A little roster update

[uofmman1122]

This is probably what boggles my mind the most about this whole discussion. :lol:

 

[mthoopsfan]

Okay, so here are the numbers; 26 players will be considered starters. another 22 or so will be seeing action in the rotation or on special teams, There are 64 scholarships to give out, 20 of those may be split, and there will be another 20+ guys who are walk ons. That means there are 50+ guys on every FCS team who are either walk ons or on partial grants. Of those 50+ guys, most will be local. Of the 50+ half will likely wash out the first year, but all of them deserved a chance to make it.

The chances of a walk on becoming a contributing member of the team are slim, but a dream is a dream and who's to say they won't make it. Recently, Weber had a guy go from walk on to all American. You never want to say never.

For UM to have 47 Montana guys on their roster seems about right to me.

I generally agree with you, but UM has had lots of kids walk-on and become starters. All of the linebacker starters last year were walk-ons. The famous Colt Anderson and Marc Mariani, both all-Americans and NFL players, were walk-ons. Montana football can't exist and excel without a large number of Montana players, many of whom become good contributors. The Montana players lead the way in work ethic and pride. That helps pull the non-MT players along. Ask the coaches; ask any player (wether in our out state). And, from a financial point of view, it is critical to have many MT players. As others have stated, most out of staters won't come without a scholarship. Many MT players will come. And will earn scholarships.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Virtually all of the MT players who stay longer than a year are FCS quality players and capability of contributor somewhere/somehow, often special teams, or more, in my view.

 

[thirdandlong]

Yes we did lose both those games but It's hard to win on the road in the playoffs. The trick is winning more regular season games in order to get home playoff games as we all know. I'm hopeful for this year which probably means I'm wearing maroon colored glasses but I'm okay with that.

Kind of my point all along when people argue “10 wins is a good season”. If you only win 7-8 regular season games you are going on the road, guaranteed by the 2nd game. The playoff road is NEVER kind. Griz road playoff record is abysmal. So, while people like Player can say that finishing 6th and going 4-4 in conference doesn’t mean anything because we got into the playoffs, he’s wrong. It’s not important to win the conference to put another trophy in a trophy case. It’s important because it guarantees you HOME games throughout the playoffs. It’s no coincidence that the Griz stopped going deep into the playoffs when they stopped winning the conference title.

+100

 

[thirdandlong]

Yea, that is why I have constantly point out to you that what is important is the trend line. And it has been very much consistently up year over year since his return, until one anomaly year last year.

Turd and Long just makes up his "facts". He's a total idiot.

mthoopsfan current egriz scorecard: 42 idiots 27 jerks 35 "you didn't play the game"

 

[thirdandlong]

And if we’re STILL not more talented than those teams, is Bobby the right guy? After 5 years?

Asking for a friend…

That's an absolutely valid question. It sounds like everyone's expectation is for us to be a top 4 team every year.

I'm not sure I think Bobby can do that every year, but I'm probably a little less sure there's someone out there (that would take this job) that could just use what we have right now and do it, either.

CDA makes a good point above. Do we want to have patience and let Bobby be our coach Stig? Or do we make him our Ron Ash or Bo Pelini? It's impossible to say, but if you just absolutely can't stand where we're at right now and have no hope in him, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to see if someone else can do it.

But if you're gonna tell me that you know Bobby can't do it, I don't think I can get on board with that.

Oh, so the Sac. State and Idaho head jobs are much more coveted than the Montana head job? Is that how they were able to find head coaches good enough to turn their pathetic programs around in one year? Gee, don't you wish that our football program, having the best facilities in the conference, the best fan base, and the best tradition of national relevance, could be attractive to a great head coach?

Sad that some of you think that Hauck is the best we can hire., and we are doomed to live with him as long as he wants to coach here. Not our decision whether he leaves ..... HIS decision!

 

[uofmman1122]

That's an absolutely valid question. It sounds like everyone's expectation is for us to be a top 4 team every year.

I'm not sure I think Bobby can do that every year, but I'm probably a little less sure there's someone out there (that would take this job) that could just use what we have right now and do it, either.

CDA makes a good point above. Do we want to have patience and let Bobby be our coach Stig? Or do we make him our Ron Ash or Bo Pelini? It's impossible to say, but if you just absolutely can't stand where we're at right now and have no hope in him, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to see if someone else can do it.

But if you're gonna tell me that you know Bobby can't do it, I don't think I can get on board with that.

