Defensive adjustments

[uofmman1122]

I've already argued with Spanky enough on this to never want to talk about it again, but just for reference for everyone implying that more Montana kids on our roster = a worse team, here is a list of the number of MT kids per year and our record since 2006.

2006: 52 Montana kids - 12-2
2007: 46 Montana kids - 11-1
2008: 42 Montana kids - 14-2
2009: 42 Montana kids - 14-1
2010: 21 Montana kids - 7-4
2011: 32 Montana kids - 11-3
2012: 38 Montana kids - 5-6
2013: 31 Montana kids - 10-3
2014: 23 Montana kids - 9-5
2015: 31 Montana kids - 8-5
2016: 27 Montana kids - 6-5
2017: 32 Montana kids - 7-4
2018: 42 Montana kids - 6-5
2019: 49 Montana kids - 10-4
2021: 52 Montana kids - 10-3
2022: 52 Montana kids - 8-5
2023: 48 Montana kids - TBD

Sure seems like from 2010-2017, we got to where a lot of you wanted us to be at in terms of the number of MT kids on the team, but mysteriously, the wins didn't come.

For some comparison, here is MSU's number of MT kids and their record over the same timeframe:

2006: No Roster on their website
2007: No Roster on their website
2008: 48 Montana kids - 7-5
2009: No Roster on their website
2010: 49 Montana kids - 9-3
2011: 46 Montana kids - 10-3
2012: 46 Montana kids - 11-2
2013: 44 Montana kids - 7-5
2014: 41 Montana kids - 8-5
2015: 46 Montana kids - 6-5
2016: 49 Montana kids - 4-7
2017: 45 Montana kids - 5-6
2018: 46 Montana kids - 8-5
2019: 46 Montana kids - 11-4
2021: 39 Montana kids - 12-3
2022: 43 Montana kids - 12-2
2023: 45 Montana kids - TBD

Meanwhile, MSU has averaged 40+ MT kids for nearly 2 decades and have won and lost all over the place. They've averaged 44 kids over the last 4 seasons and have won 2 less games during that time than we did between all of 2012 and 2017 when we only averaged 30.

Now, this is not to say we don't have recruiting issues, or that our staff doesn't prioritize Montana players over out of state guys in a strange way. They may be doing that as some have suggested, and that would be really shitty. But you guys HAVE to stop focusing so much on the number. It literally doesn't matter. Teams with a lot of Montana kids have won a ton of games, while others have lost a ton of games. It is a tiny part of what makes a team good. This staff seems to have issues developing ANYONE, so I'm not sure why people think switching out an 18 year-old from Sydney for one from Seattle would suddenly make them a whole lot better. We have a ton of out of state guys on our roster, and have for several years, who never develop.

We are not NDSU or SDSU or Idaho or Incarnate Ward. If Montana State can win with 45 Montana kids on their roster, we can absolutely do it, as well, just like we can go 6-5 with only 27 on our team.

 

[Missoula223]

I agree, there are a few kids each year from MT that can play at this level, and they should have the opportunity to stay instate. I know there are kids on both rosters that really shouldn't be there too. 40% of the roster is probably too high, but I think getting below 15-20% and you will get a lot of blowback from donors and fans which means $$.

NDSU literally filled their trophy case with teams built on kids NOT from ND. THEY are the household name in FCS now, not the Griz. You telling me donors wouldn’t trade that? I’d love to meet those donors.

This is kind of a difficult comparison to make. NDSU is on the border of Minnesota. They have tons of Minnesota kids with Minneapolis being a major recruiting hub being only 3 hours away I guess you could say Spokane could be a bigger hub for UM, which I don’t disagree, but I also think Minneapolis has more and better football.

I had this discussion, not argument, with a previous poster. I want to be clear, I dont have any issues with recruiting out of state. I just dont think it’s fair to compare NDSUs recruiting model to MTs. Like I said NDSU has Minnesota and not much further is Wisconsin and about the same distance away is Omaha and St. Louis. My point is they recruit their footprint. Montana has to win the premier kids in Montana because 2 of our border states (our footprint) are Wyoming and North Dakota, where there isn’t a lot of good fb players. And the good ones will go to Wyoming or NDSU respectively.

 

[GrizRealist]

Does anyone have any hard evidence to support that theory? Or is it just that…a made up theory? Because 15 years ago it was feasible when those top 4-5 were going to Montana schools…now they’re going to Boise, Oregon State, Army, Nebraska, NDSU, etc. MSU and UM are now splitting #’s 5 or 6-15…

I for one don’t give two poop where the players come from. I’ve watched a poop of HS football here in Texas and watched kids who would absolutely steamroll 75% of the players CURRENTLY on the Griz end up at D-II, D-III and NAIA schools for lack of better offers.

