:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/51448965/DSU-Crockett.0.0.JPG)
It has played out like we expected it to so far: Mizzou has been favored twice and won and has been an underdog four times and lost. The first half of the season was about trying to steal some margin for error, and while that almost happened against Georgia ... it didn't happen.
So now come the four games that will define the season. Was this a lost-cause, Year Zero situation in which Barry Odom started over on both sides of the ball and attempted to arrange them as he wanted? Was this a season of marginal improvement, in which Missouri ekes out a bowl bid with a young roster? We'll find out over the next month.
Long-term, it doesn't really matter. Year Zeroes happen all the time to coaches who eventually win big. It could make the difference for a couple of recruits in the 2017 class -- and that, plus the simple enjoyment of wanting your team to win games -- is enough to root for it to happen. And that makes the Middle Tennessee game the most important of the year to date for Missouri.
(Spoiler: Win or lose on Saturday, next week's Kentucky game will also be the most important to date.)
Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders (4-2) vs. Missouri Tigers (2-4)
October 22, 2016 ( 4:00 PM ET, SECN )
Spread: Missouri -6.5
S&P+ Projection: Missouri (32.7-28.9)
Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.
Statistical profiles index.
Full Football Outsiders F/+ rankings can be found here.
The Basics
| Category | MTSU | Missouri | ||
| S&P+ (Rk) | 52 | 49 | ||
| Category | MTSU offense | Missouri defense | Missouri offense | MTSU defense |
| Yards per play (Rk) | 6.33 (18) | 5.34 (74) | 6.11 (28) | 5.04 (39) |
| Yards per game (Rk) | 540.0 (5) | 443.0 (101) | 481.8 (28) | 400.7 (61) |
| Points per possession (Rk) | 2.82 (26) | 1.80 (43) | 2.26 (66) | 1.89 (48) |
| Category | MTSU offense | Missouri defense | Missouri offense | MTSU defense |
| S&P+ (Rk) | 34.4 (33) | 26.4 (51) | 32.0 (41) | 30.5 (78) |
| Rushing S&P+ (Rk) | 103.6 (61) | 90.5 (106) | 88.8 (110) | 91.2 (101) |
| Passing S&P+ (Rk) | 105.3 (57) | 112.0 (33) | 125.4 (15) | 88.9 (106) |
| Standard Downs S&P+ (Rk) | 107.0 (53) | 103.2 (54) | 116.0 (21) | 89.8 (109) |
| Passing Downs S&P+ (Rk) | 100.8 (69) | 95.4 (88) | 96.7 (83) | 108.4 (47) |
| Q1 S&P+ (Rk) | 112.7 (50) | 104.4 (57) | 132.6 (14) | 93.9 (90) |
| Q2 S&P+ (Rk) | 100.8 (77) | 99.7 (73) | 128.8 (18) | 82.3 (119) |
| Q3 S&P+ (Rk) | 97.8 (84) | 106.0 (51) | 109.0 (44) | 103.4 (61) |
| Q4 S&P+ (Rk) | 98.9 (81) | 90.5 (106) | 112.6 (34) | 105.3 (48) |
Five biggest advantages* (according to the advanced stats)
* or smallest disadvantages
MTSU
- Standard Downs Sack Rate (No. 14 offense vs. No. 106 defense)
- Adj. Sack Rate (No. 1 offense vs. No. 78 defense)
- Passing Downs Sack Rate (No. 4 offense vs. No. 78 defense)
- Second Down S&P+ (No. 42 offense vs. No. 100 defense)
- Rushing Explosiveness (IsoPPP) (No. 37 offense vs. No. 89 defense)
MTSU's advantages, distilled: The Blue Raiders' quarterback will have time to pass, and if Mizzou gets overextended trying to get to him, a running back is going to slip into the open and run a long way.
Missouri
- First Down S&P+ (No. 18 offense vs. No. 118 defense)
- Run Stuffs (No. 27 offense vs. No. 122 defense)
- Adj. Sack Rate (No. 2 offense vs. No. 96 defense)
- Standard Downs Explosiveness (IsoPPP) (No. 9 offense vs. No. 100 defense)
- Passing S&P+ (No. 15 offense vs. No. 106 defense)
Mizzou's advantages, distilled: The Tigers' offense probably won't move backwards very much, and if the run is working, the passing game could pop the cap off of the defense.
