I can't believe I'm hearing this

[GGNez]

Bobby Hauck is turning into a demagogue.

To many, he can do no wrong. When someone points out a valid criticism, his supporters here will not listen. They become labeled, not as fellow Griz fans, who simply disagree, but as Bobcat trolls, sent from Bozeman to kick the university while its down.

Bring up his record at UNLV, and its dismissed as "Oh that's just UNLV. No one can win there."

Bring up that the offense he ran here might be outdated and that the Big Sky isn't the same anymore. "Oh, I'm sure he's learned and changed his schemes."

Bring up his relationship with the media. "Oh that's just a pushy reporter who needed to be shut down."

Bring up the fact that his teams fielded players who were frequently on the wrong side of the law, and not just for small charges, but manslaughter and breaking & entering. "Oh that's wrong. Hauck isn't responsible for that. Is he supposed to be responsible for what college kids do? What about the other guys on his team?"

Bring up that his offensive coordinator messed up a massive rape scandal. "Oh that wasn't Hauck's doing. You aren't the reason something happened once you leave somewhere. It's not like your actions and the precedents that you set can have consequences once you leave. And Pflu got screwed."

And after any of those responses, comes the deflection. "What about Stitt?" Well, guess what? I'm not talking about Stitt. As of November 20, 2017, Bob Stitt became irrelevant to Montana football. I'm talking about Hauck and his flaws.

When a crime reporter publishes about the trends and incidents that happened during and immediately after Hauck's tenure involving players he brought to Missoula, he is publicly crucifed for doing his job.

The only comments on Hauck anyone on here listens to are the ones where it seems to be endless praise. Only old players' accounts and the odd reporter who published a puff piece seems to be taken seriously.

This is very troubling, not because some of those responses aren't valid, but the dismissive tone, anger, and defensiveness that comes with it, as if Hauck coming here is a part of some peoples' identity, as if it is a personal attack on them. Those first two responses are absolutely valid. UNLV is tough to win at. He could have learned over the years and his offense isn't the same. But those last ones, that don't even acknowledge that there was ever a problem, that's the part that worries me.

Now, before I wrap up, I want to make one thing very clear. I'm an avid college football fan and I love the Montana Grizzlies. I want nothing more than to see the team succeed and show how small and pathetic the rest of the conference is. I want nothing more than to see a packed Washington-Grizzly Stadium in the middle of December in a raging blizzard. I want nothing more than to see the Bobcats get quieter and quieter with each passing loss to us. And I'll certainly admit that his 80-17 record speaks for itself.

But I do not want a figure who is held high on a pedestal, as if he is above any criticism. If he comes here, and fails to produce better than Stitt, or his players consistently end up in the news for criminal activity, both of which are very real possibilities, then we do not want a figure with supporters who support him more than the program itself.

Shutup

Hawkeye just validated the point of this post. "Shut up" is two words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sw6z0NDgmE

go ahead and skip to 20 seconds. and don't forget to pull your tampon strings tight so they don't fall out. Nancy

You're so charming. It's shocking that your familiarity with the female body is so minimal. :roll:

 

[CFallsGriz]

I will say posters are very hypocritical when it comes to players actions. Everyone here will blame the coaches when the players don’t execute and say that it’s the coaches responsibility to get players ready but then say the coaches are not responsible for the players off the field

What?

Having control over players' on-field actions is based on something called "coaching," which is done by a team of coaches called a "staff." This staff, then, oversees these players' actions, physically, and critiques them while the players perform. In this scenario, holding coaches accountable for what is usually repeat actions is sensible, and most coaches take that on willfully.

Having control over players' actions off of and often very far away from the field of play/practice is another matter entirely. What the coach(es) can be held to account for on that front, however, is the response to those bad actions. To say that that is hypocritical is poorly reasoned.

 

[PDXGrizzly]

hyperbole

Just about everything on this site is

In all reality, the love fest for BH on this site is all about the fact that he represents the golden days of Montana Football. And that he’s a Montana guy through and through.

People are quick to dismiss the issues involving players he brought in, just the same as people are quick to judge BH’s response to discipline issues. The reality is that while BH May have been a disciplinarian, the lack of a black and white policy makes some of his responses seem arbitrary. It doesn’t matter how draconian BH actually was with discipline, it is how it is perceived. That has been rectified with the new Code of Conduct. Disciplinary matters are now out of ANY coaches hands. In my mind the issue has been corrected.

It would seem that this is the most glaring issue for most who are skeptical. Rest assured that BH is in no way being placed on a pedistal. In all reality he will get no honeymoon as a “new hire” and will likely draw the ire of many from day one as we second guess every decision he makes until he retires.