There are hundreds of 3* athletes in Texas that DON’T go P5 or even G5. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

Not disagreeing with you here. But usually there is a reason why. Texas, LA, and Florida are the most recruited places nationwide. It’s very rare, not impossible, but very rare that a kid simply goes unrecruited by a school that is for their skill set. Meaning if a kid is a G5 caliber player, he typically is recruited and goes to a G5 school. If he ends up going FCS or even D2, there is usually a reason for it.

I think the point is that a lot of the preps who are FCS level players get buried because they are such talent rich places. All you have to do is go look at the State of Texas recruiting rankings on 247. You can get down their player ranking 250 kids deep and still see players with Power 5 commitments, and no FCS commits. Transversely, you can look at the state of Washington, a place that consistently produces Power 5 talent, where you only have to go down their rankings 16 spots before your hit an FCS commit, a QB going to the Vandals.

The point being made above is that there are just so many prep athlete's in a place like Texas that there are lots of them who are high end FCS level players who are overlooked because they are not on the radar of the bigger schools.

This is where having someone on staff who has coached in that state, even at a high school level, would pay dividends because they know where to go to find talent and know coaches, trainers, etc.

 

[garizzalies]

Winnowing the wheat from the chaff and boiling it down to the brass tacks, this is what this thread is really about.

Seems like next-level stuff

Nice post GF24

…Under the older model, Montana zeroed out its coverage and it made adjustments to motion and alignments a lot easier. …

The outcome this year is that I do think they designed the adjustments from the back to front and not the other way around. Not commonly how you go about scheme adjustments, but the clear objective was that Bradford wanted to fix the alignment and coverage issues that caused problems the past two years in multiple ways.

The benefit is that by restructuring the coverage,… you are going to have better positioned secondary players … the outcome as we saw against Idaho State was that they didn't conceded a lot vertically, and were really sound in the middle of the field. That wasn't something we saw a lot of last year in coverage.

 

[uofmman1122]

NDSU literally filled their trophy case with teams built on kids NOT from ND. THEY are the household name in FCS now, not the Griz. You telling me donors wouldn’t trade that? I’d love to meet those donors.

This is kind of a difficult comparison to make. NDSU is on the border of Minnesota. They have tons of Minnesota kids with Minneapolis being a major recruiting hub being only 3 hours away I guess you could say Spokane could be a bigger hub for UM, which I don’t disagree, but I also think Minneapolis has more and better football.

I had this discussion, not argument, with a previous poster. I want to be clear, I dont have any issues with recruiting out of state. I just dont think it’s fair to compare NDSUs recruiting model to MTs. Like I said NDSU has Minnesota and not much further is Wisconsin and about the same distance away is Omaha and St. Louis. My point is they recruit their footprint. Montana has to win the premier kids in Montana because 2 of our border states (our footprint) are Wyoming and North Dakota, where there isn’t a lot of good fb players. And the good ones will go to Wyoming or NDSU respectively.

Another thing people seem to keep forgetting WRT NDSU is that Minnesota kids can get in-state tuition at NDSU and take partial scholarships more easily, and IIRC, unlike the WUE, they don't have to apply for it, they just get it. It's a big reason the majority of their roster is from Minnesota.

 

[The.Real.2506]

I've already argued with Spanky enough on this to never want to talk about it again, but just for reference for everyone implying that more Montana kids on our roster = a worse team, here is a list of the number of MT kids per year and our record since 2006.

2006: 52 Montana kids - 12-2
2007: 46 Montana kids - 11-1
2008: 42 Montana kids - 14-2
2009: 42 Montana kids - 14-1
2010: 21 Montana kids - 7-4
2011: 32 Montana kids - 11-3
2012: 38 Montana kids - 5-6
2013: 31 Montana kids - 10-3
2014: 23 Montana kids - 9-5
2015: 31 Montana kids - 8-5
2016: 27 Montana kids - 6-5
2017: 32 Montana kids - 7-4
2018: 42 Montana kids - 6-5
2019: 49 Montana kids - 10-4
2021: 52 Montana kids - 10-3
2022: 52 Montana kids - 8-5
2023: 48 Montana kids - TBD

Sure seems like from 2010-2017, we got to where a lot of you wanted us to be at in terms of the number of MT kids on the team, but mysteriously, the wins didn't come.

For some comparison, here is MSU's number of MT kids and their record over the same timeframe:

2006: No Roster on their website
2007: No Roster on their website
2008: 48 Montana kids - 7-5
2009: No Roster on their website
2010: 49 Montana kids - 9-3
2011: 46 Montana kids - 10-3
2012: 46 Montana kids - 11-2
2013: 44 Montana kids - 7-5
2014: 41 Montana kids - 8-5
2015: 46 Montana kids - 6-5
2016: 49 Montana kids - 4-7
2017: 45 Montana kids - 5-6
2018: 46 Montana kids - 8-5
2019: 46 Montana kids - 11-4
2021: 39 Montana kids - 12-3
2022: 43 Montana kids - 12-2
2023: 45 Montana kids - TBD

Meanwhile, MSU has averaged 40+ MT kids for nearly 2 decades and have won and lost all over the place. They've averaged 44 kids over the last 4 seasons and have won 2 less games during that time than we did between all of 2012 and 2017 when we only averaged 30.

