• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Projected Roster: 2025

It's great having these big, 240-270 lbs, tall-- 6-4 to 6-8, mobile TE's Olson, Gale, Rohrer, Sirmon, etc., now I just hope Pease has our QB targeting them 5-10 passes every game, and we use them as receivers much more than in the past. By doing so, our WR's will also benefit as our opponents will have to divert some LB's and DB'S away from them to cover our TE's.
 
Man I would love to see us just throw up more passes in the red zone to these big tight ends. If they got even decent hands, not a lot of db's in our conference are going to be able to successfully stop a 6'7 dude from catching a ball in the corner of the endzone.
 
Updated 2/5
2021 Roster: 111 players
2022: 113 players
2023: 112 players
2024: 114 players
Current Roster: 105 known players

By Class
Freshman: 18
R-Freshman: 18
Sophomore: 6
R-Sophmore: 20
Junior: 2
R-Junior: 13
Senior: 5
R-Senior: 23

I DO NOT expect Montana to opt into the house settlement, for the 2025 season, which would cap the roster at 105 players. Schools have until March 1st to make a decision. Big Sky Conference officials are meeting on February 26th to determine what schools will do in the conference. Hauck mentioned in the press conference that they will operate with a 105 man roster in the fall.

Offense(42 players)
QB: Ah Yat, Flowers, Sliter, Schweikert, Jensen

RB: E Gillman, Fonoti, Rocker, T Reynolds

WR: Deck, Finch, Bridges, Davis, Alford, Dever, Gurnsey, Phillips, Toney, M Gillman, Running Rabbit, Hendrix, Wortham

TE: Olson, Grezmak, Weida, Sirmon, Rohrer, Gale

C(Players might play multiple OL positions):
Ray, Cohen

OG(Players might play multiple OL positions):
Brown, Freitas, Johnson, Henriksen, Templeton, Hilden

OT(Players might play multiple OL positions):
Panfiloff, Buehler, Amick, Steinbach, Jeske, Bowen

Defense(40 players)
DT: Ramos, Mason, Bailey

DE: Mata’afa, Detrick, Wilson V, Pifferini, Peck, Peevy, Moreland

DL: McPherson, Murphy, Tucker, Keim

LB: Leonard, Otlewski, Stevenson, Opitz, Oven, Tolbert, Walker, Moran

S: Rausch, Cutler, Boyd, McGurran, Parker, Goicoechea, O Reynolds, Ridgeway, Wolf, Harper

CB: Loud, Lawler, Brady, Ford, Huff, Speer, Wilkinson, Breston

Special Teams(5 players)
K/P: Morrison, Glasgow, Silver, Boyer
LS: Pibal

Freshman(18 players)
OL- Kaikoa Kanakaole
OL- Lincoln Hoefer
OL- Quinlan Hyatt
OL- Ezra Meyer
RB- Chase Cook
RB- Hashim Jones
TE- Malaki Davis
WR- Bridger Smith
WR- Jammel Ward

DB- Sage Salopek
DB- DeAnte Gentry
DL- Cooper Buffington
DL- Logan Knaevelsrud
LB- Bridger Salvevold
LB- Colton Lentz
LB- Styles Goodman
S- Brady Beaner
S- Brock Beaner
 
Last edited:
putter said:
As you mentioned, Bobby said in the signing day presser they will hold the roster at 105 so I wonder if they are planning to opt in at a later date.
Click to expand...
I’m sure they will, but opting into the house settlement affects all sports, and I don’t think the other fall sports are in a position to make that transition yet. We will know more by the end of the month. Weird times…
 
If it were up to BH, it would be coaching malpractice to opt out. He’s got to be ready to opt in.

I personally believe it would be administrative malpractice by Kent to opt out.

You don’t hobble the cash cow just because you feel sorry for some chickens.

It’s a new era, get with the times. Sooner the better
 
garizzalies said:
If it were up to BH, it would be coaching malpractice to opt out. He’s got to be ready to opt in.

I personally believe it would be administrative malpractice by Kent to opt out.

You don’t hobble the cash cow just because you feel sorry for some chickens.

It’s a new era, get with the times. Sooner the better
Click to expand...
Explain this one like I am a child, because I might actually need it here. Please.

