• 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!

Griz Soccer 2026

Schedule is not that bad, in my opinion, but agree that it is unfortunate that we have so few home games. Assume Gore inherited much of this schedule from Cito. But in terms of quality of opponents, probably don't want to schedule anything easier. I mean, only 4 teams with better RPI's than us last year. Only result that matters is Big Sky and Big Sky tourney as we are never getting an at-large bid to NCAA - certainly not without playing a much harder schedule, but the Big Sky RPI kills us even if we sweep conference.) So non-conference is all about building the team (and its depth) for conference play. It's good to throw in there a team with the speed and athleticism of UW as that's what we will see if we make the tourney and better to see it early in the season as a reference point. But we should be able to compete with every other team on this schedule. I always respected Weber for playing a really tough non-conference schedule (BYU, Utah Valley, Utah, Utah State are all in their neighborhood...) and they'd show up to conference schedule winless but then be one of the strongest teams in the conference.

UW - RPI 22
Seattle - RPI 65
Denver - RPI 74
Gonzaga - RPI 122
Air Force - RPI 136
Wyoming - RPI 143
Bucknell - RPI 256

Weber - RPI 92
Griz - RPI 95
Utah Tech - RPI 214
Idaho - RPI 216
EWU - RPI 233
NAU - RPI 247
Idaho State - RPI 262
Northern CO- RPI 273
Southern Utah - RPI 296

(350 teams total)

MSUB - D2
 
UptheGriz said:
when it comes to roster sizes remember there are still designated student athletes out there and probably on our team. So they don’t count towards the roster limit.
Click to expand...
Yes, someone previously mentioned that there might be 1 DSA on the team, the rest went to WSU with Chris. Can someone confirm this. It would be huge if they could get some transfers that were DSAs so far with all the public transfer announcements not one has mentioned there DSA status which would be a big selling advantage.
 
Bummer RPI carries so much weight in NCAA selection and seeding, but it is the NCAA’s system. Massey may be the better cross-conference tool. RPI is 75% opponents’ and opponents’ opponents’ schedules, which favors P4 scheduling. Seems useful inside the top 75, but gets sideways after that in real matchups, and real results. Last year, RPI had some early swings, while Massey settled in better and looks more realistic right now in higher ranks, 75+ and 100+. We will see how both age this season given D1 team changes and portal: RPI vs. Massey.

UW - RPI 22 / Mas 8
Seattle - RPI 65 / Mas 59
Denver - RPI 74 / Mas 92
Gonzaga - RPI 122 / Mas 67
Air Force - RPI 136 / Mas134
Wyoming - RPI 143 / Mas 132
Bucknell - RPI 256 / Mas 248

Weber - RPI 92 / Mas 87
Griz - RPI 95 / Mas 71
Utah Tech - RPI 214 / Mas 152
Idaho - RPI 216 / Mas 181
EWU - RPI 233 / Mas 179
NAU - RPI 247 / Mas 184
Idaho State - RPI 262 / Mas 180
Northern CO- RPI 273 / Mas 216
Southern Utah - RPI 296 / Mas 259

Either way, non-conference is tough, and in-conference, Weber looks like the main play, though Utah Tech and EWU have added solid players. Should be fun, and agreed, bummer there are not more games at South Campus. Would be nice to know about DSA status.
 
GrizVibes said:
Bummer RPI carries so much weight in NCAA selection and seeding, but it is the NCAA’s system. Massey may be the better cross-conference tool. RPI is 75% opponents’ and opponents’ opponents’ schedules, which favors P4 scheduling. Seems useful inside the top 75, but gets sideways after that in real matchups, and real results. Last year, RPI had some early swings, while Massey settled in better and looks more realistic right now in higher ranks, 75+ and 100+. We will see how both age this season given D1 team changes and portal: RPI vs. Massey.

UW - RPI 22 / Mas 8
Seattle - RPI 65 / Mas 59
Denver - RPI 74 / Mas 92
Gonzaga - RPI 122 / Mas 67
Air Force - RPI 136 / Mas134
Wyoming - RPI 143 / Mas 132
Bucknell - RPI 256 / Mas 248

Weber - RPI 92 / Mas 87
Griz - RPI 95 / Mas 71
Utah Tech - RPI 214 / Mas 152
Idaho - RPI 216 / Mas 181
EWU - RPI 233 / Mas 179
NAU - RPI 247 / Mas 184
Idaho State - RPI 262 / Mas 180
Northern CO- RPI 273 / Mas 216
Southern Utah - RPI 296 / Mas 259

Either way, non-conference is tough, and in-conference, Weber looks like the main play, though Utah Tech and EWU have added solid players. Should be fun, and agreed, bummer there are not more games at South Campus. Would be nice to know about DSA status.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information, with the potential to only add 3 transfers due to roster limits need to make them count, do they fast forwards who can stretch the D.
 