Now, this is not to say we don't have recruiting issues, or that our staff doesn't prioritize Montana players over out of state guys in a strange way. They may be doing that as some have suggested, and that would be really poop. But you guys HAVE to stop focusing so much on the number. It literally doesn't matter. Teams with a lot of Montana kids have won a ton of games, while others have lost a ton of games. It is a tiny part of what makes a team good. This staff seems to have issues developing ANYONE, so I'm not sure why people think switching out an 18 year-old from Sydney for one from Seattle would suddenly make them a whole lot better. We have a ton of out of state guys on our roster, and have for several years, who never develop.

We are not NDSU or SDSU or Idaho or Incarnate Ward. If Montana State can win with 45 Montana kids on their roster, we can absolutely do it, as well, just like we can go 6-5 with only 27 on our team.

It may not be true, but it seems like in those teams in the 2000's that were really good um pretty much owned the PNW for FCS talent, EWU, UI and MSU all get kids out of there now, same comparison would be interesting.

 

[uofmman1122]

I've already argued with Spanky enough on this to never want to talk about it again, but just for reference for everyone implying that more Montana kids on our roster = a worse team, here is a list of the number of MT kids per year and our record since 2006.

2006: 52 Montana kids - 12-2
2007: 46 Montana kids - 11-1
2008: 42 Montana kids - 14-2
2009: 42 Montana kids - 14-1
2010: 21 Montana kids - 7-4
2011: 32 Montana kids - 11-3
2012: 38 Montana kids - 5-6
2013: 31 Montana kids - 10-3
2014: 23 Montana kids - 9-5
2015: 31 Montana kids - 8-5
2016: 27 Montana kids - 6-5
2017: 32 Montana kids - 7-4
2018: 42 Montana kids - 6-5
2019: 49 Montana kids - 10-4
2021: 52 Montana kids - 10-3
2022: 52 Montana kids - 8-5
2023: 48 Montana kids - TBD

Sure seems like from 2010-2017, we got to where a lot of you wanted us to be at in terms of the number of MT kids on the team, but mysteriously, the wins didn't come.

For some comparison, here is MSU's number of MT kids and their record over the same timeframe:

2006: No Roster on their website
2007: No Roster on their website
2008: 48 Montana kids - 7-5
2009: No Roster on their website
2010: 49 Montana kids - 9-3
2011: 46 Montana kids - 10-3
2012: 46 Montana kids - 11-2
2013: 44 Montana kids - 7-5
2014: 41 Montana kids - 8-5
2015: 46 Montana kids - 6-5
2016: 49 Montana kids - 4-7
2017: 45 Montana kids - 5-6
2018: 46 Montana kids - 8-5
2019: 46 Montana kids - 11-4
2021: 39 Montana kids - 12-3
2022: 43 Montana kids - 12-2
2023: 45 Montana kids - TBD

Meanwhile, MSU has averaged 40+ MT kids for nearly 2 decades and have won and lost all over the place. They've averaged 44 kids over the last 4 seasons and have won 2 less games during that time than we did between all of 2012 and 2017 when we only averaged 30.

Now, this is not to say we don't have recruiting issues, or that our staff doesn't prioritize Montana players over out of state guys in a strange way. They may be doing that as some have suggested, and that would be really poop. But you guys HAVE to stop focusing so much on the number. It literally doesn't matter. Teams with a lot of Montana kids have won a ton of games, while others have lost a ton of games. It is a tiny part of what makes a team good. This staff seems to have issues developing ANYONE, so I'm not sure why people think switching out an 18 year-old from Sydney for one from Seattle would suddenly make them a whole lot better. We have a ton of out of state guys on our roster, and have for several years, who never develop.

We are not NDSU or SDSU or Idaho or Incarnate Ward. If Montana State can win with 45 Montana kids on their roster, we can absolutely do it, as well, just like we can go 6-5 with only 27 on our team.

It may not be true, but it seems like in those teams in the 2000's that were really good um pretty much owned the PNW for FCS talent, EWU, UI and MSU all get kids out of there now, same comparison would be interesting.

Maybe if I have time this weekend, but I still just don't think where kids come from makes all that much difference in how strong any team will be. Something like 95% of Cal Poly's players come from California, and they're dogshit.

I think a good staff can win with and develop players from just about anywhere (within reason), and the reason our high number of MT kids isn't getting the same results as your high number of MT kids is because we are either not developing them as well, or not putting them into positions to succeed like Hauck's 2000's teams did. When you're filling out the bottom half of your roster every year, a good chunk of those guys are always going to be marginal/borderline FCS guys that you hope can develop, regardless of where they come from.