Oh, so the Sac. State and Idaho head jobs are much more coveted than the Montana head job? Is that how they were able to find head coaches good enough to turn their pathetic programs around in one year? Gee, don't you wish that our football program, having the best facilities in the conference, the best fan base, and the best tradition of national relevance, could be attractive to a great head coach?

Sad that some of you think that Hauck is the best we can hire., and we are doomed to live with him as long as he wants to coach here. Not our decision whether he leaves ..... HIS decision!

Okay, who should we go hire right now after we fire Bobby that can take us to the championship game every year? You surely have someone in mind, right?

 

[Spanky2]

This is probably what boggles my mind the most about this whole discussion. :lol:

Thank you 1122. I am proud to be a graduate of UM and have fond memories of the school, campus and city of Missoula. I believe the football program is important to the university in many aspects, including enrollment.
I think Bobby Hauck is the best possible coach for the Griz and mentor for young men. In my view, there are two glaring weaknesses to the success of Montana football: The Big Sky Conference and FCS, the insistence of recruiting half the roster from Montana. I recognize and support the recruitment of Montana kids as many have been outstanding over the years.Just not a roster overloaded with Montana kids as it compromises our ability to recruit elsewhere.

 

[thirdandlong]

Oh, so the Sac. State and Idaho head jobs are much more coveted than the Montana head job? Is that how they were able to find head coaches good enough to turn their pathetic programs around in one year? Gee, don't you wish that our football program, having the best facilities in the conference, the best fan base, and the best tradition of national relevance, could be attractive to a great head coach?

Sad that some of you think that Hauck is the best we can hire., and we are doomed to live with him as long as he wants to coach here. Not our decision whether he leaves ..... HIS decision!

Okay, who should we go hire right now after we fire Bobby that can take us to the championship game every year? You surely have someone in mind, right?

No, I have no one in mind. I don't think Idaho and Sac. State did either. But, unlike Montana, who always uses a sham "national search" to hire a coach, when they know in advance who they will hire, we should conduct a legit national search like these teams did. I get a kick out of you fans who seem to think that we could never attract a head coach better than Hauck. He failed miserably at his big FBS coaching opportunity. Notice he never got any other offers to coach a FBS team after UNLV.
The fact is, the Montana head football job would be the most coveted FCS job in the country, due to our facilities, stadium, fan base, etc. There are plenty of great young coaches who would jump at the chance to be our head coach.
But here is a reality check for all Griz fans....... the Montana head coaching position will never be a destination position. Every coach worth his whistle wants to be an FBS coach. Therefore, we can count on hiring a great coach, having him for a few years of winning (hopefully a NC too), then losing him to an FBS school.
What we have now in Hauck is a coach who won enough here to get his FBS job....... failed there...... then came back to us to "retire-in-place" here. Some of you, like Hoops and Kem, try to spin this as a positive. However, when you allow a head coach to have zero pressure to perform, he will become a mediocre head coach. When I read statements that Bobby has more power within the athletic department than his boss, Haslam, then we have a real problem. It seems obvious that there is a vast difference in Bobby's attitude towards winning in this 2.0 edition. He is now philosophic about losing..... which would never had happened in Bobby 1.0. Think about it.
Finally, the plummeting of our football program is a direct result of allowing the boosters to run the football program. It never works.

 

[kemajic]

Okay, who should we go hire right now after we fire Bobby that can take us to the championship game every year? You surely have someone in mind, right?

No, I have no one in mind. I don't think Idaho and Sac. State did either. But, unlike Montana, who always uses a sham "national search" to hire a coach, when they know in advance who they will hire, we should conduct a legit national search like these teams did. I get a kick out of you fans who seem to think that we could never attract a head coach better than Hauck. He failed miserably at his big FBS coaching opportunity. Notice he never got any other offers to coach a FBS team after UNLV.
The fact is, the Montana head football job would be the most coveted FCS job in the country, due to our facilities, stadium, fan base, etc. There are plenty of great young coaches who would jump at the chance to be our head coach.
But here is a reality check for all Griz fans....... the Montana head coaching position will never be a destination position. Every coach worth his whistle wants to be an FBS coach. Therefore, we can count on hiring a great coach, having him for a few years of winning (hopefully a NC too), then losing him to an FBS school.
What we have now in Hauck is a coach who won enough here to get his FBS job....... failed there...... then came back to us to "retire-in-place" here. Some of you, like Hoops and Kem, try to spin this as a positive. However, when you allow a head coach to have zero pressure to perform, he will become a mediocre head coach. When I read statements that Bobby has more power within the athletic department than his boss, Haslam, then we have a real problem. It seems obvious that there is a vast difference in Bobby's attitude towards winning in this 2.0 edition. He is now philosophic about losing..... which would never had happened in Bobby 1.0. Think about it.
Finally, the plummeting of our football program is a direct result of allowing the boosters to run the football program. It never works.

