Emphasis on recruiting Montana first hurting recruiting.?

[HelenaHandBasket]

So some quick math means 14 starters out of 50ish out of state kids. Makes sense.

You’re more concerned about being the new Houdini than looking at negative recruiting practices.

There is nothing negative about the number of Montana kids, which you are trying to make the basis of your simplistic argument. If you want to complain about the process the current staff has implemented in recruiting, then I am not going to argue. If having 45 Montana kids was the reason that the Griz are poor, then why is their comparable institution in MSU having success despite having 45 kids on their roster?

 

[Spanky2]

You’re more concerned about being the new Houdini than looking at negative recruiting practices.

There is nothing negative about the number of Montana kids, which you are trying to make the basis of your simplistic argument. If you want to complain about the process the current staff has implemented in recruiting, then I am not going to argue. If having 45 Montana kids was the reason that the Griz are poor, then why is their comparable institution in MSU having success despite having 45 kids on their roster?

As always, you exaggerate and attempt to misrepresent my views. I didn’t say the Montana kids are the reason the Griz are poor. In my view, recruiting is one of the reasons. If Griz coaches are stating to out of state recruits Montana kids first, that’s a major blunder. If Bobby’s recruiting budget is forcing him to have the open door policy for Montana kids, then shame on Haslam.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

That makes sense for the kid to choose Idaho. It is exactly as expected. One of the reasons winning teams keep winning is because kids want to play for a winning team and recruiting is much easier for those teams. Idaho appears on the rise. Montana was no different before the JJ/Pflugrad/Engstrom debacle. NDSU keeps winning for the same reason. Eventually things take a turn, for one reason or another, and the winning decreases and the recruiting gets harder etc. Eventually you have some success again (if your school is dedicated to athletics) such as Don Read and the program rises again. Cyclic. The time period between ebbs and flows is variable but can be long. UM maybe in for a long down turn. Hopefully not but it could happen. I also think they should take the best player for the position over an in state kid despite my being a big instate Montana homer. We should recruit the Montana kids and love having them on the team. Often they are the leaders and best players on the team but only a few are at a time. Certainly not at all or even a majority of positions. If they don’t have a prospective D end recruit (which we do need) from Montana as good as this Idaho kid they should offer the scholarship to the Idaho kid now.

Then explain how the Idaho Vandals went from a league bottom dweller under Petrino to a power in the Big Sky in virtually one season under a new coach? I don't buy the adage that it takes years to turn a poor program around, especially with the portal. It is all about recruiting, and it should be obvious that our current staff is not doing the job in recruiting.

Kids don’t want to play for this staff and this staff doesn’t know how to coach and recruit kids in the modern era of college football. Nobody has bitched about the portal as much as Bobby as far as coaches go. It’s because he can’t do what’s always worked for him. You can’t just run a program like a military camp anymore. Kids will leave.

Former Griz players from the dominant eras have said as much. They’ve said that they would have had many players leave if the portal was available in the early 2000s.

It’s not difficult. This staff has not adjusted with the times. There’s no other explanation. This program has every single advantage you could ask for.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

There is nothing negative about the number of Montana kids, which you are trying to make the basis of your simplistic argument. If you want to complain about the process the current staff has implemented in recruiting, then I am not going to argue. If having 45 Montana kids was the reason that the Griz are poor, then why is their comparable institution in MSU having success despite having 45 kids on their roster?

As always, you exaggerate and attempt to misrepresent my views. I didn’t say the Montana kids are the reason the Griz are poor. In my view, recruiting is one of the reasons. If Griz coaches are stating to out of state recruits Montana kids first, that’s a major blunder. If Bobby’s recruiting budget is forcing him to have the open door policy for Montana kids, then shame on Haslam.

No, you said 47 Montana kids is too many because Montana High School football doesn't produce the type of players necessary. Yet the school down the road has 45 Montana kids and seem to be doing just fine. No exaggeration needed, you are doing just fine on your own.