Now I will say that if what people have suggested on here that Hauck and co. are turning away better out of state guys that want to come here in favor of less-skilled MT guys simply because they're from here, then that's obviously a problem, but it would be the same thing as turning away a more skilled Montana guy simply because you want an out of state kid based on some weird idea of quotas on your team.

 

[Oldschoolhornet]

Cal Poly struggles for the same reason Northwestern and Vanderbilt have trouble competing in their conferences.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I've already argued with Spanky enough on this to never want to talk about it again, but just for reference for everyone implying that more Montana kids on our roster = a worse team, here is a list of the number of MT kids per year and our record since 2006.

2006: 52 Montana kids - 12-2
2007: 46 Montana kids - 11-1
2008: 42 Montana kids - 14-2
2009: 42 Montana kids - 14-1
2010: 21 Montana kids - 7-4
2011: 32 Montana kids - 11-3
2012: 38 Montana kids - 5-6
2013: 31 Montana kids - 10-3
2014: 23 Montana kids - 9-5
2015: 31 Montana kids - 8-5
2016: 27 Montana kids - 6-5
2017: 32 Montana kids - 7-4
2018: 42 Montana kids - 6-5
2019: 49 Montana kids - 10-4
2021: 52 Montana kids - 10-3
2022: 52 Montana kids - 8-5
2023: 48 Montana kids - TBD

Sure seems like from 2010-2017, we got to where a lot of you wanted us to be at in terms of the number of MT kids on the team, but mysteriously, the wins didn't come.

For some comparison, here is MSU's number of MT kids and their record over the same timeframe:

2006: No Roster on their website
2007: No Roster on their website
2008: 48 Montana kids - 7-5
2009: No Roster on their website
2010: 49 Montana kids - 9-3
2011: 46 Montana kids - 10-3
2012: 46 Montana kids - 11-2
2013: 44 Montana kids - 7-5
2014: 41 Montana kids - 8-5
2015: 46 Montana kids - 6-5
2016: 49 Montana kids - 4-7
2017: 45 Montana kids - 5-6
2018: 46 Montana kids - 8-5
2019: 46 Montana kids - 11-4
2021: 39 Montana kids - 12-3
2022: 43 Montana kids - 12-2
2023: 45 Montana kids - TBD

Meanwhile, MSU has averaged 40+ MT kids for nearly 2 decades and have won and lost all over the place. They've averaged 44 kids over the last 4 seasons and have won 2 less games during that time than we did between all of 2012 and 2017 when we only averaged 30.

Now, this is not to say we don't have recruiting issues, or that our staff doesn't prioritize Montana players over out of state guys in a strange way. They may be doing that as some have suggested, and that would be really poop. But you guys HAVE to stop focusing so much on the number. It literally doesn't matter. Teams with a lot of Montana kids have won a ton of games, while others have lost a ton of games. It is a tiny part of what makes a team good. This staff seems to have issues developing ANYONE, so I'm not sure why people think switching out an 18 year-old from Sydney for one from Seattle would suddenly make them a whole lot better. We have a ton of out of state guys on our roster, and have for several years, who never develop.

We are not NDSU or SDSU or Idaho or Incarnate Ward. If Montana State can win with 45 Montana kids on their roster, we can absolutely do it, as well, just like we can go 6-5 with only 27 on our team.

Thanks for doing all those stats. Interesting. I've been told that one of the main reasons UM recruits so many MT kids is because the scholarship cost is much less expensive than out of state scholarships and almost all out of state kids won't come without a scholarship. So, it's party a budget/cost thing. In addition, I've heard coaches, as well as players say, that the MT kids seem to lead the way in working hard, toughness, etc. Out of staters do this too, but the in-state kids are the leaders. I like watching the MT kids. Griz football would be less interesting to me without a bunch of MT kids on the field and roster.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I've already argued with Spanky enough on this to never want to talk about it again

I modified your post to save space, not for any nefarious reason. Great post, BTW. You know my stance on this. It's not about raw numbers of MT kids on the roster. To me, it's about how ready a few positions are going to be coming in. I think ONE factor in that equation is the level of competition they've faced coming up, and I think that factor can sometimes be determined by geography. On average, I think a QB from a MT AA program, every game, is facing one or more DBs that maybe couldn't make the JV team in other areas, and vice versa. I'm just basing this on watching Hudl recruiting videos, and I'm certainly no expert.

I guess, in a sentence, I know we will never have a shot at a Malachi Nelson (last year) or an Elijiah Brown (this year), but maybe we should be talking to the QB2s on those types of rosters if our goal is to develop HS QB recruits.