"plummeting of our football program" So you have us at the UNC level. Got it. You are a joke.

 

[mthoopsfan]

No, I have no one in mind. I don't think Idaho and Sac. State did either. But, unlike Montana, who always uses a sham "national search" to hire a coach, when they know in advance who they will hire, we should conduct a legit national search like these teams did. I get a kick out of you fans who seem to think that we could never attract a head coach better than Hauck. He failed miserably at his big FBS coaching opportunity. Notice he never got any other offers to coach a FBS team after UNLV.
The fact is, the Montana head football job would be the most coveted FCS job in the country, due to our facilities, stadium, fan base, etc. There are plenty of great young coaches who would jump at the chance to be our head coach.
But here is a reality check for all Griz fans....... the Montana head coaching position will never be a destination position. Every coach worth his whistle wants to be an FBS coach. Therefore, we can count on hiring a great coach, having him for a few years of winning (hopefully a NC too), then losing him to an FBS school.
What we have now in Hauck is a coach who won enough here to get his FBS job....... failed there...... then came back to us to "retire-in-place" here. Some of you, like Hoops and Kem, try to spin this as a positive. However, when you allow a head coach to have zero pressure to perform, he will become a mediocre head coach. When I read statements that Bobby has more power within the athletic department than his boss, Haslam, then we have a real problem. It seems obvious that there is a vast difference in Bobby's attitude towards winning in this 2.0 edition. He is now philosophic about losing..... which would never had happened in Bobby 1.0. Think about it.
Finally, the plummeting of our football program is a direct result of allowing the boosters to run the football program. It never works.

"plummeting of our football program" So you have us at the UNC level. Got it. You are a joke.

TurdandLong is a total idiot.

UM has "plummeted" from not being in the top 33, to being the 5th best team in the past 3 years in terms of average postseason ranking

.

 

[uofmman1122]

Okay, who should we go hire right now after we fire Bobby that can take us to the championship game every year? You surely have someone in mind, right?

No, I have no one in mind. I don't think Idaho and Sac. State did either. But, unlike Montana, who always uses a sham "national search" to hire a coach, when they know in advance who they will hire, we should conduct a legit national search like these teams did. I get a kick out of you fans who seem to think that we could never attract a head coach better than Hauck. He failed miserably at his big FBS coaching opportunity. Notice he never got any other offers to coach a FBS team after UNLV.
The fact is, the Montana head football job would be the most coveted FCS job in the country, due to our facilities, stadium, fan base, etc. There are plenty of great young coaches who would jump at the chance to be our head coach.
But here is a reality check for all Griz fans....... the Montana head coaching position will never be a destination position. Every coach worth his whistle wants to be an FBS coach. Therefore, we can count on hiring a great coach, having him for a few years of winning (hopefully a NC too), then losing him to an FBS school.
What we have now in Hauck is a coach who won enough here to get his FBS job....... failed there...... then came back to us to "retire-in-place" here. Some of you, like Hoops and Kem, try to spin this as a positive. However, when you allow a head coach to have zero pressure to perform, he will become a mediocre head coach. When I read statements that Bobby has more power within the athletic department than his boss, Haslam, then we have a real problem. It seems obvious that there is a vast difference in Bobby's attitude towards winning in this 2.0 edition. He is now philosophic about losing..... which would never had happened in Bobby 1.0. Think about it.
Finally, the plummeting of our football program is a direct result of allowing the boosters to run the football program. It never works.

I absolutely think we could attract a better coach than Bobby if/when he's not our coach anymore.

I also think we could easily hire someone who's worse, too.

I just get a kick out of you guys that are convinced it would be so easy to find someone better, but you don't have anyone in mind. I'd probably take you a lot more seriously if you did, instead of the constant "anyone but Bobby" attitude.

