Much has been made of the errors, some blown calls, the personal fouls, the decision to rush the punter and the dropped pass/overthrown ball. However, the one stat that jumps out at me is 4 yards rushing by Missouri tailbacks for the game and zero plays involving a tailback in the second half. With Missouri back in the hunt and standing on the OU two yard line, the Tigers went empty backfield out of the shotgun four plays in a row. Two of those plays the Tigers threw the ball.

Now I'm not a complete convert to the spread offense, but I'm not going to completely dismiss it as gimmicky. I've seen it work well and with Daniel at quarterback, it can be effective against a strong defense. However, there isn't a coach out there from the NFL to pee wee football who would have run those four plays from the two yard line. In that respect, the Tigers stand alone in the football universe.

Throughout the second half, OU, which has a very strong defense, rushed three and dropped eight into coverage. Except for the one touchdown drive in which the Tigers were acting so fast that OU couldn't make personnel changes or get set in time, they took away everything underneath and everything over the top. The obvious answer to this is to keep them honest by running the ball...something Mizzou refused to do.

OU, like A&M, steadily ran the ball and controlled the clock. OU had the ball three times as much as Mizzou in the 4th quarter. I realize that Temple got hurt, but is there no other tailback on the sideline? Is this offense so one dimensional that we must go with an empty backfield when Temple goes down?

I'll pick on one other play. This may seem nitpicky, but it illustrates my feelings that Pinkel's coaching staff has trouble with game situations. With OU up 13 and going for a field goal with about 3:55 left to play, Mizzou dropped a safety back to watch for the fake. There was a better chance of the Earth crashing into the sun than for Stoops to fake a fieldgoal that if made, would ice the game. Where was the special teams coach screaming for the all out block?

So a few game observations:

• Adam Crossett takes about three seconds to get the ball off. He can easily cut that in half.
  
• Missouri's receivers sometimes gave up on the play while Daniel scrambled. Until that whistle is blown, play.
  
• Dead ball personal fouls like pancaking a guy 5 seconds after the play is over is something I just didn't expect to see nine games into the season.
  
• Spend a few days and draw up a goal line play that doesn't involve hiking the ball six yards backwards to an empty backfield. Put Coffman in as fullback. Anything but what we saw.
  
• Just because you're down by two scores doesn't mean you have to throw the ball every down. If they drop eight like OU did the second half, you simply have to run.
  
• I'm not prepared to say Mizzou is a better team than OU, but the game was clearly there for the taking. This game illustrates perfectly the differences small coaching decisions can make as well as mistakes and sloppiness. Stoops is an outstanding coach and expertly exploited Missouri's failings.
  
• Kansas City Star Missouri beat writer Mike DeArmond called the incomplete pass to Chase Coffman early in the game "perfect". The play happened right below me. While Coffman maybe could have caught the ball by diving, the pass was long. I just don't want this to turn into a Jackie Smith-esque bit of folklore that Coffman dropped a creampuff pass. He'll tell you he should have caught it, but he's just being a good teammate and displaying a good attitude.
  
• Despite a nightmarish showing on the big stage, Missouri is significantly improved over any Tiger team of the last 35 years save 1998. The 1998 team may not have achieved as much in wins (remains to be seen), but it was a very disciplined team and played an outstanding power running game. Pinkel has Missouri heading much higher, but will the Tigers' playcalling and discipline keep up with the potential?