 

[TCCGRIZ]

Anyone immature enough to put 69 in their handle raises a flag right away. Then you verify it with one-sided gibberish. Nobody’s been more scrutinized and vetted. Inside info on how things ran, real facts and not agenda driven perception, and the fact he was incredibly successful here... at this job... in this town... greatly outweigh any FACTUAL negatives. The fact he has at times treated disrespectful people like they probably deserve is not a killer for me. If he has matured beyond that, that’s an additional positive. I haven’t heard a good negative argument based on real facts. For what I can tell, the only ones denying this are linear-thinking agenda-driven people who can only think in catch phrases, or have an agenda like a spurned reporter, state fan, or the unfortunate person who has been thru severe trauma whose internal defense mechanisms make it so they can’t be reasoned with on certain subjects.

Well he is MC Hammer Vanilla ice ice baby you can't touch this . :thumb:

 

[SoldierGriz]

hyperbole

Just about everything on this site is

In all reality, the love fest for BH on this site is all about the fact that he represents the golden days of Montana Football. And that he’s a Montana guy through and through.

People are quick to dismiss the issues involving players he brought in, just the same as people are quick to judge BH’s response to discipline issues. The reality is that while BH May have been a disciplinarian, the lack of a black and white policy makes some of his responses seem arbitrary. It doesn’t matter how draconian BH actually was with discipline, it is how it is perceived. That has been rectified with the new Code of Conduct. Disciplinary matters are now out of ANY coaches hands. In my mind the issue has been corrected.

It would seem that this is the most glaring issue for most who are skeptical. Rest assured that BH is in no way being placed on a pedistal. In all reality he will get no honeymoon as a “new hire” and will likely draw the ire of many from day one as we second guess every decision he makes until he retires.

Good post.

 

[astutegriz]

I will say posters are very hypocritical when it comes to players actions. Everyone here will blame the coaches when the players don’t execute and say that it’s the coaches responsibility to get players ready but then say the coaches are not responsible for the players off the field

What?

Having control over players' on-field actions is based on something called "coaching," which is done by a team of coaches called a "staff." This staff, then, oversees these players' actions, physically, and critiques them while the players perform. In this scenario, holding coaches accountable for what is usually repeat actions is sensible, and most coaches take that on willfully.

Having control over players' actions off of and often very far away from the field of play/practice is another matter entirely. What the coach(es) can be held to account for on that front, however, is the response to those bad actions. To say that that is hypocritical is poorly reasoned.

+1. You said this much better than I did.

 

[Hawkeyebowhunter]

Shutup

Hawkeye just validated the point of this post. "Shut up" is two words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sw6z0NDgmE

go ahead and skip to 20 seconds. and don't forget to pull your tampon strings tight so they don't fall out. Nancy

You're so charming. It's shocking that your familiarity with the female body is so minimal. :roll:

Hey my apologies ma'am, I did not know that you are a lady. I thought I was talking with another dude, hence being crude.

I do however still vehemently disagree with what was posted, and will not back down from that.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think most players would prefer the athletic code of conduct to what Hauck would do, which is not to say that he won't keep dishing out discipline the way he always did.

I'm sure the assistant coaches loved to get to the M at 5am, so that they could give the player in question a flashlight to use to signal that he had reached the M--since it would still be dark. Ha.

 

[GGNez]

Hawkeye just validated the point of this post. "Shut up" is two words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sw6z0NDgmE

go ahead and skip to 20 seconds. and don't forget to pull your tampon strings tight so they don't fall out. Nancy

You're so charming. It's shocking that your familiarity with the female body is so minimal. :roll:

Hey my apologies ma'am, I did not know that you are a lady. I thought I was talking with another dude, hence being crude.

I do however still vehemently disagree with what was posted, and will not back down from that.

No need to back down. Discussion forums would certainly be very brief and boring as hell if everyone shared the same opinion.

Also...the sentiment behind your apology is appreciated and accepted, but I don't expect or wish to be treated any differently than my male counterparts.

 

[The.Real.2506]

Hawkeye just validated the point of this post. "Shut up" is two words.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sw6z0NDgmE

go ahead and skip to 20 seconds. and don't forget to pull your tampon strings tight so they don't fall out. Nancy

You're so charming. It's shocking that your familiarity with the female body is so minimal. :roll:

Hey my apologies ma'am, I did not know that you are a lady. I thought I was talking with another dude, hence being crude.