Although your M.O is and has always been "anyone but whoever is currently coaching the Griz". :lol:

 

[uofmman1122]

This is probably what boggles my mind the most about this whole discussion. :lol:

Thank you 1122. I am proud to be a graduate of UM and have fond memories of the school, campus and city of Missoula. I believe the football program is important to the university in many aspects, including enrollment.
I think Bobby Hauck is the best possible coach for the Griz and mentor for young men. In my view, there are two glaring weaknesses to the success of Montana football: The Big Sky Conference and FCS, the insistence of recruiting half the roster from Montana. I recognize and support the recruitment of Montana kids as many have been outstanding over the years.Just not a roster overloaded with Montana kids as it compromises our ability to recruit elsewhere.

That's all awesome, and I agree with you about a lot of what you said. I just can't square the optimism you showed against UW (when we had even more Montana players on our roster, IIRC) and the pessimism now. Some of those guys from Montana who kicked UW's ass were the types of players you're telling us we don't want anymore a few years before that game.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

No, I have no one in mind. I don't think Idaho and Sac. State did either. But, unlike Montana, who always uses a sham "national search" to hire a coach, when they know in advance who they will hire, we should conduct a legit national search like these teams did. I get a kick out of you fans who seem to think that we could never attract a head coach better than Hauck. He failed miserably at his big FBS coaching opportunity. Notice he never got any other offers to coach a FBS team after UNLV.
The fact is, the Montana head football job would be the most coveted FCS job in the country, due to our facilities, stadium, fan base, etc. There are plenty of great young coaches who would jump at the chance to be our head coach.
But here is a reality check for all Griz fans....... the Montana head coaching position will never be a destination position. Every coach worth his whistle wants to be an FBS coach. Therefore, we can count on hiring a great coach, having him for a few years of winning (hopefully a NC too), then losing him to an FBS school.
What we have now in Hauck is a coach who won enough here to get his FBS job....... failed there...... then came back to us to "retire-in-place" here. Some of you, like Hoops and Kem, try to spin this as a positive. However, when you allow a head coach to have zero pressure to perform, he will become a mediocre head coach. When I read statements that Bobby has more power within the athletic department than his boss, Haslam, then we have a real problem. It seems obvious that there is a vast difference in Bobby's attitude towards winning in this 2.0 edition. He is now philosophic about losing..... which would never had happened in Bobby 1.0. Think about it.
Finally, the plummeting of our football program is a direct result of allowing the boosters to run the football program. It never works.

I absolutely think we could attract a better coach than Bobby if/when he's not our coach anymore.

I also think we could easily hire someone who's worse, too.

I just get a kick out of you guys that are convinced it would be so easy to find someone better, but you don't have anyone in mind. I'd probably take you a lot more seriously if you did, instead of the constant "anyone but Bobby" attitude.

Although your M.O is and has always been "anyone but whoever is currently coaching the Griz". :lol:

Exactly. I agree that Bobby and staff need to do better, but some around here act like it's ridiculously easy to find the perfect coach who will be willing to come to Montana and that finding said perfect coach will automatically mean deep playoff runs and a shot at the national championship. It's just not that easy, and firing the coach and staff could result in an even worse record going forward. But hey, it's easy to complain on an internet message board. Everyone's a genius and no one faces any consequences for their opinions.

 

[Spanky2]

Thank you 1122. I am proud to be a graduate of UM and have fond memories of the school, campus and city of Missoula. I believe the football program is important to the university in many aspects, including enrollment.
I think Bobby Hauck is the best possible coach for the Griz and mentor for young men. In my view, there are two glaring weaknesses to the success of Montana football: The Big Sky Conference and FCS, the insistence of recruiting half the roster from Montana. I recognize and support the recruitment of Montana kids as many have been outstanding over the years.Just not a roster overloaded with Montana kids as it compromises our ability to recruit elsewhere.

That's all awesome, and I agree with you about a lot of what you said. I just can't square the optimism you showed against UW (when we had even more Montana players on our roster, IIRC) and the pessimism now. Some of those guys from Montana who kicked UW's ass were the types of players you're telling us we don't want anymore a few years before that game.

Sorry I don’t come up to your standard. I’ve never said I oppose Montana players on the team….just not 50% of the roster. I will add that my family had several outstanding athletes, one winning AA tennis championship 3 years. Another, held state 440 record 10 years. Hell, I don’t know if you even went to UM?