 

[GrizRealist]

Then explain how the Idaho Vandals went from a league bottom dweller under Petrino to a power in the Big Sky in virtually one season under a new coach? I don't buy the adage that it takes years to turn a poor program around, especially with the portal. It is all about recruiting, and it should be obvious that our current staff is not doing the job in recruiting.

Kids don’t want to play for this staff and this staff doesn’t know how to coach and recruit kids in the modern era of college football. Nobody has bitched about the portal as much as Bobby as far as coaches go. It’s because he can’t do what’s always worked for him. You can’t just run a program like a military camp anymore. Kids will leave.

Former Griz players from the dominant eras have said as much. They’ve said that they would have had many players leave if the portal was available in the early 2000s.

It’s not difficult. This staff has not adjusted with the times. There’s no other explanation. This program has every single advantage you could ask for.

This is the truth right here. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Spanky2]

As always, you exaggerate and attempt to misrepresent my views. I didn’t say the Montana kids are the reason the Griz are poor. In my view, recruiting is one of the reasons. If Griz coaches are stating to out of state recruits Montana kids first, that’s a major blunder. If Bobby’s recruiting budget is forcing him to have the open door policy for Montana kids, then shame on Haslam.

No, you said 47 Montana kids is too many because Montana High School football doesn't produce the type of players necessary. Yet the school down the road has 45 Montana kids and seem to be doing just fine. No exaggeration needed, you are doing just fine on your own.

Well Helena, that is close to what I said and believe. Montana high school football isn’t at the level of California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas. All states where we could be recruiting instead of automatically signing every Montana kid even though he might not know how to put on the pads. If Bobby’s budget doesn’t allow his coaches to fly, put them on a bus and start signing better recruits. As for the Montana kids, carry 25 on the roster, not 47. Regarding MSU, I would bet that they copy us within two seasons and reduce their roster of Montana kids.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Then explain how the Idaho Vandals went from a league bottom dweller under Petrino to a power in the Big Sky in virtually one season under a new coach? I don't buy the adage that it takes years to turn a poor program around, especially with the portal. It is all about recruiting, and it should be obvious that our current staff is not doing the job in recruiting.

Kids don’t want to play for this staff and this staff doesn’t know how to coach and recruit kids in the modern era of college football. Nobody has bitched about the portal as much as Bobby as far as coaches go. It’s because he can’t do what’s always worked for him. You can’t just run a program like a military camp anymore. Kids will leave.

Former Griz players from the dominant eras have said as much. They’ve said that they would have had many players leave if the portal was available in the early 2000s.

It’s not difficult. This staff has not adjusted with the times. There’s no other explanation. This program has every single advantage you could ask for.

I can't disagree with any of this. Adapt or die.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

No, you said 47 Montana kids is too many because Montana High School football doesn't produce the type of players necessary. Yet the school down the road has 45 Montana kids and seem to be doing just fine. No exaggeration needed, you are doing just fine on your own.

Well Helena, that is close to what I said and believe. Montana high school football isn’t at the level of California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas. All states where we could be recruiting instead of automatically signing every Montana kid even though he might not know how to put on the pads. If Bobby’s budget doesn’t allow his coaches to fly, put them on a bus and start signing better recruits. As for the Montana kids, carry 25 on the roster, not 47. Regarding MSU, I would bet that they copy us within two seasons and reduce their roster of Montana kids.

Spanky, anyway you cut it, finances etc matter. There are limitations to recruiting, and having 75 out of state kids most likely isn't feasible nor achievable. MSU and UM, due to these recruiting constraints, will continue to sign Montana kids, and they will have 40-50 on the full roster in any given year. Your complaint shouldn't be the number of Montana kids, it should be that UM recruiting is getting beat like a drum in the recruiting process. They are losing kids, both in-state and out, they struggle to attract transfers. You are focusing to much on the bottom 30 and not enough on the the top 50.