That both teams' advantages are mostly on the offensive side of the ball is probably pretty telling, too.
Five Factors
| Category | MTSU offense | Missouri defense | Missouri offense | MTSU defense |
| EXPLOSIVENESS | 1.38 (25) | 1.16 (24) | 1.42 (15) | 1.06 (4) |
| EFFICIENCY | 46.0% (27) | 42.2% (75) | 38.2% (108) | 45.9% (111) |
| FIELD POSITION | 29.5 (75) | 25.8 (9) | 29.6 (73) | 31.2 (106) |
| FINISHING DRIVES | 4.8 (61) | 4.9 (84) | 5.1 (40) | 4.4 (45) |
| TURNOVER MARGIN |
EXPECTED: MTSU 5.48 (7) Missouri -0.34 (76) |
ACTUAL MTSU 0 (54) Missouri 2 (38) |
||
On both sides of the ball, there's a little bit of big-play tension: Both offenses have produced them (relative to competition, at least), and both defenses have prevented them. A couple of 40-yarders one way or the other could obviously sway the result.
Offensive Footprint
| Category (Rk) | MTSU offense | Missouri offense |
| Adj. Pace | 7.9 (12) | 3.7 (36) |
| Plays per game | 85.3 (9) | 78.8 (35) |
| Possessions per game | 13.7 (37) | 14.7 (12) |
| Std. Downs Run Rate | 42.5% (121) | 52.9% (102) |
| Pass. Downs Run Rate | 27.9% (101) | 30.2% (82) |
| % of solo tackles | 75.8% (48) | 74.6% (60) |
Mizzou's pace has slowed, but ... two pass-heavy teams with top-40 tempos? Settle in. This is going to take a while.
Defensive Footprint
| Category (Rk) | MTSU defense | Missouri defense |
| Std. Downs Run Rate | 55.7% (90) | 58.1% (71) |
| Pass. Downs Run Rate | 25.4% (119) | 35.0% (58) |
| Overall Havoc Rate | 17.4% (41) | 15.6% (78) |
| Front 7 Havoc Rate | 10.3% (38) | 8.1% (89) |
| DB Havoc Rate | 6.9% (54) | 7.5% (38) |
| PD to INC | 40.2% (15) | 40.4% (12) |
On average, you end up with one interception to every three or four pass breakups. And both of these teams get hands on a lot of passes. That could make deflections and bounces pretty key. Who is holding onto interception opportunities?
When MTSU has the ball…
Standard Downs
| MTSU Offense | Missouri Defense | ||||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | Edge | |
| Standard Downs S&P+ | 107.0 | 53 | 103.2 | 54 | |
| Standard Downs Success Rate | 47.6% | 54 | 48.0% | 81 | MTSU |
| Standard Downs IsoPPP | 1.31 | 11 | 0.97 | 13 | |
| SD Line Yards per Carry | 3.22 | 30 | 3.43 | 120 | MTSU big |
| SD Sack Rate | 1.9% | 14 | 3.1% | 106 | MTSU big |
Only the overall Standard Downs S&P+ figure is opponent-adjusted, so if you're trying to figure out why this matchup is supposedly even despite what appears to be a big MTSU advantage, that's why.
That said, Missouri's defensive front has been downright feckless on standard downs, and MTSU's style is almost designed to neutralize any sort of disadvantage in the trenches. So if you're waiting for another breakout game for the Missouri line, odds aren't great that it will be this game.
Passing Downs
| MTSU Offense | Missouri Defense | ||||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | Edge | |
| Passing Downs S&P+ | 100.8 | 69 | 95.4 | 88 | MTSU |
| Passing Downs Success Rate | 42.7% | 6 | 30.8% | 70 | MTSU big |
| Passing Downs IsoPPP | 1.54 | 106 | 1.45 | 67 | Missouri |
| PD Line Yards per Carry | 3.87 | 28 | 2.85 | 35 | |
| PD Sack Rate | 1% | 4 | 6.6% | 78 | MTSU big |
MTSU is really good at gaining just enough on passing downs to catch back up to the chains. Tight, sound coverage by Mizzou DBs might be integral to getting off of the field.