 

[uofmman1122]

I've already argued with Spanky enough on this to never want to talk about it again

I modified your post to save space, not for any nefarious reason. Great post, BTW. You know my stance on this. It's not about raw numbers of MT kids on the roster. To me, it's about how ready a few positions are going to be coming in. I think ONE factor in that equation is the level of competition they've faced coming up, and I think that factor can sometimes be determined by geography. On average, I think a QB from a MT AA program, every game, is facing one or more DBs that maybe couldn't make the JV team in other areas, and vice versa. I'm just basing this on watching Hudl recruiting videos, and I'm certainly no expert.

I guess, in a sentence, I know we will never have a shot at a Malachi Nelson (last year) or an Elijiah Brown (this year), but maybe we should be talking to the QB2s on those types of rosters if our goal is to develop HS QB recruits.

Yeah, I know we've talked about this before, as well. I am getting more and more discouraged and frustrated by our recruiting and developing every year, and, to me, it's really obvious this year that it hasn't been stellar lately. If what people are saying about our team starting to fill our roster with MT kids first and then supplementing from there, while turning away out of state kids that might be better now is true, I think that's a huge issue.

Obviously, the better recruits you get in the program, the better the teams are going to be, and there are way more, better recruits in Washington and California than there are in Montana, so I certainly don't think what you're suggesting is a bad way to do it. I just also think that at the bottom of your roster, whether those guys are coming from in or out of state, we're looking at guys that are potentially marginal, high-ceiling-low-floor borderline FCS talents, and the "lunchpail grindset toughness" of Montana kids that have something to prove might be just as worthwhile as the same talent-level kids getting "better experience" while they get torched by P5 recruits in Bellevue. :lol:

All said, we are in a complicated situation, and I'm glad I'm not in charge of recruiting. I don't think there are necessarily easy solutions here. :thumb:

 

[mthoopsfan]

I modified your post to save space, not for any nefarious reason. Great post, BTW. You know my stance on this. It's not about raw numbers of MT kids on the roster. To me, it's about how ready a few positions are going to be coming in. I think ONE factor in that equation is the level of competition they've faced coming up, and I think that factor can sometimes be determined by geography. On average, I think a QB from a MT AA program, every game, is facing one or more DBs that maybe couldn't make the JV team in other areas, and vice versa. I'm just basing this on watching Hudl recruiting videos, and I'm certainly no expert.

I guess, in a sentence, I know we will never have a shot at a Malachi Nelson (last year) or an Elijiah Brown (this year), but maybe we should be talking to the QB2s on those types of rosters if our goal is to develop HS QB recruits.

Yeah, I know we've talked about this before, as well. I am getting more and more discouraged and frustrated by our recruiting and developing every year, and, to me, it's really obvious this year that it hasn't been stellar lately. If what people are saying about our team starting to fill our roster with MT kids first and then supplementing from there, while turning away out of state kids that might be better now is true, I think that's a huge issue.

Obviously, the better recruits you get in the program, the better the teams are going to be, and there are way more, better recruits in Washington and California than there are in Montana, so I certainly don't think what you're suggesting is a bad way to do it. I just also think that at the bottom of your roster, whether those guys are coming from in or out of state, we're looking at guys that are potentially marginal, high-ceiling-low-floor borderline FCS talents, and the "lunchpail grindset toughness" of Montana kids that have something to prove might be just as worthwhile as the same talent-level kids getting "better experience" while they get torched by P5 recruits in Bellevue. :lol:

All said, we are in a complicated situation, and I'm glad I'm not in charge of recruiting. I don't think there are necessarily easy solutions here. :thumb:

This is not even remotely true. This comes from people who have no specific knowledge and no clue:

"If what people are saying about our team starting to fill our roster with MT kids first and then supplementing from there, while turning away out of state kids that might be better now is true, I think that's a huge issue."

 

[uofmman1122]

Thanks for doing all those stats. Interesting. I've been told that one of the main reasons UM recruits so many MT kids is because the scholarship cost is much less expensive than out of state scholarships and almost all out of state kids won't come without a scholarship. So, it's party a budget/cost thing. In addition, I've heard coaches, as well as players say, that the MT kids seem to lead the way in working hard, toughness, etc. Out of staters do this too, but the in-state kids are the leaders. I like watching the MT kids. Griz football would be less interesting to me without a bunch of MT kids on the field and roster.

Yeah, as far as I'm aware, there are a ton of things that go into how and why we recruit who we do.

How many kids do we have to replace and how many scholarships in any given year do we have to do it?
How many D1-level or near D1-level kids are even in Montana in a given year?
Can we get blue chip Montana kids to come on a partial (like we used to do all the time when Bobby was coach before) or do we have to fill those slots with blue chip guys from out of state on a full ride?
Will our starters from Montana still be cool playing on partials, or do they want a full ride, and are threatening to transfer out if they don't get one?
How many out of state recruits ended up not being able to handle school life here after their first winter and want to go back home?
Will any out of state kids we want to recruit even consider a partial scholarship? What happens when we have 2 scholarship to fill 4 spots, and every out of state recruit wants a full ride?