Why does it hobble the football team to opt out? I'm not trying to argue, I haven't even read the court decision. I just keep seeing people saying stuff on eGriz and listened to the GFP, but every time I read an article on the subject it leaves me feeling like I must be missing a lot.

I thought that it bought us time to not have to cut down the roster and to see how it goes when people not opting in.

What are we losing out on if we do NOT opt in? Mostly to be able to co-mingle NIL money more between University and Collective, or is there more to it than that?
 
“Rich get richer.” Any team worth its salt will be opting in. All FBS and the top FCS schools will likely opt in, or get left behind.

To overly simplify it, opting into the settlement means you’ll be allowed to do some things that you’re currently not allowed to do: things like revenue-share with players, move NIL deals in-house within the athletic department, offer more scholarships, offer higher Alston payment stipends, etc.
Click to expand...
 
garizzalies said:
“Rich get richer.” Any team worth its salt will be opting in. All FBS and the top FCS schools will likely opt in, or get left behind.
Click to expand...
Don't think all top FCS schools are not opting in. For example, NDSU. See article. I thought Brint's podcast had Haslam saying UM wasn't opting in this year. I see an article saying MSU is opting in.

406mtsports.com

North Dakota State athletics not joining NCAA 'opt in' financial model

"The biggest difference between opting in and opting out in my mind is now schools can do NIL deals directly with student-athletes." NDSU athletic director Matt Larsen
406mtsports.com 406mtsports.com

From above post: "To overly simplify it, opting into the settlement means you’ll be allowed to do some things that you’re currently not allowed to do: things like revenue-share with players, move NIL deals in-house within the athletic department, offer more scholarships, offer higher Alston payment stipends, etc."

Revenue share with players. UM doesn't have money to revenue share. UM can barely cover the budget. Moving NIL deals in-house isn't a big deal for schools like UM. And the lines are already blurred between coordinating with coaches, it appears. UM doesn't have money to offer more scholarships or to offer stipends.

Limiting the roster to 105 would be a negative for UM.

"At Least 250 Athletes Have Opted Out of the House v. NCAA Settlement"

frontofficesports.com

At Least 250 Athletes Have Opted Out of House Settlement

About 150 former Division I football players have joined a separate lawsuit called Fontenot v. NCAA, FOS can confirm.
frontofficesports.com frontofficesports.com
 
mthoopsfan said:
Don't think all top FCS schools are not opting in. For example, NDSU. See article. I thought Brint's podcast had Haslam saying UM wasn't opting in this year. I see an article saying MSU is opting in.

406mtsports.com

North Dakota State athletics not joining NCAA 'opt in' financial model

"The biggest difference between opting in and opting out in my mind is now schools can do NIL deals directly with student-athletes." NDSU athletic director Matt Larsen
406mtsports.com 406mtsports.com

From above post: "To overly simplify it, opting into the settlement means you’ll be allowed to do some things that you’re currently not allowed to do: things like revenue-share with players, move NIL deals in-house within the athletic department, offer more scholarships, offer higher Alston payment stipends, etc."

Revenue share with players. UM doesn't have money to revenue share. UM can barely cover the budget. Moving NIL deals in-house isn't a big deal for schools like UM. And the lines are already blurred between coordinating with coaches, it appears. UM doesn't have money to offer more scholarships or to offer stipends.

Limiting the roster to 105 would be a negative for UM.

"At Least 250 Athletes Have Opted Out of the House v. NCAA Settlement"

frontofficesports.com

At Least 250 Athletes Have Opted Out of House Settlement

About 150 former Division I football players have joined a separate lawsuit called Fontenot v. NCAA, FOS can confirm.
frontofficesports.com frontofficesports.com
Click to expand...

This is also a settlement between the NCAA and players that each school that opts in must pay. I read that the conferences outside the former P5 are on the hook for just under a billion. I am not sure how much annually that would take out of UM's coffers, but it ain't chump change. Opting in isn't all positive.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
This is also a settlement between the NCAA and players that each school that opts in must pay. I read that the conferences outside the former P5 are on the hook for just under a billion. I am not sure how much annually that would take out of UM's coffers, but it ain't chump change. Opting in isn't all positive.
Click to expand...
“However, the settlement would cost Montana State University and the University of Montana together an estimated $4.4 million over 10 years, the Daily Montanan reports. UM Athletic Director Kent Haslam said the initial projection for Missoula is a loss of $200,000 a year for the decade. “It's real money.” KPAX. .

