27 Years of Montana players by the Numbers

[AZGrizFan]

Oh, I’m sure all 51 are, including qb Brown.

You're still avoiding the question. You seem pretty passionate about this, so I'm genuinely curious who you think shouldn't be on our team.

Montanans by Class:

Redshirt Seniors: 4 (Welnel, O’Connell, Roberts, Hauck)
Seniors: 1 (Botkin)
Redshirt Juniors: 6 (Rensvold, Bloemendaal, Flink, Janacaro, Koppang, Graves)
Juniors: 1 (Hill)
Redshirt Soph: 6 (Botner, Tirell, Gradney, Meyer, Brown, Simpson)
Sophomore: 4 (Nuce, Carson Rostad, Lee, Bergen)
Redshirt Frosh: 18 (Smith, McPhearson, Olson, Grimsrud, Mann, Evans, Detrick, Klucewich, Cory, Janacaro, Leonard, Huff, Rauch, Deck, Lang, Lang, Casper, Longin)
Freshmen: 11 (Weida, Finch, Henricksen, Rohrbach, Evans, Tyson Rostad, Klumph, Dantic, McGurran, Visser, Huot)

So 5 seniors, 7 juniors, 10 sophomores and 29 freshmen.

It would appear the problem solves itself as time passes. Wouldn’t surprise me to see a number of these guys depart the program, simply because their “class” isn’t representative of their actual place in school, and if they’re not playing hardly at all, what’s the point? And I can’t recall, but I believe some of these guys were introduced on Senior day so have already made that decision.

 

[uofmman1122]

You're still avoiding the question. You seem pretty passionate about this, so I'm genuinely curious who you think shouldn't be on our team.

Montanans by Class:

Redshirt Seniors: 4 (Welnel, O’Connell, Roberts, Hauck)
Seniors: 1 (Botkin)
Redshirt Juniors: 6 (Rensvold, Bloemendaal, Flink, Janacaro, Koppang, Graves)
Juniors: 1 (Hill)
Redshirt Soph: 6 (Botner, Tirell, Gradney, Meyer, Brown, Simpson)
Sophomore: 4 (Nuce, Carson Rostad, Lee, Bergen)
Redshirt Frosh: 18 (Smith, McPhearson, Olson, Grimsrud, Mann, Evans, Detrick, Klucewich, Cory, Janacaro, Leonard, Huff, Rauch, Deck, Lang, Lang, Casper, Longin)
Freshmen: 11 (Weida, Finch, Henricksen, Rohrbach, Evans, Tyson Rostad, Klumph, Dantic, McGurran, Visser, Huot)

So 5 seniors, 7 juniors, 10 sophomores and 29 freshmen.

It would appear the problem solves itself as time passes. Wouldn’t surprise me to see a number of these guys depart the program, simply because their “class” isn’t representative of their actual place in school, and if they’re not playing hardly at all, what’s the point? And I can’t recall, but I believe some of these guys were introduced on Senior day so have already made that decision.

Thank you. This is how it works every year.

The alternative to this that's being suggested is to get rid of most of those underclassmen, most of whom are accepting little to no scholarship money, and replace them with either A. out of state players that require a scholarship (that you now have to take away from or split with upperclassmen), or B. out of state walkons who would be willing to play for little or no scholarship money, which I'm not convinced solves the alleged problem of having too many guys that aren't cut out for FCS.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Montanans by Class:

Redshirt Seniors: 4 (Welnel, O’Connell, Roberts, Hauck)
Seniors: 1 (Botkin)
Redshirt Juniors: 6 (Rensvold, Bloemendaal, Flink, Janacaro, Koppang, Graves)
Juniors: 1 (Hill)
Redshirt Soph: 6 (Botner, Tirell, Gradney, Meyer, Brown, Simpson)
Sophomore: 4 (Nuce, Carson Rostad, Lee, Bergen)
Redshirt Frosh: 18 (Smith, McPhearson, Olson, Grimsrud, Mann, Evans, Detrick, Klucewich, Cory, Janacaro, Leonard, Huff, Rauch, Deck, Lang, Lang, Casper, Longin)
Freshmen: 11 (Weida, Finch, Henricksen, Rohrbach, Evans, Tyson Rostad, Klumph, Dantic, McGurran, Visser, Huot)

So 5 seniors, 7 juniors, 10 sophomores and 29 freshmen.

It would appear the problem solves itself as time passes. Wouldn’t surprise me to see a number of these guys depart the program, simply because their “class” isn’t representative of their actual place in school, and if they’re not playing hardly at all, what’s the point? And I can’t recall, but I believe some of these guys were introduced on Senior day so have already made that decision.

