GD: We'll go in order here.

On the first one, you're just saying "throw out a blind guess." I don't find much value in doing that because then people will hold me to it. It's going to depend how the rest of the season goes. If Missouri wins four of the final six, I'm relatively confident Odom will be back. If it wins two or fewer (or loses to Idaho or UCONN) I'm relatively confident he won't be. As for what will happen, I know everyone wants answers and opinions right now, but I'm willing to wait six weeks.

Offensive MVP is probably Drew Lock at this point. Defensive MVP has to be Terez Hall. Overall MVP is probably Corey Fatony.

I'd assume the Vegas line would be Kansas by somewhere around five or six points. They're talented and they're experienced. Missouri is talented, but not that experienced. This game is going to have something that a few Missouri games will have this season: The Tigers will have the most talented player on the floor. But the opponent probably has the next three or four.

GD: We're all about the multiple question questions this week. I see how it's going to be.

The biggest exhibition of all time? Sure. I mean, I have no idea. I don't pay much attention to most exhibition games. I understand the frustration for it not being televised. People at the QB Club meeting in Columbia on Monday told me Cuonzo Martin said it couldn't be televised because of NCAA regulations. Basically, to get it approved, this has to be a pretty bare bones operations. No cheerleaders or bands or anything, only necessary personnel who can go up and back on a bus. Minimum expenses to the schools. TV complicates that obviously. Perhaps they'll look at changing it in the future, but nobody's really done anything like this before that I know of, so I'll cut the NCAA a little slack before I kill them on it.

At that same meeting yesterday, Martin apparently said that his team would treat this like a regular game. Or at least they'll treat it like a regular exhibition. You're going to see everyone on the floor and you're going to see them playing an actual basketball game. Some of them might be limited in minutes and such, but they'll play. I understand the fear of someone getting hurt, but honestly, someone can get hurt every time you practice and teams aren't going to quit practicing.

On your last question, I don't think the regular season approach has changed. From his comments last week, I still don't think Bill Self is very interested in scheduling Missouri for a game that counts. That said, if the Tigers make the tournament this year, I'll be shocked if they're not in the same bracket as the Jayhawks.

GD: As I understand it, student seating is in the upper deck. So unless the Antlers know a few TSF donors that are willing to get them tickets, no, I don't think so.

As for the locker room, I don't think it's quite as idyllic as public comments would indicate. But I'm not going to trust random Internet posts as my source either. Are there some issues? Yeah. I think there would be issues in any locker room of a team that was 1-and-5 and hadn't beaten an FBS team all season.

GD: The Tigers are dead last in the country in time of possession. It's an average of about 38 to 22. Only three teams in the country this year are losing TOP by double digits (meaning they hold the ball for 25 minutes or less). Those teams are 3-18 with wins over Missouri State, Cal Poly and Portland State. So it's hardly a recipe for success. The best team that generally gets crushed in TOP is Miami, which is 5-0 and ranked 7th in the country despite an average deficit of 8:30 per game. So it's not a death sentence either. Other SEC teams ranked 100 or lower in TOP are Vandy, Tennessee and Ole Miss. None of them are exactly lighting it up this year.

Here are the worst SEC teams in terms of TOP over the last five years and how they finished:

2016: Mizzou (4-8), Ole Miss (5-7)

2015: Ole Miss (10-3, won Sugar Bowl), Mississippi State (9-4, won Belk Bowl)

2014: Texas A&M (8-5, won Liberty Bowl), Ole Miss (9-4, won Peach Bowl)

2013: Texas A&M (9-4, won Peach Bowl), Kentucky (2-10)

2012: Kentucky (2-10), Tennessee (5-7)

Now, none of these teams had a TOP deficit quite as big as Mizzou has had the last two years. But you can win without holding the ball for 28 minutes or more. Even in the big, bad SEC.