Interesting that WSU has already removed a couple players from their roster - Studer and Skinner. Don't let the door hit you on the way out! Also just noticed that they only posted the score for the spring game they won.
 
IDGrizFan said:
Interesting that WSU has already removed a couple players from their roster - Studer and Skinner. Don't let the door hit you on the way out! Also just noticed that they only posted the score for the spring game they won.
Click to expand...
I saw that, too! I asked my WSU buddy, and he said it was a poorly kept secret that Studer and Skinner had open invitations from Shulenberger to come to Ole Miss. They opted to finish ACL rehab & do Spring training and conditioning in Pullman.

Also said the WSU game against Idaho ended in a 1-1 tie, with WSU winning in PKs. Surprised as he said Dvorak DNP again. He said Idaho looked really strong. His words: “They picked up some good forward transfers.

Just what the Griz need to do!
 
Last edited:
GrizLars said:
I saw that, too! I asked my WSU buddy, and he said it was a poorly kept secret that Studer and Skinner had open invitations from Shulenberger to come to Ole Miss. They opted to finish ACL rehab & do Spring training and conditioning in Pullman.

Also said the WSU game against Idaho ended in a 1-1 tie, with WSU winning in PKs. Surprised as he said Dvorak DNP again. He said Idaho looked really strong. His words: “They picked up some good forward transfers.

Just what the Griz need to do!
Click to expand...
Idaho will be the favorite to win the BSC, they added a Fwd from SIUE and from Kanas from the Dec portal and they have the stingy defense. Dvorak is probably not playing to give Chris time to see the other goalies, they have 4 I think. One or two Gk will be in the portal.
 
With the Citowicki shift and replacement hunt, Montana mostly missed the key December portal window, but it sounds like 700-plus players may be available in the May portal.

Speed is always good. I am not sure what the speed profile looks like with incoming players. The defensive core, 4, 5, and 6, seems strong, even if thin on numbers, and looks capable of holding and moving the ball forward- Bass, Grant, Gusick, Rude?

Based on midfield numbers and other listed defensive players, I am guessing Montana has the 2 and 3 covered, along with the 7, 8, 11, and likely the 10. The listed forwards - Lewis, Samarasinghe, Rabold - are portal picks, so not sure if any are true 9s?

Can’t wait to see how it plays out and comes together.
 
the girl Idaho signed from SIUE played less than 600 minutes on a 3 win team and the girl from Kansas didn’t play all last year for them. So I wouldn’t say there game changers.
 
GrizLars said:
I saw that, too! I asked my WSU buddy, and he said it was a poorly kept secret that Studer and Skinner had open invitations from Shulenberger to come to Ole Miss. They opted to finish ACL rehab & do Spring training and conditioning in Pullman.

Also said the WSU game against Idaho ended in a 1-1 tie, with WSU winning in PKs. Surprised as he said Dvorak DNP again. He said Idaho looked really strong. His words: “They picked up some good forward transfers.

Just what the Griz need to do!
Click to expand...
The more I read about DSA, the more it seems like one of the more questionable House Settlement rules. It creates a real competitive advantage for coaches positioned to move, especially coaches already looking or applying before the DSA selection deadline. It feels almost like an insider-trading setup, where a coach can plan around DSA status within his own designated player pool, move programs, have players enter the portal, and then keep, sort, or reshape rosters later. What a selling point for a well-funded program looking to make a quick-impact change.

From what I have seen, Ole Miss and WSU, may have 10 or more DSA-status players. That means either program could carry 38 or more rostered players, select from that larger pool for games, and, funding permitting, use scholarships as incentives across the group? I am sure other programs have the same ability, and come from the same setup.

Add in the strict five-year eligibility change, which seems likely to go through, and what a mess. No wonder portal numbers are swelling, and they will likely climb even higher after a season where many players see limited time on inflated DSA rosters, while programs continue searching the portal for immediate-impact players. You have to feel for all the players, especially 2026 and 2027 recruits, because who knows what comes next.

Thank you, NCAA. Masterfully handled, as always.
 
GrizVibes said:
With the Citowicki shift and replacement hunt, Montana mostly missed the key December portal window, but it sounds like 700-plus players may be available in the May portal.

Speed is always good. I am not sure what the speed profile looks like with incoming players. The defensive core, 4, 5, and 6, seems strong, even if thin on numbers, and looks capable of holding and moving the ball forward- Bass, Grant, Gusick, Rude?

