I SUPPORT STITT

[AZGrizFan]

If Stitt is somehow still here after this seasons' debacle, are fans still going to say" he still needs more time" next season? I say this has been a failed experiment already and it would best serve the student-athletes and fan base if they turn him loose after the Brawl and hire a proven winner. It's been hard to watch this proud program be reduced to a mediocre member of the Big Sky Conference. Even harder to believe that some fans are comfortable with being 7-4 and even 6-5.

I know of no fans (here or anywhere) that are "comfortable" with being 7-4 or 6-5. Not running around here with pitchforks doesn't mean we accept it. Understanding that it's a process, and being patient with that process, is completely different than being comfortable with anything.

Until/unless someone, anyone, can convince me that STARTING OVER with a different coach, different scheme, etc., etc. is going to get us ANYWHERE faster than the current process, I'm not a fan of starting over. But I DO believe Stitt (regardless of the season outcome) will have to make changes if he hopes to remain as head coach. And DC and ST coaches are at the top of that list.

 

[whitefishbear]

If Stitt is somehow still here after this seasons' debacle, are fans still going to say" he still needs more time" next season? I say this has been a failed experiment already and it would best serve the student-athletes and fan base if they turn him loose after the Brawl and hire a proven winner. It's been hard to watch this proud program be reduced to a mediocre member of the Big Sky Conference. Even harder to believe that some fans are comfortable with being 7-4 and even 6-5.

I know of no fans (here or anywhere) that are "comfortable" with being 7-4 or 6-5. Not running around here with pitchforks doesn't mean we accept it. Understanding that it's a process, and being patient with that process, is completely different than being comfortable with anything.

Until/unless someone, anyone, can convince me that STARTING OVER with a different coach, different scheme, etc., etc. is going to get us ANYWHERE faster than the current process, I'm not a fan of starting over. But I DO believe Stitt (regardless of the season outcome) will have to make changes if he hopes to remain as head coach. And DC and ST coaches are at the top of that list.

Why do you think that it is a given that a coaching change equals "starting over"? Tell that to the James Madison fan base after Mike Houston won the national championship with the previous coach's talent in his first year. Kelly won 11 games at Cincinnati in his first year. Petrino won 11 games in his first year at Louisville, and 9 games in his first year at Arkansas. It goes on and on. There is no valid correlation to predicting stagnation in a program after a new coach is hired.

 

[whitefishbear]

That game was a perfect shit storm from the first 1/4. Stitt did not throw 3 bad INTs. (Jensen finally had his "freshman" game. I don't care. He will be a super Griz QB. I hope he is OK.) Stitt did not fumble twice giving a short field and losing a late score. Stitt did not commit 2 targeting/disqualifying penalties that lost two key players. One who was filling in for the idiot shit Strong did. (Both, IMO, were called correct and completely the fault of the players.) Stitt and Semore put their players in position to make plays for most of the game. "No comment" on the refs. The last three recruiting classes are outstanding. I continue to support this entire staff no matter how the season works out from here.

Yes, but those are mistakes that under prepared and under motivated teams make. They are mistakes that differentiate a 5-6 team from a 9-2 team. I do lay the blame for how the Griz performed in the first half at the hands of the coaches. They had two weeks to prepare and the first two offensive series looked like they had an afternoon to prepare. I will give the coaches credit for the much improved second half performance. If that kind of performance can be carried over in the next 3 games, I will want Stitt to have another year; but if we revert back to that first half performance or the Cat performance of last year, then it will be time to cut bait.

Right.... two weeks to chart offensive plays for the first Weber series. And what do they call against the best rushing defense in the league??? You guessed it..... three runs up the middle and a punt! Very creative, I might add!

Yup. Then 7 passes in a row in the 2d series and start of 3d series.

What's your conclusion now? 7 of 10 passes to start the game. Too few passes, too many passes, too many runs, not enough runs?

Certainly, not enough first downs.

No, the correct word is "CREATIVITY", and he has shown none of that

 

[whitefishbear]

A winning FB coach pays large dividends to UM. Most in Admin. understand that. Faculty, not so much. Continuing deterioration of the FB program will be seen at the bottom line.

and what do you base your statement about faculty on, exactly? sure, some may not like it and/or be philosophically opposed, but i'm pretty sure most understand that a winning fb coach does pay dividends to a university.

you really are the classic whiny old man who disparages anyone who you think might not have exactly the same values.