All that said, I don't think how long they hold the ball is Missouri's problem. I don't think the hyper speed offense helps the Mizzou defense, don't get me wrong. But Mizzou opponents have scored touchdowns on four out of six opening drives this season (South Carolina and Kentucky did not). The defense wasn't worn out the very first time it took the field. Missouri's defense is giving up 6.6 yards per play. That means an opponent, on average, doesn't even make it to third down (where Missouri is one of the worst defenses in the country) before it gets a first down. The Tigers have only five takeaways and only one stop in 26 red zone trips. The high-speed offense is a contributing factor to Missouri's defensive struggles. But the root cause is that Missouri just isn't any good on defense.

GD: First, I wanted to see if your perception matched reality so I went back through the game logs to see how many targets the top receivers had. I combined the targets for Dimetrios Mason and Emanuel Hall because of the situation there where Mason started the first four games and Hall the last two with Mason off the team. So that number will be a little bit inflated, but not a ton. They weren't on the field together a whole lot. Anyway, here are the numbers:

Mason/Hall: 45 targets, 26 catches, 493 yards (18.96 avg), 3 touchdowns

Johnathon Johnson: 36 targets, 26 catches, 357 yards (13.73 avg), 3 touchdowns

J'Mon Moore: 33 targets, 20 catches, 406 yards (20.3 avg), 4 touchdowns

So if Johnson is the top target, it really isn't by much. The distribution has been pretty even. He has the most catches. Johnson has caught 72% of the passes thrown his way, Moore 61% and Mason and Hall a combined 58%. He also has the lowest yards per catch of the group.

The average isn't a shock because Johnson plays the slot, which is a position that runs fewer deep routes than the outside receivers. I think the perception is that Johnson has the most ability of any of the receivers to take a short pass and turn it into a big play because of the combination of speed and elusiveness. I don't know how many of the incompletions have been drops, but these numbers also suggest Johnson is the most reliable target for actually catching the ball (I'd argue at this point that is Hall).

Anyway, my conclusion is that Johnson isn't a featured receiver any more than Moore or Hall. The distribution is pretty even. If there is one receiver getting far more throws than the others, I'd suggest it's because he tends to get open more often.

GD: I won't say it's impossible, but I've got a hard time seeing it. If you don't win this one, which one are you winning?

That said, this doesn't come down to a predetermined win total. The only question that matters at the end of the year is this one: Does Jim Sterk believe Barry Odom is the right guy to get Mizzou where most think it needs to be in the next few years?

To me, where it needs to be is about an eight win team on a regular basis. Some years will be a little better and some will be a little worse, but if you're averaging 8-4 at Mizzou, you're doing a pretty good job and you're going to stick around. If Sterk believes in Odom and his vision, he'll keep him. If he doesn't, he won't.

GD: The vast majority of Missouri's official visits are going to take place after the season. Which would make the timing interesting if there is indeed a coaching change.

On the softball game, I feel like someone told me it was Ehren Earleywine's idea, but I'm not 100% on that.

On the Chiefs, I probably cussed because I do that sometimes during Chiefs games. I don't throw things. But I hated the decision.

GD: I'm not going to publish a hot board until there's an opening. If you guys want to ask me what I think of certain coaches, whether they'd take the job, whether they'd be a good fit, etc, in the instance that there is an opening, I'll answer that. But I'm not going to put out a list of coaches at this point in time.

The lighter fluid situation doesn't change a thing. It matters little. Coaches do things like this all the time. We just don't always know about them.

GD: The answer to "Why haven't they offered Player X?" is always the same. They aren't convinced he's a guy that can help them win at a high level yet. Doesn't mean that won't change, but that's always the answer. When the staff believes a guy can do that, they'll offer him.

I would also say that with the way things have gone with the 2018 class (no early commitments, a lot of guys playing the waiting game, a lot of guys chasing offers rather than narrowing their lists), the staff is going to be more judicious with its early offers in-state. We have talked over and over about how you can't pull an offer to an in-state player once you send it out. So you better be 1000% sure you want an in-state kid before you offer him. If you're not, and they want to commit, you end up with players you aren't sold on taking up scholarships.