Thank you. This is how it works every year.

The alternative to this that's being suggested is to get rid of most of those underclassmen, most of whom are accepting little to no scholarship money, and replace them with either A. out of state players that require a scholarship (that you now have to take away from or split with upperclassmen), or B. out of state walkons who would be willing to play for little or no scholarship money, which I'm not convinced solves the alleged problem of having too many guys that aren't cut out for FCS.

If I had the energy I’d go back to the last 5 classes or so and see how many each of these classes STARTED with.

But I don’t have that kind of energy on a Sunday morning. :lol:

 

[SaskGriz]

Even as a kid in Miller Hall a guy a few rooms down went out for Larry Donovan's Griz, "made the team" dressed for home games but never saw the field. Didn't hurt or help. Well, helped him because American girls react to a letterman jacket like Canadian girls react to a hockey sweater, but that's not this thread's topic.

 

[indiancoyote]

I see this keeps coming up so out of curiosity (and boredom) I put this together this morning. Does it matter how many Montana players are on the roster when it comes to performance.

GrizintheBox made some very good arguments that Hauck philosophy is more about optimizing scholarships especially in regard to partials. Data starts with 1996.

Mick Dennehy (39-12) 1996-1999
1996 - 39 Montanans (14-1)
1997 - 42 (8-4)
1998 - 43 (8-4)
1999 - 43 (9-3)

Joe Glenn (39-5) 2000-2002
2000 - 37 (13-2)
2001 - 40 (15-1)
2002 - 41 (11-2)

Bobby Hauck 1.0 (80-17). 2003-2009
2003 - 41 (9-4)
2004 - 40 (12-3)
2005 - 57 (8-4)
2006 - 52 (12-2)
2007 - 46 (11-1)
2008 - 42 (14-2)
2009 - 41 (14-1)

Robin Pflugrad (13-7). 2010-2011
2010 - 22 (7-4)
2011 - 32 (6-3)

Mick Delaney (24-14) 2012-2014
2012 - 38 (5-6)
2013 - 31 (10-3)
2014 - 22 (9-5)

Bob Stitt (21-14). 2015-2017
2015 - 31 (8-5)
2016 - 27 (7-5)
2017 - 31 (6-4)

Bobby Hauck 2.0 (36-17) 2018-2022
2018 - 41 (6-5)
2019 - 48 (10-4)
2020 - 46 (2-0)
2021 - 52 (10-3)
2022 - 51 (8-5)

Sources are Wikipedia for yearly results and goGriz for rosters. There were a few years where no hometown was listed for 2-4 players.

IMO the data suggests there is no correlation between number of Montana players and result. Stitt, who many consider the worse coach in 40 years, also had the fewest Montanans. This goes against the opinion that having to many Montanans is a bad thing. Yet surprisingly, RP had few Montana players also.

Just look at Haucks numbers. Four times he has had more than 50 players, yet twice those teams won more than ten games.

Clearly having Montana players supports the scholarship argument plus it’s good look for team. Fans like cheering for home grown talent - much of which has gone onto the NFL.

Poor research study. You can't say that the number of Montana kids isn't relevant to results. You're making the assumption that the coaches have the same abilities to evaluate, select, and develop talent. A more accurate study would be to look at (Montana ) players, their HS performance, and their impact on the individual season(s).

 

[ordigger]

I see this keeps coming up so out of curiosity (and boredom) I put this together this morning. Does it matter how many Montana players are on the roster when it comes to performance.

GrizintheBox made some very good arguments that Hauck philosophy is more about optimizing scholarships especially in regard to partials. Data starts with 1996.

Mick Dennehy (39-12) 1996-1999
1996 - 39 Montanans (14-1)
1997 - 42 (8-4)
1998 - 43 (8-4)
1999 - 43 (9-3)

Joe Glenn (39-5) 2000-2002
2000 - 37 (13-2)
2001 - 40 (15-1)
2002 - 41 (11-2)

Bobby Hauck 1.0 (80-17). 2003-2009
2003 - 41 (9-4)
2004 - 40 (12-3)
2005 - 57 (8-4)
2006 - 52 (12-2)
2007 - 46 (11-1)
2008 - 42 (14-2)
2009 - 41 (14-1)

Robin Pflugrad (13-7). 2010-2011
2010 - 22 (7-4)
2011 - 32 (6-3)

Mick Delaney (24-14) 2012-2014
2012 - 38 (5-6)
2013 - 31 (10-3)
2014 - 22 (9-5)

Bob Stitt (21-14). 2015-2017
2015 - 31 (8-5)
2016 - 27 (7-5)
2017 - 31 (6-4)

Bobby Hauck 2.0 (36-17) 2018-2022
2018 - 41 (6-5)
2019 - 48 (10-4)
2020 - 46 (2-0)
2021 - 52 (10-3)
2022 - 51 (8-5)

Sources are Wikipedia for yearly results and goGriz for rosters. There were a few years where no hometown was listed for 2-4 players.