UM $2.2 million.
 
DayLaw said:
I have no idea what to expect on defense. All new faces. Could be bad or good. Nuce and Rostad are the only returners that I have some insight that he can be consistent contributors in this defense. Have high hopes for Loud too. Everyone else still lots to see.

Offense I think is a bit less worrisome for me but there will need to be some growth.
Click to expand...
Nice and Rostad and Klucewich are not coming back. Moving on with life.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Don't think all top FCS schools are not opting in. For example, NDSU. See article. I thought Brint's podcast had Haslam saying UM wasn't opting in this year. I see an article saying MSU is opting in.

406mtsports.com

North Dakota State athletics not joining NCAA 'opt in' financial model

"The biggest difference between opting in and opting out in my mind is now schools can do NIL deals directly with student-athletes." NDSU athletic director Matt Larsen
406mtsports.com 406mtsports.com

From above post: "To overly simplify it, opting into the settlement means you’ll be allowed to do some things that you’re currently not allowed to do: things like revenue-share with players, move NIL deals in-house within the athletic department, offer more scholarships, offer higher Alston payment stipends, etc."

Revenue share with players. UM doesn't have money to revenue share. UM can barely cover the budget. Moving NIL deals in-house isn't a big deal for schools like UM. And the lines are already blurred between coordinating with coaches, it appears. UM doesn't have money to offer more scholarships or to offer stipends.

Limiting the roster to 105 would be a negative for UM.

"At Least 250 Athletes Have Opted Out of the House v. NCAA Settlement"

frontofficesports.com

At Least 250 Athletes Have Opted Out of House Settlement

About 150 former Division I football players have joined a separate lawsuit called Fontenot v. NCAA, FOS can confirm.
frontofficesports.com frontofficesports.com
Click to expand...
Good post and good to have you back.

Herder is the one who said:
Most FCS schools will opt into the House settlement…it’s expected that all FBS schools will opt in and most FCS schools will too.
Click to expand...

I was initially surprised to hear UNDSU would opt out, but when you think about it, it makes sense for them. They are already at the top of the heap. Why would they want anything to change?

College football has always been an arms race. But now, more than 8 countries can have nukes. In fact, everyone can have nukes. You don’t have to use them, but you should at least give yourself the chance by opting into the arms treaty.

If our warring neighbor (MSdUi) opts in, I would be shocked if we do not.

Guess we will see in three weeks when the Cold War era ends and ceasefire expires
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
This is also a settlement between the NCAA and players that each school that opts in must pay. I read that the conferences outside the former P5 are on the hook for just under a billion. I am not sure how much annually that would take out of UM's coffers, but it ain't chump change. Opting in isn't all positive.
Click to expand...
I get that there are “cons” with opting in from the perspective of the athletic dept, but from the perspective of the football program alone, the “pros” column far outweighs those.

The football program does not give a shit about other sports’ rosters, nor the expense side. The pressure is on them to win now. There’s no pressure on the track and field team.

even funding 10 more scholarships, or 10 more scholarship level players through other means of paying their tuition, provides a competitive advantage for programs that fund FCS football at a high level.
Click to expand...

The handful of roster spots they might have to give up makes it a no brainer, as:
Opting into the House settlement would allow FCS schools to spread their scholarship money out over more players.
Click to expand...
 
garizzalies said:
I get that there are “cons” with opting in from the perspective of the athletic dept, but from the perspective of the football program alone, the “pros” column far outweighs those.

The football program does not give a shit about other sports’ rosters, nor the expense side. The pressure is on them to win now. There’s no pressure on the track and field team.



The handful of roster spots they might have to give up makes it a no brainer, as:
Click to expand...
Opting in gives you more control to pay players, but as hoops noted, it also reduces the athletic departments operation budget by $200,000/yr for the next 10. That is significant for the football program, since it is the program most dependent on those funds. I am not sure you grasp the total picture. This settlement was a way for the big guys (that negotiated it) with the money to have the little guys without the money to finance a large portion of the settlement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top