The MTSU offense is fascinating, by the way. That the Blue Raiders lean on slot receivers Richie James and Ty Lee isn't particularly surprising -- slot guys can be fantastic options on standard downs, used almost as an extension of the run game. But on passing downs, Brent Stockstill leans on James and Lee even more. They have combined for 51 targets, 34 catches, and 507 yards on such downs. Starting outside receivers Patrick Smith and Dennis Andrews: 22 targets, 10 catches, 133 yards. It's almost like they send the slots long and the outside guys short when they need more yards. Very interesting.
When Missouri has the ball…
Standard Downs
| Missouri Offense | MTSU Defense | ||||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | Edge | |
| Standard Downs S&P+ | 116.0 | 21 | 89.8 | 109 | Missouri big |
| Standard Downs Success Rate | 44.4% | 100 | 52.7% | 120 | Missouri |
| Standard Downs IsoPPP | 1.31 | 10 | 0.97 | 14 | |
| SD Line Yards per Carry | 2.81 | 91 | 3.18 | 100 | |
| SD Sack Rate | 1.1% | 6 | 5.3% | 52 | Missouri |
More tension here. Missouri has been all-or-nothing on standard downs; the Tigers have been inefficient but have proven capable of making very big plays. MTSU, meanwhile, will allow you all the efficiency you want but wants to prevent anything big.
As we've discussed already this week, this makes the run game doubly important. If the Tigers are patient, and if Damarea Crockett and Ish Witter are generating solid first-down yardage, then there's really no reason to think MTSU will stop Mizzou very much. But if the run game still isn't clicking all that well, and if Drew Lock is throwing incompletions into traffic downfield, there could be trouble.
Passing Downs
| Missouri Offense | MTSU Defense | ||||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | Edge | |
| Passing Downs S&P+ | 96.7 | 83 | 108.4 | 47 | MTSU |
| Passing Downs Success Rate | 26.0% | 109 | 28.1% | 46 | MTSU big |
| Passing Downs IsoPPP | 1.78 | 59 | 1.71 | 12 | MTSU |
| PD Line Yards per Carry | 2.76 | 101 | 1.81 | 4 | MTSU big |
| PD Sack Rate | 0% | 1 | 5.9% | 87 | Missouri big |
There could be trouble because MTSU is very good on passing downs. The Blue Raiders don't have much of a pass rush, but they again don't give you many looks downfield. This appears to be a pretty decent "form a cloud" defense, and that's problematic considering Lock is still a sophomore learning how to make proper reads.
We could see a breakout performance from Crockett on Saturday. If we don't, then Drew Lock will carry a ton of weight on his shoulders.
Individual Passing Stats
| Team | Player | Ht, Wt | Year | Comp | Att | Yards | TD | INT | Comp Rate |
Sacks | Sack Rate | Yards/ Att. |
| MTSU | Brent Stockstill | 6'0, 206 | SO | 179 | 276 | 2091 | 18 | 5 | 64.9% | 4 | 1.4% | 7.4 |
| MTSU | John Urzua | 6'3, 185 | FR | 10 | 17 | 106 | 1 | 1 | 58.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 6.2 |
| Missouri | Drew Lock | 6'4, 220 | SO | 117 | 217 | 1714 | 14 | 6 | 53.9% | 3 | 1.4% | 7.7 |
| Missouri | Marvin Zanders | 6'1, 200 | SO | 9 | 11 | 105 | 1 | 0 | 81.8% | 0 | 0.0% | 9.5 |
Of course, if I'm going to mention Lock's importance, I should also point out that he likely won't be the only Tiger quarterback playing. And honestly, with MTSU's shaky run defense, the thought of playing Marvin Zanders quite a bit is an attractive one. Really curious about the distribution of snaps here.
Individual Rushing Stats
| Team | Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Rushes | Yards | TD | Yards/ Carry |
Hlt Yds/ Opp. |
Opp. Rate |
| MTSU | I'Tavius Mathers | RB | 5'11, 197 | SR | 115 | 725 | 10 | 6.3 | 6.8 | 39.1% |
| MTSU | Terelle West | RB | 5'10, 186 | FR | 31 | 123 | 0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 35.5% |
| MTSU | Brent Stockstill | QB | 6'0, 206 | SO | 25 | 160 | 0 | 6.4 | 4.7 | 52.0% |
| MTSU | Ruben Garnett | RB | 5'9, 178 | FR | 9 | 19 | 0 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 33.3% |
| Missouri | Ish Witter | RB | 5'10, 200 | JR | 83 | 339 | 3 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 26.5% |
| Missouri | Damarea Crockett | RB | 5'11, 220 | FR | 54 | 390 | 3 | 7.2 | 6.2 | 51.9% |
| Missouri | Marvin Zanders | QB | 6'1, 200 | SO | 27 | 164 | 2 | 6.1 | 5.0 | 51.9% |
| Missouri | Alex Ross | RB | 6'1, 220 | SR | 22 | 69 | 0 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 22.7% |
| NOTE: Quarterback run totals above do not include sacks (which are counted toward pass averages below) or kneeldowns. | ||||||||||
MTSU's is a pass-first, pass-second offense, but the Blue Raiders are more than willing to gash you with Mathers if you get distracted.