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

That's all awesome, and I agree with you about a lot of what you said. I just can't square the optimism you showed against UW (when we had even more Montana players on our roster, IIRC) and the pessimism now. Some of those guys from Montana who kicked UW's ass were the types of players you're telling us we don't want anymore a few years before that game.

Sorry I don’t come up to your standard. I’ve never said I oppose Montana players on the team….just not 50% of the roster. I will add that my family had several outstanding athletes, one winning AA tennis championship 3 years. Another, held state 440 record 10 years. Hell, I don’t know if you even went to UM?

Is this the new "you never played the game"?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Sorry I don’t come up to your standard. I’ve never said I oppose Montana players on the team….just not 50% of the roster. I will add that my family had several outstanding athletes, one winning AA tennis championship 3 years. Another, held state 440 record 10 years. Hell, I don’t know if you even went to UM?

How is any of this relevant to your opinion that there are too many Montana kids on the roster?

 

[bgbigdog]

I won’t list individual players and I don’t think any of them are bad. I do say that half of our roster dedicated to Montana kids is not in the best interest of the program as many don’t have FCS level talent. Apparently you believe all of them have FCS talent.

I think Montana kids come in on mostly partial and walk-on money, and, just like a lot of other out of state recruits when they first come in, aren't good enough to contribute.

The ones that end up getting good enough stick around and end up contributing, and the ones that don't leave the team.

I don't think anyone from Montana on our 2-deep isn't good enough to play in FCS. If you disagree, I'd still love to hear who you think they are and why they aren't good enough.

If you want to talk about the ones that are lower-level depth players on partials and walk-on scholarships, that's a legitimate discussion to have, but as has already been pointed out multiple times, the ones that truly aren't good enough don't stay on the team.

I also think that if you replaced those kids with borderline FCS talent out of state recruits, you're going to have the same thing happen with maybe only a few rare exceptions.

I've come around to believing that ultimately, the answer to this, like all your questions, is money. If it's better for the budget to have kids from Montana fill out fifty percent of the roster, so be it. Given there's another FCS school in the state, there's stiff competition for the few who don't already have a lifelong affiliation to one or the other - so that process can always be improved. I do believe all of the kids recruited are thought to be of this level or perhaps a bit better. No one is settling on a tweener. Some will take a lot of development to make a difference when it's their turn, but they have the basic skills and abilities coming in. Some work out, some don't and some are just happy being associated with the University - their contributions to the success of the program are doing what they're asked and working hard. But unless it was a complete misread, the kids have the ability to contribute at this level. Can't blame the administration or the coaching staff for being hamstrung by finances.

I believe kids from Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, and Colorado are probably better qualified for consideration because they play better competition week in/out. The populations are just too much larger not to have a bigger cross-section of kids who can play and do so against the better and overall, more consistent competition. If memory serves, one of the Missoula HS's was barely able to field a team without a huge number of freshmen playing in the past couple of seasons. But again, it's about living within the budget. No argument here anymore.

Sixty kids or less, play a meaningful snap in a game that's still in doubt over the course of the season. I think it's the same everywhere. So make sure the sixty who are playing and contributing are taken care of. If that means awarding scholarship monies to kids who have earned it as partials or walk-ons, then the system works. I do wish the state would look into reciprocal agreements with the surrounding states, rather than sitting on their hands. It also benefits kids from Montana who might have aspirations that can be better met by programs not found in Montana. The opportunity cost is a wash, they should look at this as a way to increase the enrollment opportunities overall.

So it's probably best to temper expectations, regardless of what's being related for public consumption. I didn't say not to be optimistic. Just more practical.

 

[uofmman1122]

That's all awesome, and I agree with you about a lot of what you said. I just can't square the optimism you showed against UW (when we had even more Montana players on our roster, IIRC) and the pessimism now. Some of those guys from Montana who kicked UW's ass were the types of players you're telling us we don't want anymore a few years before that game.

Sorry I don’t come up to your standard. I’ve never said I oppose Montana players on the team….just not 50% of the roster. I will add that my family had several outstanding athletes, one winning AA tennis championship 3 years. Another, held state 440 record 10 years. Hell, I don’t know if you even went to UM?

:lol: :lol:

You don't have to make this personal just because I'm calling out your (IMO ignorant) opinion about the makeup of our team and your lack of supporting evidence.

I probably attended UM longer than almost anyone here, which isn't much of a brag, considering how much I still owe in student loans. :lol:

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

How many Montana kids each year are of FCS quality?