18.5 | 13.4 | 72.2% |
| Missouri | Johnathon Johnson | WR | 5'10, 185 | FR | 14 | 8 | 159 | 1 | 19.9 | 11.4 | 57.1% |
| Missouri | Chris Black | WR | 6'0, 190 | SR | 13 | 11 | 175 | 1 | 15.9 | 13.5 | 84.6% |
| Missouri | Jason Reese | TE | 6'5, 250 | JR | 10 | 5 | 55 | 2 | 11.0 | 5.5 | 50.0% |
| Missouri | Kendall Blanton | TE | 6'6, 260 | SO | 9 | 6 | 57 | 1 | 9.5 | 6.3 | 66.7% |
| LSU | Malachi Dupre | WR | 6'4, 195 | JR | 25 | 11 | 99 | 0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 44.0% |
| LSU | Travin Dural | WR | 6'2, 207 | SR | 23 | 14 | 142 | 1 | 10.1 | 6.2 | 60.9% |
| LSU | Leonard Fournette | RB | 6'1, 235 | JR | 13 | 9 | 69 | 0 | 7.7 | 5.3 | 69.2% |
| LSU | D.J. Chark | WR | 6'3, 187 | JR | 12 | 7 | 75 | 1 | 10.7 | 6.3 | 58.3% |
| LSU | Colin Jeter | TE | 6'7, 254 | SR | 5 | 1 | 32 | 0 | 32.0 | 6.4 | 20.0% |
| LSU | Darrel Williams | RB | 6'1, 233 | JR | 4 | 3 | 27 | 0 | 9.0 | 6.8 | 75.0% |
| LSU | DeSean Smith | TE | 6'5, 249 | SR | 3 | 2 | 65 | 1 | 32.5 | 21.7 | 66.7% |
Goal No. 2 for the Mizzou defense: Make sure the Sunday headlines aren't focused on Dural and Dupre finally breaking out. The duo averaged 21.1 yards per catch in 2014 and 17.3 in 2015, but while they're more efficient this time around (Dural, at least), they're also only averaging 9.6 per catch. Hold them to that, and Missouri's in excellent shape. But you know that any changes to the LSU game plan are going to be focused on getting them (and Fournette/Guice) more space.
Individual Defensive Stats
| Team | Name | Pos | Ht, Wt | Year | Tackles | % of Team | TFL | Sacks | Int | PBU | FF | FR |
| Missouri | Michael Scherer | LB | 6'3, 235 | SR | 24.5 | 10.3% | 2.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Donavin Newsom | LB | 6'2, 240 | SR | 24.0 | 10.1% | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Thomas Wilson | S | 5'10, 195 | JR | 22.5 | 9.5% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Anthony Sherrils | DB | 6'0, 205 | JR | 19.0 | 8.0% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Joey Burkett | LB | 6'2, 225 | JR | 15.0 | 6.3% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Terry Beckner, Jr. | DL | 6'4, 290 | SO | 12.0 | 5.1% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Aarion Penton | DB | 5'10, 195 | SR | 11.5 | 4.9% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Charles Harris | DL | 6'3, 260 | JR | 10.0 | 4.2% | 4.0 | 3.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | John Gibson | DB | 6'0, 195 | SR | 9.5 | 4.0% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Cam Hilton | S | 6'0, 190 | SO | 9.0 | 3.8% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Josh Augusta | DL | 6'4, 355 | SR | 8.0 | 3.4% | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Brandon Lee | LB | 6'2, 225 | SO | 8.0 | 3.4% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Missouri | Spencer Williams | DL | 6'3, 250 | SO | 8.0 | 3.4% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Kendell Beckwith | LB | 6'3, 247 | SR | 25.5 | 11.3% | 3.5 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Jamal Adams | S | 6'1, 213 | JR | 23.5 | 10.4% | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Duke Riley | LB | 6'1, 230 | SR | 20.5 | 9.1% | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Arden Key | DE | 6'6, 238 | SO | 14.0 | 6.2% | 7.0 | 6.5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| LSU | Rickey Jefferson | S | 6'0, 209 | SR | 14.0 | 6.2% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Davon Godchaux | DT | 6'4, 299 | JR | 13.5 | 6.0% | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Lewis Neal | DE | 6'2, 272 | SR | 12.0 | 5.3% | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Donte Jackson | DB | 5'11, 173 | SO | 10.5 | 4.7% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| LSU | Kevin Toliver II | CB | 6'2, 193 | SO | 10.5 | 4.7% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Michael Divinity Jr. | LB | 6'2, 234 | FR | 10.0 | 4.4% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Donnie Alexander | LB | 6'1, 212 | JR | 9.5 | 4.2% | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LSU | Tre'Davious White | CB | 6'0, 197 | SR | 7.5 | 3.3% | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| LSU | Greg Gilmore | DT | 6'4, 308 | JR | 7.5 | 3.3% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Note: It appears "Fumble Returns" are getting pulled instead of "Fumble Recoveries." My apologies. Will try to get that corrected. | ||||||||||||
Goal No. 1 for the Mizzou offense: Keeping heat off of Drew Lock. Good luck to you, Paul Adams and Tyler Howell. Mizzou's starting tackles will be tested severely. Here's to hoping they pass.
