I think they're both mid-tier right now as others have said and for the same reasons others have mentioned: lack of depth, 4-quarter conditioning, and physicality. They don't yet understand the overriding concept of SEC ("big boy", aka "championship") football: superior well-conditioned physical defense wins championships, physical ball-control offense wears down and exposes inferior defense. They can call it "old man" if they want. Until they grow up, those pups can just keep watching the big boys carry the crystal home. It's not about who can score the fastest with a flashy offense. It's about who can make their opponents quit. Though I think Mizzou is currently more dangerous than TAMU, I think TAMU culturally has a higher short-term (2-4yr) ceiling because they're closer to understanding what they have to be in order to become competitive in this league, while I got the feeling since media days that Mizzou doesn't have a clue. They're like a cocky little know-it-all 14yr old boy who thinks he's got nothing to learn from grown men who've been there, done that. Interestingly, maybe they learned more than TAMU this week - Georgia wore their cocky butts out in the second half and made them quit.