Emphasis on recruiting Montana first hurting recruiting.?

[GrizRealist]

How many FBS caliber Montana kid recruits annually? 5-6.
How many FCS caliber Montana kid recruits annually? Maybe 10.
Currently Montana has 47 Montana kids on the roster (last time I counted).

I'd argue those numbers are even high because most of them physically aren't ready to to play until at year 3 in the program.

Take the guys in state who are real difference makers and let the rest go elsewhere. You can consistently find better talent, that is ready to contribute sooner outside the state. Gillman is a great example.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

How many FBS caliber Montana kid recruits annually? 5-6.
How many FCS caliber Montana kid recruits annually? Maybe 10.
Currently Montana has 47 Montana kids on the roster (last time I counted).

I'd argue those numbers are even high because most of them physically aren't ready to to play until at year 3 in the program.

Take the guys in state who are real difference makers and let the rest go elsewhere. You can consistently find better talent, that is ready to contribute sooner outside the state. Gillman is a great example.

Once again, MSU has 44.

 

[VimSince03]

How many FBS caliber Montana kid recruits annually? 5-6.
How many FCS caliber Montana kid recruits annually? Maybe 10.
Currently Montana has 47 Montana kids on the roster (last time I counted).

I'd argue those numbers are even high because most of them physically aren't ready to to play until at year 3 in the program.

Take the guys in state who are real difference makers and let the rest go elsewhere. You can consistently find better talent, that is ready to contribute sooner outside the state. Gillman is a great example.

The reality here is that most Montana kids that make these rosters are either PWO or partial scholarship players (on the lower side of funds provided). Montana kids have to earn their way on to the field in Bozeman and Missoula. Whenever either MSU or UM has poor performance, the same parts of the fanbase start to blame the Montana kids which is just hilarious to me when the real problem comes with recruitment and player development. Also most of UM's best players who are All-Big Sky or quality depth players are Montana kids and the others who see significant playing time aren't downgrades but actually value-adds. MSU has 44 Montana kids on its roster and 8 currently start out of the 22 starters on offense/defense. UM has 47 and 6-8 are starters on the 22. It isn't like only Montana kids are playing here guys.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I'd argue those numbers are even high because most of them physically aren't ready to to play until at year 3 in the program.

Take the guys in state who are real difference makers and let the rest go elsewhere. You can consistently find better talent, that is ready to contribute sooner outside the state. Gillman is a great example.

The reality here is that most Montana kids that make these rosters are either PWO or partial scholarship players (on the lower side of funds provided). Montana kids have to earn their way on to the field in Bozeman and Missoula. Whenever either MSU or UM has poor performance, the same parts of the fanbase start to blame the Montana kids which is just hilarious to me when the real problem comes with recruitment and player development. Also most of UM's best players who are All-Big Sky or quality depth players are Montana kids and the others who see significant playing time aren't downgrades but actually value-adds. MSU has 44 Montana kids on its roster and 8 currently start out of the 22 starters on offense/defense. UM has 47 and 6-8 are starters on the 22. It isn't like only Montana kids are playing here guys.

Vim nails it.

 

[GrizRealist]

I'd argue those numbers are even high because most of them physically aren't ready to to play until at year 3 in the program.

Take the guys in state who are real difference makers and let the rest go elsewhere. You can consistently find better talent, that is ready to contribute sooner outside the state. Gillman is a great example.

The reality here is that most Montana kids that make these rosters are either PWO or partial scholarship players (on the lower side of funds provided). Montana kids have to earn their way on to the field in Bozeman and Missoula. Whenever either MSU or UM has poor performance, the same parts of the fanbase start to blame the Montana kids which is just hilarious to me when the real problem comes with recruitment and player development. Also most of UM's best players who are All-Big Sky or quality depth players are Montana kids and the others who see significant playing time aren't downgrades but actually value-adds. MSU has 44 Montana kids on its roster and 8 currently start out of the 22 starters on offense/defense. UM has 47 and 6-8 are starters on the 22. It isn't like only Montana kids are playing here guys.