Individual Receiving Stats
| Team | Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Targets | Catches | Yards | TD | Yds/ Catch |
Yds/ Target |
Catch Rate |
| MTSU | Richie James | WR | 5'9, 180 | SO | 86 | 57 | 792 | 5 | 13.9 | 9.2 | 66.3% |
| MTSU | Ty Lee | WR | 5'9, 155 | FR | 41 | 30 | 295 | 4 | 9.8 | 7.2 | 73.2% |
| MTSU | I'Tavius Mathers | RB | 5'11, 197 | SR | 34 | 27 | 295 | 2 | 10.9 | 8.7 | 79.4% |
| MTSU | Patrick Smith | WR | 6'0, 185 | JR | 34 | 20 | 245 | 2 | 12.3 | 7.2 | 58.8% |
| MTSU | Dennis Andrews | WR | 6'0, 179 | SR | 25 | 14 | 210 | 3 | 15.0 | 8.4 | 56.0% |
| MTSU | Desmond Anderson | WR | 5'10, 176 | SO | 15 | 9 | 121 | 1 | 13.4 | 8.1 | 60.0% |
| MTSU | Isiah Upton | WR | 6'0, 181 | FR | 10 | 7 | 37 | 0 | 5.3 | 3.7 | 70.0% |
| Missouri | J'Mon Moore | WR | 6'3, 205 | JR | 61 | 28 | 465 | 6 | 16.6 | 7.6 | 45.9% |
| Missouri | Dimetrios Mason | WR | 6'0, 185 | FR | 27 | 18 | 227 | 0 | 12.6 | 8.4 | 66.7% |
| Missouri | Chris Black | WR | 6'0, 190 | SR | 23 | 14 | 199 | 1 | 14.2 | 8.7 | 60.9% |
| Missouri | Emanuel Hall | WR | 6'3, 205 | SO | 22 | 14 | 241 | 2 | 17.2 | 11.0 | 63.6% |
| Missouri | Johnathon Johnson | WR | 5'10, 185 | FR | 22 | 12 | 205 | 1 | 17.1 | 9.3 | 54.5% |
| Missouri | Jason Reese | TE | 6'5, 250 | JR | 12 | 7 | 82 | 2 | 11.7 | 6.8 | 58.3% |
| Missouri | Sean Culkin | TE | 6'6, 250 | SR | 11 | 7 | 70 | 0 | 10.0 | 6.4 | 63.6% |
Here's your regular reminder that J'Mon Moore has been targeted more than twice as much as any other Mizzou receiver. That's probably not good, though Moore should find matchups far more to his benefit than he did over the Tigers' last two games.