And I will say one more time, how many of these offers are committable? I can tell you for absolute fact that there are plenty of 2018 and 2019 offers to players in the state of Missouri that aren't committable. Some of the 2018 guys have found this out. Some of the 2019 guys might have too, I don't know. I hate that offers are sent out that can't be accepted at any time. I think it's a terrible practice and a bad look. But it's how the game works. It says right there in the official offer that the offer is good until the spots at the position are filled. And some of them, if they called to commit the day they got the offer, would be told no. Missouri can do that to a kid from Texas, Florida, Georgia, etc, but it can't do it to a kid in the state. So it's a much better idea to hold off and offer them a little bit later than it is to offer a kid you aren't sure is good enough to play for you.

You can dispute whether these players are good enough. That's an individual opinion. I'm not telling you whether they should already have offered Cooper or any of these other guys. I'm just answering the question of why they haven't offered some of them yet.

GD: I don't know that Campbell would have taken the job, but given the fact that he took the Iowa State job, I'd have to think he would have. Missouri looked at him. I'm not sure which side said no thanks. Depends on who you talk to.

Either way, if Missouri wants him whenever it needs a coach, yeah, I'm confident it could get him. According to this article, Campbell made $2 million last year and somewhere around $1.3 million (guaranteed) this year. The language is, admittedly, a little bit confusing to me. But Missouri can pay him a lot more than Iowa State is paying him. That's not really up for debate.

Would he be interested? I don't know. I would think so. But I don't know Matt Campbell.

GD: The fans' opinion matters in that if the stadium is empty that's something Sterk has to consider. As far as boosters, Missouri has very, very few (I'd guess less than five) who give enough that they can call Sterk and get his attention by saying "I'm pulling my donation if you keep this guy." And in my experience, the guys who have power like that at Missouri don't do it. Very few boosters are giving money or taking it away based on who's on the sideline.

As far as number two, there's no such thing as a "home run hire." You never know when you make the hire. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Gary Pinkel was probably a couple games away from getting fired at Mizzou and ended up winning more games than anyone. Nobody knew Bill Snyder would be what he was when he was hired. And you can find just as many sure thing hires that didn't work at all. You gather all the evidence you can, you make your pick and you hope.

As I said earlier, this ultimately will come down to whether Sterk believes in Odom to be the guy to lead Missouri back. If he does, he stays. If not, he goes. Regardless of who else is available.

GD: No.

GD: I'm not gonna pretend to know Bill Self well enough to get in his head. Sam Mellinger wrote some about Self's motivations last week. So, yeah, I believe part of it was something his dad wanted to do and a chance to do a good thing (believe it or not, in my experiences around him, Self seems like a pretty good dude). And maybe he thought it would be good for Kansas City and the fans too.

But I think the main motivation is everyone at Mizzou is different now. Cuonzo Martin and Jim Sterk didn't have anything to do with bolting the Big 12 (which, for whatever it's worth, Kansas would absolutely without a single shred of doubt have done as well). If Mike Alden and Frank Haith are still here, this game doesn't happen. No way, no how.

I don't think it's any sign that Self is suddenly going to want to play Missour in a game that really counts, but it's a little bit of an olive branch. And if you want the two to play again, you want Missouri to win this weekend. Cause I don't think that will go over all that well in Lawrence.

GD: I'd sure think so. I haven't gone back through the rosters year by year, but my guess is that Brad Smith currently holds that record. He was 25-23 in four years. First off, most quarterbacks don't start as freshmen, so they don't play four years. Second, most don't stay healthy. The other guy that jumps to mind is Jeff Handy. He was on the roster from 1991-94 when Mizzou lost 31 games. He played in 41 games in those four years, but I don't know how many he started). Anyway, Lock has lost 19 games as a starter. He's got six more this year and 12 next year, presumably. So, yeah, that's certainly a possibility. Obviously it wouldn't all be on him, but that's a number on which people will judge him.