All I am getting at is there are talent pools in other places that the staff seems to not spend as much time in who play more competitive high school football. There is a notion that, for whatever reason, the roster needs to be heavily rooted with in state kids. Go look at teams that reside in states where high school football is not very competitive like Wyoming or Oregon. Bohl has 13 in state kids on his roster, one of which is on scholarship. The rest are a mix of walk-on and PWO. Oregon has 21 in state kids on their roster, 3 of which are on scholarship. Its not hard to see that there consistently more talent outside of Montana because the high school football here just is not that competitive in comparison to places like California and Arizona. It would be great if we could survive on Montana kids like the old days, but things competitively are just different in todays landscape.

 

[Spanky2]

The reality here is that most Montana kids that make these rosters are either PWO or partial scholarship players (on the lower side of funds provided). Montana kids have to earn their way on to the field in Bozeman and Missoula. Whenever either MSU or UM has poor performance, the same parts of the fanbase start to blame the Montana kids which is just hilarious to me when the real problem comes with recruitment and player development. Also most of UM's best players who are All-Big Sky or quality depth players are Montana kids and the others who see significant playing time aren't downgrades but actually value-adds. MSU has 44 Montana kids on its roster and 8 currently start out of the 22 starters on offense/defense. UM has 47 and 6-8 are starters on the 22. It isn't like only Montana kids are playing here guys.

All I am getting at is there are talent pools in other places that the staff seems to not spend as much time in who play more competitive high school football. There is a notion that, for whatever reason, the roster needs to be heavily rooted with in state kids. Go look at teams that reside in states where high school football is not very competitive like Wyoming or Oregon. Bohl has 13 in state kids on his roster, one of which is on scholarship. The rest are a mix of walk-on and PWO. Oregon has 21 in state kids on their roster, 3 of which are on scholarship. Its not hard to see that there consistently more talent outside of Montana because the high school football here just is not that competitive in comparison to places like California and Arizona. It would be great if we could survive on Montana kids like the old days, but things competitively are just different in todays landscape.

Bingo!!!!

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

All I am getting at is there are talent pools in other places that the staff seems to not spend as much time in who play more competitive high school football. There is a notion that, for whatever reason, the roster needs to be heavily rooted with in state kids. Go look at teams that reside in states where high school football is not very competitive like Wyoming or Oregon. Bohl has 13 in state kids on his roster, one of which is on scholarship. The rest are a mix of walk-on and PWO. Oregon has 21 in state kids on their roster, 3 of which are on scholarship. Its not hard to see that there consistently more talent outside of Montana because the high school football here just is not that competitive in comparison to places like California and Arizona. It would be great if we could survive on Montana kids like the old days, but things competitively are just different in todays landscape.

Bingo!!!!

This has about a dozen things wrong, just starting with comparing UM to Wyoming and Oregon.

 

[Spanky2]

I'd argue those numbers are even high because most of them physically aren't ready to to play until at year 3 in the program.

Take the guys in state who are real difference makers and let the rest go elsewhere. You can consistently find better talent, that is ready to contribute sooner outside the state. Gillman is a great example.

The reality here is that most Montana kids that make these rosters are either PWO or partial scholarship players (on the lower side of funds provided). Montana kids have to earn their way on to the field in Bozeman and Missoula. Whenever either MSU or UM has poor performance, the same parts of the fanbase start to blame the Montana kids which is just hilarious to me when the real problem comes with recruitment and player development. Also most of UM's best players who are All-Big Sky or quality depth players are Montana kids and the others who see significant playing time aren't downgrades but actually value-adds. MSU has 44 Montana kids on its roster and 8 currently start out of the 22 starters on offense/defense. UM has 47 and 6-8 are starters on the 22. It isn't like only Montana kids are playing here guys.

Montana kids are getting scholarship money that could allow UM to recruit talented players elsewhere. Of course most of the so called quality depth players are Montana kids because 50% of the roster is made up of Montana kids. If the policy is recruit Montana first, it’s not hard to understand why it is difficult to recruit out of state players if they think they will sit on the bench while a less talented Montana kid plays.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

The reality here is that most Montana kids that make these rosters are either PWO or partial scholarship players (on the lower side of funds provided). Montana kids have to earn their way on to the field in Bozeman and Missoula. Whenever either MSU or UM has poor performance, the same parts of the fanbase start to blame the Montana kids which is just hilarious to me when the real problem comes with recruitment and player development. Also most of UM's best players who are All-Big Sky or quality depth players are Montana kids and the others who see significant playing time aren't downgrades but actually value-adds. MSU has 44 Montana kids on its roster and 8 currently start out of the 22 starters on offense/defense. UM has 47 and 6-8 are starters on the 22. It isn't like only Montana kids are playing here guys.