IMO the data suggests there is no correlation between number of Montana players and result. Stitt, who many consider the worse coach in 40 years, also had the fewest Montanans. This goes against the opinion that having to many Montanans is a bad thing. Yet surprisingly, RP had few Montana players also.

Just look at Haucks numbers. Four times he has had more than 50 players, yet twice those teams won more than ten games.

Clearly having Montana players supports the scholarship argument plus it’s good look for team. Fans like cheering for home grown talent - much of which has gone onto the NFL.

Poor research study. You can't say that the number of Montana kids isn't relevant to results. You're making the assumption that the coaches have the same abilities to evaluate, select, and develop talent. A more accurate study would be to look at (Montana ) players, their HS performance, and their impact on the individual season(s).

It’s simply data. You’re making assumptions based on nothing that I posted.

 

[indiancoyote]

Poor research study. You can't say that the number of Montana kids isn't relevant to results. You're making the assumption that the coaches have the same abilities to evaluate, select, and develop talent. A more accurate study would be to look at (Montana ) players, their HS performance, and their impact on the individual season(s).

It’s simply data. You’re making assumptions based on nothing that I posted.

My statement is directed at the very thing you posted. You said, "You can't say that the number of Montana kids isn't relevant to results." I said you can't make that statement simply by the numbers you provided. All you included were numbers which are irrelevant.

 

[mthoopsfan]

It’s simply data. You’re making assumptions based on nothing that I posted.

My statement is directed at the very thing you posted. You said, "You can't say that the number of Montana kids isn't relevant to results." I said you can't make that statement simply by the numbers you provided. All you included were numbers which are irrelevant.

Kem didn’t make an argument, did he? He just provided the data. Step 1.

 

[Cledus]

I was curious to see how many in-state players large programs have on their team. I counted 37 Michigan boys on the Wolverines's roster. Michigan is a state of 10 million and I think the general formula is one D1 athlete for every 100,000 of population. So, there should be 100 D1 football players graduating high school each year in Michigan.

The max FBS roster size is 125, so Michigan's 37 is about 30% of the roster. If they're not chock full of in-state players, then maybe this is something your coaches look to as a benchmark. I'd just be brushed off as a message board wacko, so I don't mind revealing the formula to them.

NDSU has less than 20 last time I counted (17 or so). 17 ÷ 65 = 26.1%. So, their ratio is at least consistent with Michigan's, assuming Michigan is a good approximation of the FBS ratio.

Montana State's in-state numbers are 41 (I think). So, they're about 63% of the total roster.

So, Hauck is probably buttf**king you all by putting guys on the team who don't have a realistic shot of being a contributor. He's just trying to look good at the expense of results.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I was curious to see how many in-state players large programs have on their team. I counted 37 Michigan boys on the Wolverines's roster. Michigan is a state of 10 million and I think the general formula is one D1 athlete for every 100,000 of population. So, there should be 100 D1 football players graduating high school each year in Michigan.

The max FBS roster size is 125, so Michigan's 37 is about 30% of the roster. If they're not chock full of in-state players, then maybe this is something your coaches look to as a benchmark. I'd just be brushed off as a message board wacko, so I don't mind revealing the formula to them.

NDSU has less than 20 last time I counted (17 or so). 17 ÷ 65 = 26.1%. So, their ratio is at least consistent with Michigan's, assuming Michigan is a good approximation of the FBS ratio.

Montana State's in-state numbers are 41 (I think). So, they're about 63% of the total roster.

So, Hauck is probably buttf**king you all by putting guys on the team who don't have a realistic shot of being a contributor. He's just trying to look good at the expense of results.

So you are using the FBS max roster size but not the FCS max roster size in your calcs? Seems legit.

 

[Cledus]

I was curious to see how many in-state players large programs have on their team. I counted 37 Michigan boys on the Wolverines's roster. Michigan is a state of 10 million and I think the general formula is one D1 athlete for every 100,000 of population. So, there should be 100 D1 football players graduating high school each year in Michigan.

The max FBS roster size is 125, so Michigan's 37 is about 30% of the roster. If they're not chock full of in-state players, then maybe this is something your coaches look to as a benchmark. I'd just be brushed off as a message board wacko, so I don't mind revealing the formula to them.