 

[Spanky2]

No, you said 47 Montana kids is too many because Montana High School football doesn't produce the type of players necessary. Yet the school down the road has 45 Montana kids and seem to be doing just fine. No exaggeration needed, you are doing just fine on your own.

Well Helena, that is close to what I said and believe. Montana high school football isn’t at the level of California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas. All states where we could be recruiting instead of automatically signing every Montana kid even though he might not know how to put on the pads. If Bobby’s budget doesn’t allow his coaches to fly, put them on a bus and start signing better recruits. As for the Montana kids, carry 25 on the roster, not 47. Regarding MSU, I would bet that they copy us within two seasons and reduce their roster of Montana kids.

Spanky, anyway you cut it, finances etc matter. There are limitations to recruiting, and having 75 out of state kids most likely isn't feasible nor achievable. MSU and UM, due to these recruiting constraints, will continue to sign Montana kids, and they will have 40-50 on the full roster in any given year. Your complaint shouldn't be the number of Montana kids, it should be that UM recruiting is getting beat like a drum in the recruiting process. They are losing kids, both in-state and out, they struggle to attract transfers. You are focusing to much on the bottom 30 and not enough on the the top 50.

Well Helena, that is close to what I said and believe. Montana high school football isn’t at the level of California, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, Texas. All states where we could be recruiting instead of automatically signing every Montana kid even though he might not know how to put on the pads. If Bobby’s budget doesn’t allow his coaches to fly, put them on a bus and start signing better recruits. As for the Montana kids, carry 25 on the roster, not 47. Regarding MSU, I would bet that they copy us within two seasons and reduce their roster of Montana kids.

Spanky, anyway you cut it, finances etc matter. There are limitations to recruiting, and having 75 out of state kids most likely isn't feasible nor achievable. MSU and UM, due to these recruiting constraints, will continue to sign Montana kids, and they will have 40-50 on the full roster in any given year. Your complaint shouldn't be the number of Montana kids, it should be that UM recruiting is getting beat like a drum in the recruiting process. They are losing kids, both in-state and out, they struggle to attract transfers. You are focusing to much on the bottom 30 and not enough on the the top 50.

You are correct. My focus is on the bottom 30. 30 more than we should have from Montana.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Spanky, you are so out-of-touch with the reality.

 

[Spanky2]

Spanky, you are so out-of-touch with the reality.

No, I am well aware of reality and what is destroying our desire/will to recruit quality athletes. In the meantime we will continue to lose as we aren’t competitive.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Spanky, you are so out-of-touch with the reality.

No, I am well aware of reality and what is destroying our desire/will to recruit quality athletes. In the meantime we will continue to lose as we aren’t competitive.

But you continually focus on the wrong causation of the issue.

 

[Spanky2]

No, I am well aware of reality and what is destroying our desire/will to recruit quality athletes. In the meantime we will continue to lose as we aren’t competitive.

But you continually focus on the wrong causation of the issue.

Ok, please explain. I’m aware that you know. If it’s finances, then we accept we will continue to lose.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

But you continually focus on the wrong causation of the issue.

Ok, please explain. I’m aware that you know. If it’s finances, then we accept we will continue to lose.

Spanky, just go back through the thread and actually read, think, comprehend.

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

Ok, please explain. I’m aware that you know. If it’s finances, then we accept we will continue to lose.

Spanky, just go back through the thread and actually read, think, comprehend.

Brother, every time I think I must have an absolute screw loose for not being able to ignore Thirdandlong or Hornet at times (or other cat trolls), I see you still engaging in this long running conversation with Spanky and I realize that its okay, sometimes you just can't help yourself. Some day you will get your point across to him, I have great faith.

 

[Spanky2]

Spanky, just go back through the thread and actually read, think, comprehend.