I do however still vehemently disagree with what was posted, and will not back down from that.

what kind of dude has hearts in his avatar? oh right, probably a griz dude.

nevermind

 

[Hawkeyebowhunter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sw6z0NDgmE

go ahead and skip to 20 seconds. and don't forget to pull your tampon strings tight so they don't fall out. Nancy

You're so charming. It's shocking that your familiarity with the female body is so minimal. :roll:

Hey my apologies ma'am, I did not know that you are a lady. I thought I was talking with another dude, hence being crude.

I do however still vehemently disagree with what was posted, and will not back down from that.

No need to back down. Discussion forums would certainly be very brief and boring as hell if everyone shared the same opinion.

Also...the sentiment behind your apology is appreciated and accepted, but I don't expect or wish to be treated any differently than my male counterparts.

Hah that's the truth!

Fair enough!

 

[Eriul]

I will say posters are very hypocritical when it comes to players actions. Everyone here will blame the coaches when the players don’t execute and say that it’s the coaches responsibility to get players ready but then say the coaches are not responsible for the players off the field

What?

Having control over players' on-field actions is based on something called "coaching," which is done by a team of coaches called a "staff." This staff, then, oversees these players' actions, physically, and critiques them while the players perform. In this scenario, holding coaches accountable for what is usually repeat actions is sensible, and most coaches take that on willfully.

Having control over players' actions off of and often very far away from the field of play/practice is another matter entirely. What the coach(es) can be held to account for on that front, however, is the response to those bad actions. To say that that is hypocritical is poorly reasoned.

I disagree. I do not believe a college coaches job begins and ends on the field.

My point is simply this. If the coaches are responsible for everything the players do on the field then that needs to hold true for off the field too. I don't believe they are...but many people on this forum think coaches control every single player on every play

 

[hilinegrizfan]

I will say posters are very hypocritical when it comes to players actions. Everyone here will blame the coaches when the players don’t execute and say that it’s the coaches responsibility to get players ready but then say the coaches are not responsible for the players off the field

What?

Having control over players' on-field actions is based on something called "coaching," which is done by a team of coaches called a "staff." This staff, then, oversees these players' actions, physically, and critiques them while the players perform. In this scenario, holding coaches accountable for what is usually repeat actions is sensible, and most coaches take that on willfully.

Having control over players' actions off of and often very far away from the field of play/practice is another matter entirely. What the coach(es) can be held to account for on that front, however, is the response to those bad actions. To say that that is hypocritical is poorly reasoned.

I disagree. I do not believe a college coaches job begins and ends on the field.

My point is simply this. If the coaches are responsible for everything the players do on the field then that needs to hold true for off the field too. I don't believe they are...but many people on this forum think coaches control every single player on every play

how exactly does he control what they do off the field. Should he build a army style barracks and have them all sleep there year round? Make a rule you can only leave to go to class and practice? Tuck them in every night at 10pm sharp? plant tracking devices in them? At some point the players need to be held accountable for their actions and no one else. If i get a DUI tonight should my boss lose his job because he recruited me and I misbehaved? no.

All he can do is do his best to encourage good behavior, and warn them of the consequences of their actions. The only thing the coach can be held responsible for are his actions dealing with the bad behavior. In 7 out of 8 cases the players in question were removed from the team. What else do you want from this guy? Jeaze

 

[grizrgood]

I will say posters are very hypocritical when it comes to players actions. Everyone here will blame the coaches when the players don’t execute and say that it’s the coaches responsibility to get players ready but then say the coaches are not responsible for the players off the field

What?

Having control over players' on-field actions is based on something called "coaching," which is done by a team of coaches called a "staff." This staff, then, oversees these players' actions, physically, and critiques them while the players perform. In this scenario, holding coaches accountable for what is usually repeat actions is sensible, and most coaches take that on willfully.

Having control over players' actions off of and often very far away from the field of play/practice is another matter entirely. What the coach(es) can be held to account for on that front, however, is the response to those bad actions. To say that that is hypocritical is poorly reasoned.

I disagree. I do not believe a college coaches job begins and ends on the field.

My point is simply this. If the coaches are responsible for everything the players do on the field then that needs to hold true for off the field too. I don't believe they are...but many people on this forum think coaches control every single player on every play

how exactly does he control what they do off the field. Should he build a army style barracks and have them all sleep there year round? Make a rule you can only leave to go to class and practice? Tuck them in every night at 10pm sharp? plant tracking devices in them? At some point the players need to be held accountable for their actions and no one else. If i get a DUI tonight should my boss lose his job because he recruited me and I misbehaved? no.

