We didn’t recruit all 47 in one year so how many years do they need to develop? You keep bringing up msu. I don’t care about them but I care about UM. I suspect in the beginning they copied us since we were dominant. We don’t you look at South Dakota State. You may have missed it but they are #1 and beat msu. Why do they only have 23 South Dakota kids on their roster?
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Emphasis on recruiting Montana first hurting recruiting.?
- Thread starter RayWill
- Start date
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
Spanky2 said:
I explained it, but you just ignore everything that invalidates your narrative.
I don't, and I assume neither does Helena, but even if both of us did, you'd still be wrong about this.Spanky2 said:
I honestly think it's the kind of thing that would put us at an advantage no one else in FCS has, and I really feel like the programs who figure out how to do it effectively first will steal that advantage from everyone else.CDAGRIZ said:
I'm not sure it would be some kind of deal with bigger programs like a true farm system, but having a coach that tells players he'll give them playing time and D1 experience while they audition for a power 5 school could get the kind of talent that would put us over the top.
RayWill said:
What does not make sense is a coach telling the players this philosophy. Why would you think this way and then say it out loud to potential players? That to me is shooting yourself in the ass for no reason. Self inflicted wounds.
Do I think UM should try to get the top 5-8 players from Montana each year.. HELL YES
Do I think they should pass on or give a cold shoulder to a player simply because he lives in the wrong zip code... well that's just plain stupid.
Recruit for talent and need not zip code.
Most Montana born players are not stars right away, they tend to show up Junior and Senior years in college. Not a cut against them, just what I've seen over the years
Out of state players seem to be able to get up to speed a little bit faster, again just what I've noticed.
A lot of these issues come from the past recruiting classes where the kittens have done well in State (Mellott and Troy Anderson really skew the grade curve) and UM has misfired on some players that seemed very good and did not pan out. There are even some posters on this board that think UM should be 50% Montana kids.
I truly hope that what you posted is somehow a misunderstanding... because if what you are saying is true, then UM's recruiting needs to be changed in a hurry.
RayWill
Well-known member
Paytonlives said:
I know how you feel about why would he say that. When I heard it a week ago I questioned it too at first, but his father confirmed that is what they were told. It makes no sense and seemed to me like shooting yourself in the foot. Even if a misunderstanding it is still an issue as the staff wasn't being clear in their recruiting.
cmtgrizzly
Well-known member
There are only 22 (plus special teams that aren’t on defense and offense) that start. Then another 22 on the 2 deep. So roughly 50 players that are on full ride or significant scholarship. Do some think we can actually fill the rest of the roster with starter level players? Get real. We take scholarships and divide them up as well as walkons to fill out the roster. Coaches hope some of those players develop into starters or at least contributors. A few turn out to be stars. If the coaches knew which ones would be stars they would offer them significant scholarships to start. They don’t know so they get them for less and hope they develop. If they don’t they are still important for practices/team development. Most of these will be Montanans. Who is coming from California as a walk-on or small partial scholarship? No one. You need the roster for practices and development of the team. Montana kids are cheaper hence there are a lot more of them. This is true everywhere. It is financially driven. You aren’t going to have 90+ starter level kids.
Spanky2 said:
Look, if Hauck is really letting good, interested out-of-state recruits get away because he's too focused on lesser in-state players, that's obviously a problem for UM. But the problem would then be with him and his approach, not the Montana players. For the 1-AA level, there is a lot of great in-state talent, but Hauck is getting beat out for them more often than not and he isn't doing a good job developing the guys he does land.
Personally, I would looooove if UM quit pursuing in-state talent. That would be awesome. But it's bogus to blame this team's problems on the Montana kids. The offense, which is the unit that has totally let down the Grizzlies, only has three Montana starters and one of them is one of your guys' best players.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
Spanky2 said:
So some quick math means 14 starters out of 50ish out of state kids. Makes sense.
Ditka Over Hurricane
New member
RayWill said:
First time... long time... but had to respond to this.
I've attended many camps, including the Griz camp as a coach. I can tell you that many teams that take their kids to these camps feel that their best players are worthy of recruitment and offers. Fathers of those kids feel strongly that their kids are worthy of those offers. I've coached kids that have done very well at camps and out competed kids that were receiving more attention, but didn't get the attention they felt (or their coach or dad) felt they deserved. This may be a bit unfair, but if your friend's son was a scholarship level athlete and fit the program, he would have been more prioritized. If he's evaluated as a walk-on or low-level partial (books) type kid, then yes, he might lose out to a similarly evaluated player from MT or someone with ties to the program. Might not be fair, but that's life...
End of the day, Montana has to fill a roster with bodies. A good deal of the limited amount of scholarships these days are going to go to transfers that can fill holes and contribute right away (look at the 2 deep...). The rest of the scholarships are going to be offered to a hand full of high school kids, usually a few MT kids might sign a full offer and several full-scholly level out-of-state guys will sign full offers. The rest of the signing class will be PWO's and splitting scholarships amongst 3 or 4 players...
Ditka Over Hurricane
New member
GrizRealist said:
The "hit rate" you reference is your opinion and not based on fact if you look at the history of the success of our program. Look at the make-up of our past All-Conference, All-American, and NFL players and where they were recruited from. Lot's of outliers.
University of Montana has 48 in-state kids, 36 out-of-state HS kids, and 25 transfers
Montana State has 45 in-state kids, 45 out-of-state HS kids, and 19 transfers
I don't think that just changing the make-up of where your recruit makes nearly as much difference as how you recruit. MSU seems to be doing a much better job on who they are able to bring on as those full-scholly level players. That's been the difference in my opinion. You can argue where the partial and PWO should come from till the cows come home, but it doesn't really matter nearly as much...
Paytonlives said:
I don’t have a kid being recruited, but Ray’s story doesn’t surprise me one iota. Bobby is recruiting like it’s 2004. Comical in its absurdity. This program peaked under Bobby 2.0 2 years ago. That was the high water mark and it’s only gonna get worse until he’s gone.