Brother, every time I think I must have an absolute screw loose for not being able to ignore Thirdandlong or Hornet at times (or other cat trolls), I see you still engaging in this long running conversation with Spanky and I realize that its okay, sometimes you just can't help yourself. Some day you will get your point across to him, I have great faith.

He doesn’t have a point to get across.

 

[RayWill]

SO hear me out. I have hesitated to share this but after Sat it is a moot point now. My hunting partner has a son whom is being recruited by the Griz. In fact he is scheduled for an official gameday visit soon. He is also being recruited by EWU and IDAHO and MSU. Now his father is a Griz fan and we have went to many Griz games together and the kid has been to the stadium many times. He was wanting to be a Griz. He has proven so far to be a real stud at defensive end this season. He went to Camps at EWU Idaho and UM over the summer. Idaho is really recruiting him after he schooled everyone in drills at D-End. His performance at UM camps I am told was similar. Hauck told him he was on their radar and after his performance at camp and they were highly interested, but that he only has a limited number of scholarships and that the philosophy is that they offer in state kids first. Since he is from Idaho that he wont have an offer for him until late in recruiting to see if he needs the schollie for an instate recruit.

This sat wrong with him. There are several other kids on the same high school team UM was recruiting as well and they were all told the same thing, according to him. As such my buddies kid had told me he was leaning towards Idaho and not UM even if an offer came as he thinks that Hauck is out of touch. He feels that he should recruit the best kids he can from whatever state they are from to improve the team.

He watched the game vs NAU. That seemed to pretty much sealed the deal. He says that it is evident that they are lost, have no identity on offense or defense and that he felt the entire coaching staff is stuck in the past. He said the majority of the pitches from UM so far have been about the tradition and past accomplishments and nothing about the here and now. He said they are a dying program and he wants to play for a team that is on the rise. All I know is Montana seems to have lost an opportunity at a potentially great asset and I am sure that is not the only one.

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...

That is understood. And Why I had not posted it before. However he is getting much more attention and offers from other universities.

 

[Fahque]

Answer my question. How many of the 47 are starters? I rest my case.

What does this even mean? A lot of the starters from MT weren't starters last year, but were still on the team. Should we have kicked them off the team last season? Should we replace them with younger out of state players on our roster who are worse?

Do you think these guys just showed up as starters? I'm genuinely baffled by the point you're trying to make here to justify an opinion or yours that is wrong and based on your faulty assumptions.

MSU has more starters from MT than we do, and they were all "NAIA-level depth players" at some point, to use your phrasing.

I get the feeling that you guys are being purposefully obtuse

 

[uofmman1122]

What does this even mean? A lot of the starters from MT weren't starters last year, but were still on the team. Should we have kicked them off the team last season? Should we replace them with younger out of state players on our roster who are worse?

Do you think these guys just showed up as starters? I'm genuinely baffled by the point you're trying to make here to justify an opinion or yours that is wrong and based on your faulty assumptions.

MSU has more starters from MT than we do, and they were all "NAIA-level depth players" at some point, to use your phrasing.

I get the feeling that you guys are being purposefully obtuse

What's obtuse about this? If having more Montana kids is the reason we aren't good, how can you explain bozeman's success when they have just as many?

 

[Fahque]

I get the feeling that you guys are being purposefully obtuse

What's obtuse about this? If having more Montana kids is the reason we aren't good, how can you explain bozeman's success when they have just as many?

You know darn well that isn’t what he is saying. What he is saying (I think) is that if we have a chance to get an out-of-state stud, we should go after them rather than first offering three Montana kids who are not as talented with partial scholarships. If the Montana kids are just as big of studs as the out-of-state person, then by all means go after them. It doesn’t matter where people are from but if we are giving priority to less talented in-state kids over, offering somebody from out of state who could benefit our program, just because they are from out of state, then that doesn’t make much sense.

And Bozeman likely has the more talented Montana kids than we do and, therefore, are having much more success with them