I think Kemajic is one of the most reasonable and knowledgeable posters on the board. His logic is consistent, and almost always makes sense. I don't know him, but would like to meet him. We share many of the same thoughts as far as I can tell.

 

[AZGrizFan]

If Stitt is somehow still here after this seasons' debacle, are fans still going to say" he still needs more time" next season? I say this has been a failed experiment already and it would best serve the student-athletes and fan base if they turn him loose after the Brawl and hire a proven winner. It's been hard to watch this proud program be reduced to a mediocre member of the Big Sky Conference. Even harder to believe that some fans are comfortable with being 7-4 and even 6-5.

I know of no fans (here or anywhere) that are "comfortable" with being 7-4 or 6-5. Not running around here with pitchforks doesn't mean we accept it. Understanding that it's a process, and being patient with that process, is completely different than being comfortable with anything.

Until/unless someone, anyone, can convince me that STARTING OVER with a different coach, different scheme, etc., etc. is going to get us ANYWHERE faster than the current process, I'm not a fan of starting over. But I DO believe Stitt (regardless of the season outcome) will have to make changes if he hopes to remain as head coach. And DC and ST coaches are at the top of that list.

Why do you think that it is a given that a coaching change equals "starting over"? Tell that to the James Madison fan base after Mike Houston won the national championship with the previous coach's talent in his first year. Kelly won 11 games at Cincinnati in his first year. Petrino won 11 games in his first year at Louisville, and 9 games in his first year at Arkansas. It goes on and on. There is no valid correlation to predicting stagnation in a program after a new coach is hired.

Yeah. Except it doesn't go on and on...you can literally list them on one hand. And tell me...Who's the FCS coach that's done that that's willing to come to Montana?

 

[Topey711]

Some thoughts and questions for those who want to keep Stitt, but replace the DC and ST coaches. Just a reminder; these were "his guys". What leads you to believe his next choices will be better? Stitt and TG clearly weren't compatible, but like TG or not, he has taken one of the worst defenses in the Big Sky and made huge improvements. Maybe TG and those players loyal to him recognized that Stitt doesn't put the same amount of "dedication" into the defense as he does "his" offense? These factors could make it difficult to get a quality DC. Program stability has also been brought up a lot. 3 DC's in 4 seasons isn't exactly stability. Would the defense regress next year, having to learn a new system? If Stitt does stay, but does change some staff and there's another down year next season, then what? It really is a hard choice to make right now. Hopefully the rest of the season can provide some answers one way or the other. I don't think he deserves to be fired yet, even though most of what I have written is negative. I believe he is a good offensive coach. The rest is still a work in progress.

 

[PlayerRep]

That game was a perfect shit storm from the first 1/4. Stitt did not throw 3 bad INTs. (Jensen finally had his "freshman" game. I don't care. He will be a super Griz QB. I hope he is OK.) Stitt did not fumble twice giving a short field and losing a late score. Stitt did not commit 2 targeting/disqualifying penalties that lost two key players. One who was filling in for the idiot shit Strong did. (Both, IMO, were called correct and completely the fault of the players.) Stitt and Semore put their players in position to make plays for most of the game. "No comment" on the refs. The last three recruiting classes are outstanding. I continue to support this entire staff no matter how the season works out from here.

Yes, but those are mistakes that under prepared and under motivated teams make. They are mistakes that differentiate a 5-6 team from a 9-2 team. I do lay the blame for how the Griz performed in the first half at the hands of the coaches. They had two weeks to prepare and the first two offensive series looked like they had an afternoon to prepare. I will give the coaches credit for the much improved second half performance. If that kind of performance can be carried over in the next 3 games, I will want Stitt to have another year; but if we revert back to that first half performance or the Cat performance of last year, then it will be time to cut bait.

Ranco, I am not disagreeing with you, but if you have time, can you explain why you think the big UM mistakes against Weber were the result of being under prepared or under motivated? Would like to see your analysis. I don't really know where the mistakes came from other than the qb mistakes were from a redshirt frosh, the KO mistakes were from a redshirt frosh, and the 2 targeting penalties were from seniors, one of whom has been here only 2 years. The penalty on the sideline, which I didn't think was much of a penalty, was from a redshirt frosh. I'm not blaming this all on inexperience, by the way.

