Delhi | 25°C (windy)

Mizzou's 2025 Gauntlet: How Future Opponents Stacked Up in College Football's Week 2 Showdowns

  • Nishadil
  • September 08, 2025
  • 0 Comments
  • 2 minutes read
  • 5 Views
Mizzou's 2025 Gauntlet: How Future Opponents Stacked Up in College Football's Week 2 Showdowns

As college football fans soak in the immediate action, many loyal to the Missouri Tigers are already peeking ahead, perhaps even to the 2025 season! With an eye towards future gridiron battles, it's always insightful to track how Mizzou's confirmed opponents are faring in the current landscape. Week 2 of the college football season offered a mixed bag of results for these future adversaries, providing an early glimpse into their potential strengths and weaknesses.

Kicking off with the Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks, who are slated to visit Faurot Field in 2025, Week 2 brought a sobering reality check.

ULM traveled to West Point to face Army and endured a significant 45-7 defeat. The Warhawks' offense struggled mightily, mustering a mere 271 yards of total offense against a disciplined Black Knights squad. This performance certainly raises questions about their offensive firepower and ability to compete against tougher competition, a factor Mizzou will undoubtedly note.

Next on the radar are the San Diego State Aztecs, another future opponent.

They faced a formidable challenge against UCLA and ultimately fell 35-10. Much like ULM, the Aztecs found points hard to come by, managing a paltry 143 total yards for the game. Facing a Power Five opponent, San Diego State's offensive limitations were starkly exposed, suggesting they have considerable ground to cover to contend with top-tier programs.

The Buffalo Bulls, set to host Mizzou in 2025, also experienced a defeat in Week 2, losing 38-17 to Georgia Southern.

While the final score indicates a clear loss, Buffalo did show occasional flashes of potential. However, they were ultimately outplayed by a Georgia Southern team that capitalized on their opportunities. The Bulls will need to demonstrate more consistency and find ways to finish drives if they aim to challenge strong SEC programs like Mizzou.

Perhaps the most intriguing performance among Mizzou’s future foes came from the Colorado State Rams.

In a high-profile matchup against their in-state rival, the Colorado Buffaloes, the Rams put up a surprisingly strong fight before ultimately falling 36-24. Despite the loss, Colorado State showcased remarkable resilience and grit, particularly in the first half. Their ability to push a ranked, high-flying Colorado team, even if only for a half, speaks volumes about their competitive spirit and potential to surprise.

This was a far more impressive showing than many had anticipated, suggesting they might be a tougher out than their record indicates.

Finally, we turn our attention to the Utah Utes, a perennial PAC-12 powerhouse that will face Mizzou in 2025. The Utes traveled to Baylor and secured a hard-fought 20-13 victory, a testament to their strength and depth.

What makes this win even more impressive is that they achieved it without their star quarterback, Cam Rising, who was sidelined due to injury. Utah's ability to grind out a road win against a Big 12 opponent, leaning on their stout defense and efficient offense, highlights their championship pedigree.

They consistently find ways to win, regardless of the circumstances, making them a formidable opponent for any team, including the Tigers.

As the college football season progresses, these early-season results offer a preliminary scouting report for Mizzou fans. While 2025 is still a few seasons away, understanding the current trajectories and competitive levels of these future opponents provides a fascinating context.

From teams struggling to find their footing to those demonstrating impressive resilience, the landscape is already taking shape for what promises to be an exciting Mizzou schedule.

.

Disclaimer: This article was generated in part using artificial intelligence and may contain errors or omissions. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. We makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy, completeness, or reliability. Readers are advised to verify the information independently before relying on