Grading the 2025 Mizzou season

Ready or not, it’s Finals Season on campus! The Tigers don’t have any more time to cram because the 2025 regular season has come to close and it’s now time to take a retrospective look at how the Tigers ultimately performed based on expectations entering the season. I’ve graded out all three major areas of the team based on how they performed and the contributions they made to the Tigers’ 8-4 (4-4) record.

Offense

Mizzou entered the 2025 season knowing the offense would look different than the explosive group of 2023 and the efficiency-based unit in 2024. With a rebuilt quarterback room, new faces on the line and a coordinator tasked with balancing proven running talent and untested passing options, the Tigers expected growing pains. What they did not expect was an identity that became so predictable that it contributed heavily to each of the team’s four losses.

The one undeniable strength was the running game, which ranked among the most productive in the SEC. Ahmad Hardy emerged as one of the nation’s premier backs, finishing the season second in the country with 1,560 rushing yards and 16 touchdowns. His blend of power, burst and balance carried the offense for long stretches of the year. Jamal Roberts provided essential support, adding nearly 700 yards and 5 touchdowns while offering his valuable skills as a blocking and receiving back. Together, they formed one of the most reliable running back combos in the country and kept Mizzou competitive even when the passing attack sputtered.

That passing attack was the most disappointing element of the season. Despite having capable receivers and a veteran tight end group, the offense struggled with accuracy, timing and consistency from the quarterback position. Explosive plays in the air were rare, red zone passing success was inconsistent and third down efficiency lagged when the Tigers had to throw. Opponents quickly recognized that Mizzou’s best option was to hand the ball to Hardy or Roberts, especially in critical moments, and the offense became increasingly easy to diagnose.

Playcalling issues made the situation more difficult. Mizzou often relied on early down runs that were stuffed by defenses stacking the line. When the Tigers were forced into obvious passing situations, the lack of rhythm made drives stall. In every one of Mizzou’s losses, long stretches of offensive stagnation prevented the Tigers from building momentum or responding to opponent scoring drives.

Despite the struggles, there were flashes of potential. At times the Tigers used tempo effectively, and the offensive line ultimately gelled into a group that wasn’t a hindrance to the offense. But the inconsistency in the passing game and the predictable approach to key situations limited the team’s ceiling. The elite performance of the backfield salvaged the grade, but the overall offensive showing is subpar.

Offensive grade: C+

Defense

While the offense was known to waver, the Tiger defense never did. Mizzou fielded one of the best defensive units in the country this season. The Tigers ranked 10th nationally in total defense,13th in yards per play allowed, 19th in third down conversion percentage and 21st in scoring defense. In every major category the group performed at a level that kept Mizzou close in each game and gave the team a chance to win.

The foundation of the defense was its pass rush. Zion Young and Damon Wilson secured their NFL draft futures with a combined 15.5 sacks and 24.5 tackles for loss, creating consistent pressure that disrupted opposing quarterbacks and forced rushed decisions. Their ability to collapse pockets allowed the coaching staff to be aggressive elsewhere, bringing simulated pressure and disguising coverages without leaving the secondary exposed.

Linebacker Josiah Trotter became one of the season’s breakout stars. After transferring into the program, Trotter quickly emerged as a leader and a stabilizing force. His ability to defend the run, diagnose plays and drop effectively into coverage transformed the middle of the defense. His presence allowed Mizzou to stay in its preferred personnel groups against a wide variety of offensive looks.

The secondary, which entered the season as the biggest question mark, steadily improved as the year progressed. Young players settled into defined roles and communication across the back end grew stronger. While the unit was not perfect, particularly early, it became reliable enough that opponents could not simply attack downfield without consequence.

The defense also excelled in situational play. Opponents rarely sustained long drives, and Mizzou repeatedly forced field goal attempts instead of allowing touchdowns. Turnover creation was not elite, but timely sacks, batted passes and drive-stalling tackles compensated for that shortcoming.

In each of Mizzou’s games this season, the defense delivered a performance strong enough to win. Even in losses, the unit held opponents below their season averages and repeatedly put the offense in position to seize control. Had the Tigers managed more consistency on the other side of the ball, this defensive group may have anchored a 10-win campaign.

Defensive grade: A

Special Teams

Mizzou’s special teams misfortunes struck early and often in 2025 when kicker Blake Craig suffered a torn ACL in the first game of the year. This loss forced the Tigers to adjust their entire approach to field goals and kickoffs. While Craig’s injury explains some of the instability that followed, it does not account for the broader issues that plagued the unit throughout the season.

The most persistent problem was punting. Mizzou struggled to flip field position, and inconsistent hang time and directional placement allowed opponents to start drives in advantageous spots far too often. In tightly contested games where the Tigers needed to win on the margins, these shortcomings became magnified.

Coverage teams also had uneven performances. Kick return defense allowed several long bursts, and punt coverage had moments where lanes broke down under pressure. While none of these mistakes singularly cost Mizzou a game, the accumulation contributed to losses in subtle but meaningful ways.

The Oklahoma game stood out as a clear example. Mizzou needed sharp execution in every phase to compete with a top tier opponent. Instead, special teams miscues handed the Sooners short fields and failed to give the Tigers favorable starting positions. In a game where the offense struggled to generate explosive plays, every yard mattered. Mizzou lost that battle repeatedly.

Given Craig’s absence and the revolving door at kicker, some leniency is justified. But nearly every other aspect of the special teams unit underperformed, and the struggles directly affected the outcome of multiple games.

Special Teams grade: D+

The preseason Vegas over/under mark for Mizzou was set at 7.5 wins. Analysts widely viewed the year as a necessary reset after consecutive double digit win seasons. The defense and the running game raised hopes for another surge, but the passing game and special teams more closely resembled the modest expectations that preceded the season.

Even so, Mizzou surpassed the projected mark and finished with eight victories. It was not a breakthrough season, but it was a stable one. The Tigers showed the foundation of a team built to contend again soon, particularly on defense. With better balance on offense and greater consistency on special teams, the program can return to the double digit win conversation.

For now the passing grade is clear. Mizzou did not exceed its potential, but it did meet it while hopefully raising the floor for “disappointing” Tigers seasons.

Final Grade: B