Montana kids are getting scholarship money that could allow UM to recruit talented players elsewhere. Of course most of the so called quality depth players are Montana kids because 50% of the roster is made up of Montana kids. If the policy is recruit Montana first, it’s not hard to understand why it is difficult to recruit out of state players if they think they will sit on the bench while a less talented Montana kid plays.

You would just need more Montana kids to walk-on with zero money to fill the roster. Your plan isn't the solution in think it is.

 

[Spanky2]

Montana kids are getting scholarship money that could allow UM to recruit talented players elsewhere. Of course most of the so called quality depth players are Montana kids because 50% of the roster is made up of Montana kids. If the policy is recruit Montana first, it’s not hard to understand why it is difficult to recruit out of state players if they think they will sit on the bench while a less talented Montana kid plays.

You would just need more Montana kids to walk-on with zero money to fill the roster. Your plan isn't the solution in think it is.

That’s true, we can make 100% of the roster Montana kids. Save money and lose to Northern Colorado.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

You would just need more Montana kids to walk-on with zero money to fill the roster. Your plan isn't the solution in think it is.

That’s true, we can make 100% of the roster Montana kids. Save money and lose to Northern Colorado.

Do you always pout when someone points out a flaw in your thinking? You do realize that MSU has just as many Montana kids, and they seem to be having some success.

 

[Spanky2]

That’s true, we can make 100% of the roster Montana kids. Save money and lose to Northern Colorado.

Do you always pout when someone points out a flaw in your thinking? You do realize that MSU has just as many Montana kids, and they seem to be having some success.

I don’t give a gosh darn what state college does.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Do you always pout when someone points out a flaw in your thinking? You do realize that MSU has just as many Montana kids, and they seem to be having some success.

I don’t give a gosh darn what state college does.

Of course you don't since it makes your narrative invalid.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I don’t give two shits where players come from. All I know is we need better players. Montanans or not.

 

[Spanky2]

I don’t give a gosh darn what state college does.

Of course you don't since it makes your narrative invalid.

How many South Dakota kids on South Dakota State?

 

[72 CHAMPS]

Most of you on here are to young to
remember the Jack Swarthout days.
His teams we built around Butte and Great Falls kids. Then he brought in
a load of Jc's and the Hawaiian connection. It worked pretty good.

 

[Bear Spray]

I don't know whether this is Hauck's recruiting process or not, but if it was you would think that he would be winning the in-state recruiting battle, and he definitively is not. So if he were to actually be putting off good out-of-state recruits in favor of Montana kids, and then still coming in 2nd place in terms of in-state talent... that would truly be a failure.

What I've heard from kids who have gotten recruited by both schools is that UM presents itself as a place where kids should want to be and if they don't, it's not for them. I understand that approach. I think Hauck wants to avoid overly self-involved players who would put their individual success above that of the program. That's an admirable ambition. But my (pure) speculation is that the approach goes too far and makes guys feel unwanted.

Same, but it's this and more. Bobby's demeanor on the clock isn't that of a coach I'd want my kid to play for. I've been told so many times what a great guy he is....off the field. He's not a happy guy in front of the press and he exudes disdain. His attitude's not helping UM's recruiting. He doesn't appear to be enjoying the moment & if you're down, your team's down.

 

[Spanky2]

Most of you on here are to young to
remember the Jack Swarthout days.
His teams we built around Butte and Great Falls kids. Then he brought in
a load of Jc's and the Hawaiian connection. It worked pretty good.

I remember. That was a football team! Speaking of OL, remember Uperesa?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Of course you don't since it makes your narrative invalid.

How many South Dakota kids on South Dakota State?

I think you are on to something though, they have fewer Montana kids than either UM or MSU.

 

[72 CHAMPS]

Oh yeah,at that time the biggest man I ever saw. Riddell had to make a special helmet to fit him.