There are certainly ways around each of these questions whether you want more or less in-state kids, but it always comes down to finding guys, no matter where they're from, that are willing to come here for less money.

 

[uofmman1122]

Yeah, I know we've talked about this before, as well. I am getting more and more discouraged and frustrated by our recruiting and developing every year, and, to me, it's really obvious this year that it hasn't been stellar lately. If what people are saying about our team starting to fill our roster with MT kids first and then supplementing from there, while turning away out of state kids that might be better now is true, I think that's a huge issue.

Obviously, the better recruits you get in the program, the better the teams are going to be, and there are way more, better recruits in Washington and California than there are in Montana, so I certainly don't think what you're suggesting is a bad way to do it. I just also think that at the bottom of your roster, whether those guys are coming from in or out of state, we're looking at guys that are potentially marginal, high-ceiling-low-floor borderline FCS talents, and the "lunchpail grindset toughness" of Montana kids that have something to prove might be just as worthwhile as the same talent-level kids getting "better experience" while they get torched by P5 recruits in Bellevue. :lol:

All said, we are in a complicated situation, and I'm glad I'm not in charge of recruiting. I don't think there are necessarily easy solutions here. :thumb:

This is not even remotely true. This comes from people who have no specific knowledge and no clue:

"If what people are saying about our team starting to fill our roster with MT kids first and then supplementing from there, while turning away out of state kids that might be better now is true, I think that's a huge issue."

Yeah, I sure hope it's not. It seems like a terrible recruiting strategy, and I'd like to think our coaches aren't that stubborn or that stupid.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I've already argued with Spanky enough on this to never want to talk about it again

I modified your post to save space, not for any nefarious reason. Great post, BTW. You know my stance on this. It's not about raw numbers of MT kids on the roster. To me, it's about how ready a few positions are going to be coming in. I think ONE factor in that equation is the level of competition they've faced coming up, and I think that factor can sometimes be determined by geography. On average, I think a QB from a MT AA program, every game, is facing one or more DBs that maybe couldn't make the JV team in other areas, and vice versa. I'm just basing this on watching Hudl recruiting videos, and I'm certainly no expert.

I guess, in a sentence, I know we will never have a shot at a Malachi Nelson (last year) or an Elijiah Brown (this year), but maybe we should be talking to the QB2s on those types of rosters if our goal is to develop HS QB recruits.

Another factor. Kids from less recruited areas sometimes have more potential to develop into very good players This is because they have less good coaching, less overall training, and lesser competition. There are many diamonds in the rough to be found, if the coaches can discern a diamond in the rough. I know this because I have talked to my Dartmouth coach friends about this many times over the years. For example, while Bellevue WA High produces a lot of great players, they also produce a lot of good players who have already developed close to their maximum and will only grow and improve a bit more in college.

Non-top programs like the Ivies and MT aren't going to get the very top kids out of Bellevue high, except the Ivies can get a few of those for non-athletic reasons, so they look harder for diamonds in the rough who are more likely to be available to non-top programs.

On the other hand, the Bellevue highs of the world also have a number of those non-top tier kids who will be good college players, and may have been overlooked a bit at times, because of their very top teammates.

Clearly the UM's of the world have to look out of state for more of the skilled and fast players. Some are in MT, but many more are in the Northwest, CA, Texas, etc. There's no focusing on MT kids and filling out with out of staters. You go after both. The best in MT and the best you can attract from out of MT. My impression is that the athletic budget of UM would not be able to afford giving most of the scholarships to out of state players, due to the tuition and cost difference. Besides tuition, there are also travel costs.

Money is tight. Look at Sac St's budget now. I was told it's 33 million. I was also told that the MSU budget is creeping ahead of UM's. I haven't looked in recent years.

 

[Missoula223]

Not disagreeing with you here. But usually there is a reason why. Texas, LA, and Florida are the most recruited places nationwide. It’s very rare, not impossible, but very rare that a kid simply goes unrecruited by a school that is for their skill set. Meaning if a kid is a G5 caliber player, he typically is recruited and goes to a G5 school. If he ends up going FCS or even D2, there is usually a reason for it.

I think the point is that a lot of the preps who are FCS level players get buried because they are such talent rich places. All you have to do is go look at the State of Texas recruiting rankings on 247. You can get down their player ranking 250 kids deep and still see players with Power 5 commitments, and no FCS commits. Transversely, you can look at the state of Washington, a place that consistently produces Power 5 talent, where you only have to go down their rankings 16 spots before your hit an FCS commit, a QB going to the Vandals.

The point being made above is that there are just so many prep athlete's in a place like Texas that there are lots of them who are high end FCS level players who are overlooked because they are not on the radar of the bigger schools.

This is where having someone on staff who has coached in that state, even at a high school level, would pay dividends because they know where to go to find talent and know coaches, trainers, etc.