NDSU has less than 20 last time I counted (17 or so). 17 ÷ 65 = 26.1%. So, their ratio is at least consistent with Michigan's, assuming Michigan is a good approximation of the FBS ratio.

Montana State's in-state numbers are 41 (I think). So, they're about 63% of the total roster.

So, Hauck is probably buttf**king you all by putting guys on the team who don't have a realistic shot of being a contributor. He's just trying to look good at the expense of results.

So you are using the FBS max roster size but not the FCS max roster size in your calcs? Seems legit.

I used the percentage of players of the total roster. Ratios let you compare things in relative terms, like financial statement ratios of companies in the same industry but vastly different market caps. I feel bad for you that you don't know that, but I'm not surprised.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

So you are using the FBS max roster size but not the FCS max roster size in your calcs? Seems legit.

I used the percentage of players of the total roster. Ratios let you compare things in relative terms, like financial statement ratios of companies in the same industry but vastly different market caps. I feel bad for you that you don't know that, but I'm not surprised.

I suggest you take another look at the NDSU roster, as it has many more than 65 players. You may even want to look at the MSU roster.

 

[Spanky2]

Oh, Oh

 

[Cledus]

I used the percentage of players of the total roster. Ratios let you compare things in relative terms, like financial statement ratios of companies in the same industry but vastly different market caps. I feel bad for you that you don't know that, but I'm not surprised.

I suggest you take another look at the NDSU roster, as it has many more than 65 players. You may even want to look at the MSU roster.

I was using last year's NDSU numbers as I recalled them when I actually did look it up. I didn't feel like going through it all again. For the roster size, I just googled it. If they're wrong, sorry. Point is, even large programs don't stack their roster with in-state athletes just for optics. That's the point I was trying to make.

I'm more than happy to go away and let our boys whoop up on you next year. And the year after that, and after that...

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

I used the percentage of players of the total roster. Ratios let you compare things in relative terms, like financial statement ratios of companies in the same industry but vastly different market caps. I feel bad for you that you don't know that, but I'm not surprised.

I suggest you take another look at the NDSU roster, as it has many more than 65 players. You may even want to look at the MSU roster.

An old Journal Editor once said "It is unethical to manipulate the data; therefore, a good researcher must learn early in their career how to choose not only the proper sample but also the most useful sample size in order to have the proper null hypothesis. One always wants to be on the correct side of null."

A researcher must know their limitations said Clint in one of his movies.

 

[uofmman1122]

This was hashed out repeatedly in another thread, but you should include the Minnesota players into the in-state numbers for NDSU, because for all intents and purposes, they are. And if you do that, they had 50+ players from ND and MN (paying similar tuition), which puts their numbers a lot higher.

You might say it’s unfair to use MN players, but it’s a system that they created and take advantage of.

But I just don’t think you can use this analysis to take anything meaningful away in regards to in-state recruiting. Montana is nothing like Michigan or Minnesota, and the recruiting of in-state players and the pool of available players is not the same. Montana state has a comparable number of in-state players on their teams every year. If it’s bad for one of us, then it must be bad for both of us, and it clearly isn’t.

 

[SoldierGriz]

My statement is directed at the very thing you posted. You said, "You can't say that the number of Montana kids isn't relevant to results." I said you can't make that statement simply by the numbers you provided. All you included were numbers which are irrelevant.

Kem didn’t make an argument, did he? He just provided the data. Step 1.

Wait...Oredigger is Kem?

How many screen names do you guys have?

 

[mthoopsfan]

Kem didn’t make an argument, did he? He just provided the data. Step 1.

Wait...Oredigger is Kem?

How many screen names do you guys have?

Good point. They're both older and wiser, and good posters.

 

[SoldierGriz]

Wait...Oredigger is Kem?

How many screen names do you guys have?

Good point. They're both older and wiser, and good posters.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I suggest you take another look at the NDSU roster, as it has many more than 65 players. You may even want to look at the MSU roster.

I was using last year's NDSU numbers as I recalled them when I actually did look it up. I didn't feel like going through it all again. For the roster size, I just googled it. If they're wrong, sorry. Point is, even large programs don't stack their roster with in-state athletes just for optics. That's the point I was trying to make.

I'm more than happy to go away and let our boys whoop up on you next year. And the year after that, and after that...

I would argue that the NDSU roster was significantly more than 65 last year too. I am also not sure that FBS Michigan is comparable to FCS NDSU. Michigan is a national recruiter with big $$$, which is not any FCS school.