Individual Defensive Stats
| Team | Name | Pos | Ht, Wt | Year | Tackles | % of Team | TFL | Sacks | Int | PBU | FF | FR |
| MTSU | Darius Harris | LB | 6'2, 231 | SO | 34.0 | 9.4% | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| MTSU | Alex Dale | S | 5'10, 206 | JR | 29.5 | 8.1% | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| MTSU | Chris Melton | LB | 6'1, 210 | SO | 27.0 | 7.4% | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| MTSU | Jeremy Cutrer | CB | 6'2, 170 | SR | 26.5 | 7.3% | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| MTSU | Jovante Moffatt | S | 6'0, 191 | SO | 26.0 | 7.2% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| MTSU | D.J. Sanders | LB | 6'0, 225 | JR | 23.5 | 6.5% | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| MTSU | Michael Minter | CB | 6'0, 181 | JR | 22.0 | 6.1% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| MTSU | Dontavious Heard | CB | 6'1, 189 | SR | 18.5 | 5.1% | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| MTSU | Malik Hawkins | LB | 6'1, 218 | JR | 15.5 | 4.3% | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MTSU | Steven Rhodes | DE | 6'3, 268 | SR | 14.0 | 3.9% | 3.5 | 1.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| MTSU | Raynard Felton | DT | 6'4, 267 | SR | 13.0 | 3.6% | 3.5 | 2.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| MTSU | Khalil Brooks | LB | 5'11, 197 | FR | 13.0 | 3.6% | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| MTSU | Shaquille Huff | DT | 6'1, 330 | SR | 12.5 | 3.4% | 5.0 | 2.0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Missouri | Thomas Wilson | S | 5'10, 195 | JR | 39.5 | 11.1% | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Missouri | Michael Scherer | LB | 6'3, 235 | SR | 38.0 | 10.6% | 3.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Donavin Newsom | LB | 6'2, 240 | SR | 32.5 | 9.1% | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Anthony Sherrils | DB | 6'0, 205 | JR | 27.0 | 7.6% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Aarion Penton | DB | 5'10, 195 | SR | 20.0 | 5.6% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Joey Burkett | LB | 6'2, 225 | JR | 18.0 | 5.0% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Terry Beckner, Jr. | DL | 6'4, 290 | SO | 17.0 | 4.8% | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Charles Harris | DL | 6'3, 260 | JR | 16.5 | 4.6% | 4.5 | 3.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Missouri | Cale Garrett | LB | 6'3, 230 | FR | 14.5 | 4.1% | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Ronnell Perkins | S | 6'0, 200 | FR | 13.5 | 3.8% | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | John Gibson | DB | 6'0, 195 | SR | 13.0 | 3.6% | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Rickey Hatley | DL | 6'4, 320 | SR | 11.0 | 3.1% | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Marcell Frazier | DL | 6'5, 260 | JR | 11.0 | 3.1% | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Note: It appears "Fumble Returns" are getting pulled instead of "Fumble Recoveries." My apologies. Will try to get that corrected. | ||||||||||||
Neither team creates many havoc plays, though we know Missouri is more capable than what it has shown. Still, with two quick-passing and pass-happy attacks, flowing to the ball and tackling well will end up more important than making creating disruption.
Individual Special Teams Stats
| Team | Punter | Ht, Wt | Year | Punts | Avg | TB | FC | I20 | FC/I20 Ratio |
| MTSU | Matt Bonadies | 6'1, 213 | SO | 24 | 40.0 | 0 | 8 | 10 | 75.0% |
| MTSU | Brent Stockstill | 6'0, 206 | SO | 1 | 27.0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 100.0% |
| Missouri | Corey Fatony | 5'11, 205 | SO | 36 | 44.1 | 1 | 8 | 12 | 55.6% |
| Team | Kicker | Ht, Wt | Year | Kickoffs | Avg | TB | TB% | OOB | Fair Catches |
Onside Att |
Onside Success |
| MTSU | Canon Rooker | 5'11, 184 | JR | 43 | 60.0 | 15 | 34.9% | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| MTSU | Matt Bonadies | 6'1, 213 | SO | 1 | 56.0 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Tucker McCann | 6'0, 195 | FR | 36 | 63.3 | 24 | 66.7% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missouri | Turner Adams | 6'0, 205 | JR | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Team | Place-Kicker | Ht, Wt | Year | PAT | FG | Pct |
| MTSU | Canon Rooker | 5'11, 184 | JR | 27-29 | 10-12 | 83.3% |
| Missouri | Tucker McCann | 6'0, 195 | FR | 21-23 | 4-6 | 66.7% |
| Missouri | Turner Adams | 6'0, 205 | JR | 2-3 | 0-0 | #DIV/0! |
| Team | Kick Returner | Ht, Wt | Year | Returns | Avg. | TD | Fair Catch | Fumbles (Lost) |
| MTSU | Desmond Anderson | 5'10, 176 | SO | 8 | 20.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) |
| MTSU | Richie James | 5'9, 180 | SO | 2 | 21.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) |
| Missouri | Johnathon Johnson | 5'10, 185 | FR | 9 | 18.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) |
| Missouri | Damarea Crockett | 5'11, 220 | FR | 5 | 17.8 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0) |
| Team | Punt Returner | Ht, Wt | Year | Returns | Avg. | TD | Fair Catch | Fumbles (Lost) |
| MTSU | Richie James | 5'9, 180 | SO | 10 | 7.0 | 0 | 9 | 2 (1) |
| MTSU | Azar Wilson | 6'0, 257 | SR | 1 | 20.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 (0) |
| Missouri | Chris Black | 6'0, 190 | SR | 6 | 12.3 | 0 | 4 | 1 (0) |
| Missouri | Johnathon Johnson | 5'10, 185 | FR | 5 | 13.8 | 1 | 4 | 2 (1) |
One strange effect of Missouri's strange all-or-nothing stretch: Tucker McCann has only attempted one field goal in the last three games. Mizzou was too busy scoring touchdown after touchdown against Delaware State and was too busy not generating many scoring chances against LSU and Florida. With the bye week included, that means he's attempted one field goal in nearly a month.