Don’t disagree with that at all! I would vie for recruiting Texas. I just think it’s a little more difficult than ppl think in terms of just going to Texas to get a kid or multiple kids. Realistically you’re looking at the Dallas area if you’re going to recruit Texas. I say that because as far as I’m aware, it’s the only direct flight to and from missoula. 2 reasons for this. It’s hard to get a kid and a family to come to MT out of say San Antonio. It’s a hard spot to get to, and makes it difficult for families to come to a game. The other reason is, like it or not, fcs budgets aren’t great and make it difficult to send coaches to Austin twice a year or pay for OVs out of a place like that. The issue is Dallas is where most direct flights go to. So you’re competing with realistically every FCS and G5 school that recruits the Dallas area in the nation. So while there is many more athletes there that are great football players, you’re also fighting an uphill battle in terms of getting guys here. In my opinion! Again, I would endorse recruiting Texas. But more goes into that equation than what ppl are aware of.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I modified your post to save space, not for any nefarious reason. Great post, BTW. You know my stance on this. It's not about raw numbers of MT kids on the roster. To me, it's about how ready a few positions are going to be coming in. I think ONE factor in that equation is the level of competition they've faced coming up, and I think that factor can sometimes be determined by geography. On average, I think a QB from a MT AA program, every game, is facing one or more DBs that maybe couldn't make the JV team in other areas, and vice versa. I'm just basing this on watching Hudl recruiting videos, and I'm certainly no expert.

I guess, in a sentence, I know we will never have a shot at a Malachi Nelson (last year) or an Elijiah Brown (this year), but maybe we should be talking to the QB2s on those types of rosters if our goal is to develop HS QB recruits.

Another factor. Kids from less recruited areas sometimes have more potential to develop into very good players This is because they have less good coaching, less overall training, and lesser competition. There are many diamonds in the rough to be found, if the coaches can discern a diamond in the rough. I know this because I have talked to my Dartmouth coach friends about this many times over the years. For example, while Bellevue WA High produces a lot of great players, they also produce a lot of good players who have already developed close to their maximum and will only grow and improve a bit more in college.

Non-top programs like the Ivies and MT aren't going to get the very top kids out of Bellevue high, except the Ivies can get a few of those for non-athletic reasons, so they look harder for diamonds in the rough who are more likely to be available to non-top programs.

On the other hand, the Bellevue highs of the world also have a number of those non-top tier kids who will be good college players, and may have been overlooked a bit at times, because of their very top teammates.

Clearly the UM's of the world have to look out of state for more of the skilled and fast players. Some are in MT, but many more are in the Northwest, CA, Texas, etc. There's no focusing on MT kids and filling out with out of staters. You go after both. The best in MT and the best you can attract from out of MT. My impression is that the athletic budget of UM would not be able to afford giving most of the scholarships to out of state players, due to the tuition and cost difference. Besides tuition, there are also travel costs.

Money is tight. Look at Sac St's budget now. I was told it's 33 million. I was also told that the MSU budget is creeping ahead of UM's. I haven't looked in recent years.

The bold is a good point. I was trying to speak specifically about QBs/DBs who can contribute at UM early, however. That seems to be what people get bent out of shape about with the staff's "development" of HS commits, especially at QB. If a QB or CB from Whitehall or Whitefish ends up developing later into a great player by his fourth year, that's awesome. People develop at different times in sports, for sure. But, if we want players at certain positions to be ready sooner, we may want to check more into higher competition areas.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think it would be much easier for any coaching staff to "develop" a player into a contributor when he's not used to being the best player on the field since he was 15. I hope that makes sense.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I modified your post to save space, not for any nefarious reason. Great post, BTW. You know my stance on this. It's not about raw numbers of MT kids on the roster. To me, it's about how ready a few positions are going to be coming in. I think ONE factor in that equation is the level of competition they've faced coming up, and I think that factor can sometimes be determined by geography. On average, I think a QB from a MT AA program, every game, is facing one or more DBs that maybe couldn't make the JV team in other areas, and vice versa. I'm just basing this on watching Hudl recruiting videos, and I'm certainly no expert.

I guess, in a sentence, I know we will never have a shot at a Malachi Nelson (last year) or an Elijiah Brown (this year), but maybe we should be talking to the QB2s on those types of rosters if our goal is to develop HS QB recruits.

Yeah, I know we've talked about this before, as well. I am getting more and more discouraged and frustrated by our recruiting and developing every year, and, to me, it's really obvious this year that it hasn't been stellar lately. If what people are saying about our team starting to fill our roster with MT kids first and then supplementing from there, while turning away out of state kids that might be better now is true, I think that's a huge issue.