All he can do is do his best to encourage good behavior, and warn them of the consequences of their actions. The only thing the coach can be held responsible for are his actions dealing with the bad behavior. In 7 out of 8 cases the players in question were removed from the team. What else do you want from this guy? Jeaze

I do believe that it is part of the coaches responsibility to provide leadership to players both on and off the field. I also believe most every coach does put considerable effort into how those players represent themselves and the University while off the field. The difference is they directly control things on the field (playing time etc.) but it’s impossible to completely control them off of it. Gawd, they do what they can (playing time, dismissal from team etc.) but what else should be done that has/was not been done?

Eriul, I have heard this argument brought up many times but I have not heard exactly what horrible thing that Bobby Hauck did or did not do when one of these problems arose. I’m not saying he did everything perfect 100% of the time but please explain how he did it worse than all the other coaches in the country and what you would’ve done differently if you were the person in charge.

 

[SouthDakotaGrizzly]

Name one coach in recent history (since the Read years), that has gone on from UM and been successful at an FBS school.

Dennehy - tanked at Utah St.
Glenn - tanked at WY
Hauck - tanked at UNLV

It's hard to win at the next level, especially at relatively small programs such as those 3. Not sure why Hauck's failure at UNLV has any bearing on whether or not he'll be successful back at UM.

 

[Bear Axed]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSWpZiDquk[/youtube]

 

[Brother Bear]

Name one coach in recent history (since the Read years), that has gone on from UM and been successful at an FBS school.

Dennehy - tanked at Utah St.
Glenn - tanked at WY
Hauck - tanked at UNLV

It's hard to win at the next level, especially at relatively small programs such as those 3. Not sure why Hauck's failure at UNLV has any bearing on whether or not he'll be successful back at UM.

Glenn and Hauck both took their teams to bowl games which at those schools doesn't happen much. I don't know if "tanked" would be the correct term, but they did have some success. It seems as though assistants who have come through Montana have gone on to land big time gigs at the FBS level.

 

[PlayerRep]

Name one coach in recent history (since the Read years), that has gone on from UM and been successful at an FBS school.

Dennehy - tanked at Utah St.
Glenn - tanked at WY
Hauck - tanked at UNLV

It's hard to win at the next level, especially at relatively small programs such as those 3. Not sure why Hauck's failure at UNLV has any bearing on whether or not he'll be successful back at UM.

Glenn and Hauck both took their teams to bowl games which at those schools doesn't happen much. I don't know if "tanked" would be the correct term, but they did have some success. It seems as though assistants who have come through Montana have gone on to land big time gigs at the FBS level.

Doeren. Smith. The guys that went to Hawaii a few years ago.

 

[ordigger]

2. Feel free to tell us who can or has won at UNLV. John Robinson, former USC and NFL coach, couldn't and didn't. Do you really not think that Hauck's years at UNLV are more relevant than 7 years at Montana? If you do, then you should just stop posting, and you are a football idiot.

t.

Most just assume that you can't win at UNLV, but while they were an independent (1968-81), 3 different coaches won, there and quite often as a collective (100-51-3).

Bill Ireland 1968–1972 26–23–1 .530
Ron Meyer 1973–1975 27–8–0 .771
Tony Knap 1976–1981 47–20–2 .695

Once the new Raiders facility is built, and they get to start using it - I can only suspect things will go back to their glory days.

 

[CFallsGriz]

I will say posters are very hypocritical when it comes to players actions. Everyone here will blame the coaches when the players don’t execute and say that it’s the coaches responsibility to get players ready but then say the coaches are not responsible for the players off the field

What?

Having control over players' on-field actions is based on something called "coaching," which is done by a team of coaches called a "staff." This staff, then, oversees these players' actions, physically, and critiques them while the players perform. In this scenario, holding coaches accountable for what is usually repeat actions is sensible, and most coaches take that on willfully.

Having control over players' actions off of and often very far away from the field of play/practice is another matter entirely. What the coach(es) can be held to account for on that front, however, is the response to those bad actions. To say that that is hypocritical is poorly reasoned.

I disagree. I do not believe a college coaches job begins and ends on the field.

My point is simply this. If the coaches are responsible for everything the players do on the field then that needs to hold true for off the field too. I don't believe they are...but many people on this forum think coaches control every single player on every play

Well we will have to agree to disagree, but honestly I can't see your logic there Eriul. Players' on-field actions are something that they (coaches) have the opportunity to control. Off-field, not so much-- short of instilling a belief that consequences proportionate to any bad actions will be swiftly enforced, and following through every time.

Agree that the job doesn't start and end on the field, but it does not and cannot include babysitting.

Not sure how you can make that jump in logic... :-?