Based on midfield numbers and other listed defensive players, I am guessing Montana has the 2 and 3 covered, along with the 7, 8, 11, and likely the 10. The listed forwards - Lewis, Samarasinghe, Rabold - are portal picks, so not sure if any are true 9s?

Can’t wait to see how it plays out and comes
Click to expand...

GrizVibes said:
Bummer RPI carries so much weight in NCAA selection and seeding, but it is the NCAA’s system. Massey may be the better cross-conference tool. RPI is 75% opponents’ and opponents’ opponents’ schedules, which favors P4 scheduling. Seems useful inside the top 75, but gets sideways after that in real matchups, and real results. Last year, RPI had some early swings, while Massey settled in better and looks more realistic right now in higher ranks, 75+ and 100+. We will see how both age this season given D1 team changes and portal: RPI vs. Massey.

UW - RPI 22 / Mas 8
Seattle - RPI 65 / Mas 59
Denver - RPI 74 / Mas 92
Gonzaga - RPI 122 / Mas 67
Air Force - RPI 136 / Mas134
Wyoming - RPI 143 / Mas 132
Bucknell - RPI 256 / Mas 248

Weber - RPI 92 / Mas 87
Griz - RPI 95 / Mas 71
Utah Tech - RPI 214 / Mas 152
Idaho - RPI 216 / Mas 181
EWU - RPI 233 / Mas 179
NAU - RPI 247 / Mas 184
Idaho State - RPI 262 / Mas 180
Northern CO- RPI 273 / Mas 216
Southern Utah - RPI 296 / Mas 259

Either way, non-conference is tough, and in-conference, Weber looks like the main play, though Utah Tech and EWU have added solid players. Should be fun, and agreed, bummer there are not more games at South Campus. Would be nice to know about DSA status.
Click to expand...
Another reason why the Griz need to leave the BSC, it will always a be a one bid league even in MBB and WBB. The Griz could win all their non-conference games and still drop in the RPI when they play the BSC teams.
 
GrizVibes said:
With the Citowicki shift and replacement hunt, Montana mostly missed the key December portal window, but it sounds like 700-plus players may be available in the May portal.

Speed is always good. I am not sure what the speed profile looks like with incoming players. The defensive core, 4, 5, and 6, seems strong, even if thin on numbers, and looks capable of holding and moving the ball forward- Bass, Grant, Gusick, Rude?

Based on midfield numbers and other listed defensive players, I am guessing Montana has the 2 and 3 covered, along with the 7, 8, 11, and likely the 10. The listed forwards - Lewis, Samarasinghe, Rabold - are portal picks, so not sure if any are true 9s?

Can’t wait to see how it plays out and comes together.
Click to expand...
Unless they are able to sign players with one year of eligibility remaining, they have 3 roster spots to fill taking into account the 5 verbal 2027s, do Griz focus on goal scorers?
 
Disagree - fill the roster for this year. Too much will change between now and fall of 2027 to "hold" roster spots. (Also I highly doubt Cito's commits are Gore's commits from everything he has publicly said. Don't see any of them listing Griz on their profiles. Not sure Gore is following any of them.) But fill the roster. between now and fall 2027 there will be players who will reveal they aren't be cut out for college soccer - happens every year, and it's just different being a D1 college athlete than just the level of soccer. It's a job and huge commitment that not all are up for when they actually have to live it. They might just want to be a student. They might not like 6am work outs, not partying during the season, etc. We unfortunately will also have injuries, and players will move on after the season. So I would argue to fill the roster and deal with next year separately. But ideally, the portal kids are 1-2 years of eligibility left, so have college experience and balance the roster.
 
I’m sure coach Gore has contacts that will point him to 3 big, fast, strong athletes to light up the back of the net.
 
neon90 said:
Disagree - fill the roster for this year. Too much will change between now and fall of 2027 to "hold" roster spots. (Also I highly doubt Cito's commits are Gore's commits from everything he has publicly said. Don't see any of them listing Griz on their profiles. Not sure Gore is following any of them.) But fill the roster. between now and fall 2027 there will be players who will reveal they aren't be cut out for college soccer - happens every year, and it's just different being a D1 college athlete than just the level of soccer. It's a job and huge commitment that not all are up for when they actually have to live it. They might just want to be a student. They might not like 6am work outs, not partying during the season, etc. We unfortunately will also have injuries, and players will move on after the season. So I would argue to fill the roster and deal with next year separately. But ideally, the portal kids are 1-2 years of eligibility left, so have college experience and balance the roster.
Click to expand...
Former Griz Taija Anderson back in the portal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top