I mean, he's probably attempted a few in practice and everything. But it's still weird.
---
Keys to the game
1. First down
It's always a key, sure, but Missouri's inability to move the ball on first-and-10 has been crippling over the last two games. MTSU's run defense is lacking and could allow the efficient Crockett to have a very big day. But run or pass, the Tigers must generate consistent yardage on first downs. Because MTSU probably will.
Key stat: Standard downs success rate
2. Crockett/Witter vs. Mathers/West
I guess this is almost 1a. Last week, Damarea Crockett and Ish Witter continued to split carries and snaps in Missouri's offense, but Crockett has gained ground quickly, and I would be surprised if he didn't end up carrying a little bit more of the load this week.
Regardless of who's going the carrying, Missouri's backs need to outpace MTSU's. The run is a secondary part of both attacks, but if one team finds a distinct advantage in this department, that team will also likely find the lead.
Key stat(s): RB rushing yards (and yards per carry, an rushing success rate)
3. Field position
In theory, the punters won't play a huge role in this game -- the over/under is 73 points, after all. Still, with two defenses pretty good at preventing big plays, the difference between having to go, say, 65 yards for a touchdown and 75 could become significant. Who's tilting the field in their favor?
Key stat: Average starting field position
4. Havoc
Missouri ranks a disappointing 78th in havoc rate this year (tackles for loss + passes defensed + forced fumbles / total plays), down drastically from 10th in 2015. MTSU, meanwhile, ranks 41st, but against a mostly lower grade of competition. Meanwhile, both offenses have been mostly successful at preventing losses.
If one defense is able to get players into the backfield and/or get hands on passes, that could sway both the turnover and field position battles, among other things. In theory, Missouri has a higher ceiling in this matchup, but ... in theory, I'd have thought there was no way the Tigers would rank 78th right now.
Key stat: Havoc rate
***
I'm feeling strangely confident about this one, despite the one-possession spread and the barely-a-field-goal-ahead S&P+ projection. And I think I feel that way because of what I wrote on Sunday.
Drew Lock’s reads are pretty simple a good portion of the time. The routes in a given play will open up space for one individual matchup. This isn’t unique to Heupel, obviously, but it requires Receiver A to beat Defensive Back B. When it happens, it happens again about 10 seconds later, and 10 seconds after that. Tempo maximizes matchup advantages ... when they exist.
Against lesser teams, Receiver A has been beating DB B in droves. Mizzou’s receivers were far too much for the likes of Eastern Michigan and Delaware State; in these two games, Drew Lock completed 51 of 73 passes for 699 yards, no sacks, and no interceptions. [...]
When receivers are beating defenders, this system works pretty well, even as offensive linemen are still learning how to beat defensive linemen in run blocking. But because the run blocking is still in beginner mode, the only thing this system has right now is the passing game.
Missouri’s receivers can’t beat good defensive backs yet.
Sometimes it just comes down to athletes. MTSU's secondary is far better than that of EMU or Delaware State, but it's still a step down from Florida, LSU, WVU, and Georgia. Nothing against Jeremy Cutrer and Michael Minter, but J'Mon Moore won't be going against Tre'Davious White or Quincy Wilson. Johnathon Johnson, Dimetrios Mason, Emanuel Hall, etc., won't be going against former four-star recruits.
I think that makes the difference. Missouri's secondary will likely make a few mistakes, but I trust the Tiger DBs to tackle mostly well and force MTSU to dink and dunk its way down the field. And I trust Missouri's skill guys to make just enough big plays to carry the day.
It's very, very easy to see how this goes wrong, but this feels like a two-touchdown Mizzou win to me. Here's to hoping, anyway.