Obviously, the better recruits you get in the program, the better the teams are going to be, and there are way more, better recruits in Washington and California than there are in Montana, so I certainly don't think what you're suggesting is a bad way to do it. I just also think that at the bottom of your roster, whether those guys are coming from in or out of state, we're looking at guys that are potentially marginal, high-ceiling-low-floor borderline FCS talents, and the "lunchpail grindset toughness" of Montana kids that have something to prove might be just as worthwhile as the same talent-level kids getting "better experience" while they get torched by P5 recruits in Bellevue. :lol:

All said, we are in a complicated situation, and I'm glad I'm not in charge of recruiting. I don't think there are necessarily easy solutions here. :thumb:

I agree with every word.

 

[GrizRealist]

I think the point is that a lot of the preps who are FCS level players get buried because they are such talent rich places. All you have to do is go look at the State of Texas recruiting rankings on 247. You can get down their player ranking 250 kids deep and still see players with Power 5 commitments, and no FCS commits. Transversely, you can look at the state of Washington, a place that consistently produces Power 5 talent, where you only have to go down their rankings 16 spots before your hit an FCS commit, a QB going to the Vandals.

The point being made above is that there are just so many prep athlete's in a place like Texas that there are lots of them who are high end FCS level players who are overlooked because they are not on the radar of the bigger schools.

This is where having someone on staff who has coached in that state, even at a high school level, would pay dividends because they know where to go to find talent and know coaches, trainers, etc.

Don’t disagree with that at all! I would vie for recruiting Texas. I just think it’s a little more difficult than ppl think in terms of just going to Texas to get a kid or multiple kids. Realistically you’re looking at the Dallas area if you’re going to recruit Texas. I say that because as far as I’m aware, it’s the only direct flight to and from missoula. 2 reasons for this. It’s hard to get a kid and a family to come to MT out of say San Antonio. It’s a hard spot to get to, and makes it difficult for families to come to a game. The other reason is, like it or not, fcs budgets aren’t great and make it difficult to send coaches to Austin twice a year or pay for OVs out of a place like that. The issue is Dallas is where most direct flights go to. So you’re competing with realistically every FCS and G5 school that recruits the Dallas area in the nation. So while there is many more athletes there that are great football players, you’re also fighting an uphill battle in terms of getting guys here. In my opinion! Again, I would endorse recruiting Texas. But more goes into that equation than what ppl are aware of.

I agree with basically everything you said. It would be great to have someone on staff who knows that area and has contacts. That type of coach would understand the dynamic of different leagues and schools and be able to discern the potential of a recruit based on who they played for and what league they play in. There are over 300 high schools (public/private) in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, so the there are a lot of players to go around.

I want to be clear that I am not against recruiting Montana kids. I am just advocating for building the strongest roster possible regardless of where the players come from. If there are truly budget concerns with being able to afford to fly coaches to an area like Dallas to recruit, that is something all the boosters who want to make an influence should get together and solve. The scholarship stuff is a different deal, which to me seems bureaucratic when you start talking about the ACTAUL cost of attendance of a kid from Montana vs a kid from Arizona.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Don’t disagree with that at all! I would vie for recruiting Texas. I just think it’s a little more difficult than ppl think in terms of just going to Texas to get a kid or multiple kids. Realistically you’re looking at the Dallas area if you’re going to recruit Texas. I say that because as far as I’m aware, it’s the only direct flight to and from missoula. 2 reasons for this. It’s hard to get a kid and a family to come to MT out of say San Antonio. It’s a hard spot to get to, and makes it difficult for families to come to a game. The other reason is, like it or not, fcs budgets aren’t great and make it difficult to send coaches to Austin twice a year or pay for OVs out of a place like that. The issue is Dallas is where most direct flights go to. So you’re competing with realistically every FCS and G5 school that recruits the Dallas area in the nation. So while there is many more athletes there that are great football players, you’re also fighting an uphill battle in terms of getting guys here. In my opinion! Again, I would endorse recruiting Texas. But more goes into that equation than what ppl are aware of.

I agree with basically everything you said. It would be great to have someone on staff who knows that area and has contacts. That type of coach would understand the dynamic of different leagues and schools and be able to discern the potential of a recruit based on who they played for and what league they play in. There are over 300 high schools (public/private) in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, so the there are a lot of players to go around.

I want to be clear that I am not against recruiting Montana kids. I am just advocating for building the strongest roster possible regardless of where the players come from. If there are truly budget concerns with being able to afford to fly coaches to an area like Dallas to recruit, that is something all the boosters who want to make an influence should get together and solve. The scholarship stuff is a different deal, which to me seems bureaucratic when you start talking about the ACTAUL cost of attendance of a kid from Montana vs a kid from Arizona.

The QB Club already helps finance additional recruiting budget. As for out of state tuition, if UM were to get less from the athletic department/GAA for out of state tuition, then UM's total revenues would go down. That actual small piece of the UM revenues/budget has to come from somewhere. Yes, out of state students don't cost the U more, but it's not a cost thing. It's a revenue thing. I don't know what dollars are involved. I don't know the ratio of in-state to out-of-state scholarships.

I agree that it's important to get the best players, but, unfortunately, there are budget constraints, I have been told.