Individual Special Teams Stats
| Team | Punter | Ht, Wt | Year | Punts | Avg | TB | FC | I20 | FC/I20 Ratio |
| Missouri | Corey Fatony | 5'11, 205 | SO | 18 | 43.7 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 38.9% |
| LSU | Josh Growden | 6'2, 198 | FR | 21 | 39.1 | 0 | 12 | 6 | 85.7% |
| Team | Kicker | Ht, Wt | Year | Kickoffs | Avg | TB | TB% | OOB | Fair Catches |
Onside Att |
Onside Success |
| Missouri | Tucker McCann | 6'0, 195 | FR | 31 | 64.8 | 21 | 67.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Turner Adams | 6'0, 205 | JR | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| LSU | Cameron Gamble | 5'11, 189 | JR | 18 | 61.7 | 4 | 22.2% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Team | Place-Kicker | Ht, Wt | Year | PAT | FG | Pct |
| Missouri | Tucker McCann | 6'0, 195 | FR | 18-20 | 4-6 | 66.7% |
| Missouri | Turner Adams | 6'0, 205 | JR | 2-3 | 0-0 | #DIV/0! |
| LSU | Colby Delahoussaye | 5'10, 180 | SR | 9-11 | 3-4 | 75.0% |
| Team | Kick Returner | Ht, Wt | Year | Returns | Avg. | TD | Fair Catch | Fumbles (Lost) |
| Missouri | Johnathon Johnson | 5'10, 185 | FR | 6 | 18.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) |
| Missouri | Damarea Crockett | 5'11, 220 | FR | 5 | 17.8 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) |
| LSU | Derrius Guice | 5'11, 212 | SO | 5 | 20.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) |
| LSU | Foster Moreau | 6'6, 250 | SO | 2 | 5.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) |
| Team | Punt Returner | Ht, Wt | Year | Returns | Avg. | TD | Fair Catch | Fumbles (Lost) |
| Missouri | Johnathon Johnson | 5'10, 185 | FR | 5 | 13.8 | 1 | 4 | 2 (1) |
| Missouri | Chris Black | 6'0, 190 | SR | 5 | 14.0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (0) |
| LSU | Tre'Davious White | 6'0, 197 | SR | 6 | 11.8 | 1 | 5 | 0 (0) |
Stats via SportSource Analytics
You've probably already caught on to what I think are the keys to the game, but for the sake of summary...
1. Keep Drew Lock upright
That means playing relatively efficiently on standard downs and preventing a strong pass rush from wreaking havoc on passing downs.
2. No space for Fournette/Guice
It would certainly be a break for Mizzou if the Tigers don't have to face Fournette, but Guice is strong, too -- more explosive and less efficient so far. We've heard the words "gap integrity" a lot from Mizzou coaches this week, and Mizzou's ability to fill spaces and avoid huge rushes will be tested.
3. Count the big pass plays
Mizzou has been reliant on explosiveness in the passing game, and LSU is desperate to find some of its own. Because of the differences in quality of respective run games, it is imperative that Mizzou generate more big plays (let's say 20-yarders) than LSU through the air.
4. The little things™
Field position could be a source of advantage for Missouri, and finishing drives was extremely costly for Mizzou at West Virginia. These things are always important; they're doubly important in an upset bid.
5. The first 15 minutes
Under normal circumstances, I would say that the first quarter is huge because of the environment. This is Missouri's first trip to Tiger Stadium and only the second road game for this young team. A team that is either cowed or overhyped by a raucous environment could find itself losing the plot right at the start of the game, then settling down after falling behind by a couple of touchdowns.
These things still apply. But now the first quarter is important for a completely different reason, too. From Wednesday's LSU offense preview:
It wouldn’t surprise me to see LSU come out of the gates throwing the ball, hoping to find a rhythm for Etling and catch Mizzou off-guard. If it works, then Mizzou could be a step behind all night — adjust for shorter passing, and you run the risk of getting either burned deep or burned by Fournette.
But if it doesn’t work, Mizzou could create an early lead and prevent Ensminger from leaning on Fournette later on.
We have no idea what LSU is going to be trying to do out of the gates, and we have no idea about Fournette. Either team could create a solid advantage early on.
S&P+ Projection: LSU by 9
Win Probability: LSU 70%
S&P+ likes Missouri's chances better than Vegas does, but this is still obviously an uphill battle. That said, Missouri's odds are far better than they were at the start of the season, and LSU's massive uncertainty has to give the Tigers from the north encouragement. I assume LSU figures out a way to win, but I'm excited about the shifts in the tide. Mizzou's own improvement has created a shot at an upset. Fingers crossed.