Its difficult to sum it up on specifics, but I would point to our first two offensive possessions. It really looked like the offense was just going through the motions and there was nothing innovative about the play calling, in fact, it was the opposite of innovative. The first drive lasted for just over a minute and resulted in a short punt. Second drive was worse, going for negative 4 yards, with a shorter punt. That set the early tone for the game and resulted in a 10 point deficit. With the tone set, the mistakes followed. It seemed pretty clear to me that the team lacked the kind of motivation and focus needed for a big game. It may not be fair but I think the coaches are responsible for that. As to preparation, the initial play calling indicated to me that the coaches had failed to identify any particular tendencies of Weber that they could exploit. Conversely, we saw some early innovative plays from Weber that clearly exploited our defense. Weber was better motivated and better prepared.

From a more general perspective, it seems that poorly coached teams make more mistakes than better coached teams and, despite equal talent levels, loose more games. I actually thought that (giving Stitt credit) when we beat Portland State.

Thx. I don't know myself. Your explanation is plausible and as good any I've seen.

 

[PlayerRep]

A winning FB coach pays large dividends to UM. Most in Admin. understand that. Faculty, not so much. Continuing deterioration of the FB program will be seen at the bottom line.

and what do you base your statement about faculty on, exactly? sure, some may not like it and/or be philosophically opposed, but i'm pretty sure most understand that a winning fb coach does pay dividends to a university.

you really are the classic whiny old man who disparages anyone who you think might not have exactly the same values.

My impression of faculty views is similar to Kem's.

I will stick up for Kem. I don't think he disparages people who disagree with him at all. He's smart, does his homework, and writes well. He and I don't always agree, but, unless I've just come home from drinking all night with JD Quinn, most of our discussions are pretty good. Even though I am still supporting Stitt, I am also agreeing with a lot of what Kem is posting these days.

 

[PlayerRep]

If Stitt is somehow still here after this seasons' debacle, are fans still going to say" he still needs more time" next season? I say this has been a failed experiment already and it would best serve the student-athletes and fan base if they turn him loose after the Brawl and hire a proven winner. It's been hard to watch this proud program be reduced to a mediocre member of the Big Sky Conference. Even harder to believe that some fans are comfortable with being 7-4 and even 6-5.

I know of no fans (here or anywhere) that are "comfortable" with being 7-4 or 6-5. Not running around here with pitchforks doesn't mean we accept it. Understanding that it's a process, and being patient with that process, is completely different than being comfortable with anything.

Until/unless someone, anyone, can convince me that STARTING OVER with a different coach, different scheme, etc., etc. is going to get us ANYWHERE faster than the current process, I'm not a fan of starting over. But I DO believe Stitt (regardless of the season outcome) will have to make changes if he hopes to remain as head coach. And DC and ST coaches are at the top of that list.

Why do you think that it is a given that a coaching change equals "starting over"? Tell that to the James Madison fan base after Mike Houston won the national championship with the previous coach's talent in his first year. Kelly won 11 games at Cincinnati in his first year. Petrino won 11 games in his first year at Louisville, and 9 games in his first year at Arkansas. It goes on and on. There is no valid correlation to predicting stagnation in a program after a new coach is hired.

Yeah. Except it doesn't go on and on...you can literally list them on one hand. And tell me...Who's the FCS coach that's done that that's willing to come to Montana?

Hauck.

 

[PlayerRep]

Some thoughts and questions for those who want to keep Stitt, but replace the DC and ST coaches. Just a reminder; these were "his guys". What leads you to believe his next choices will be better? Stitt and TG clearly weren't compatible, but like TG or not, he has taken one of the worst defenses in the Big Sky and made huge improvements. Maybe TG and those players loyal to him recognized that Stitt doesn't put the same amount of "dedication" into the defense as he does "his" offense? These factors could make it difficult to get a quality DC. Program stability has also been brought up a lot. 3 DC's in 4 seasons isn't exactly stability. Would the defense regress next year, having to learn a new system? If Stitt does stay, but does change some staff and there's another down year next season, then what? It really is a hard choice to make right now. Hopefully the rest of the season can provide some answers one way or the other. I don't think he deserves to be fired yet, even though most of what I have written is negative. I believe he is a good offensive coach. The rest is still a work in progress.

I can't imagine Stitt would replace Semore. My impression is that Stitt holds Semore in high regard.

I have never understood why an AD would tell a head coach, whom he either hired or is keeping, who he should or must hire/fire. Either you have confidence in your head coach or you don't. You don't micromanage. When coaches get forced to make changes in assistants, I assume that it's mainly because of pressure from big donors, or coaches and AD's trying to defect attention from themselves.

 

[argh!]

A winning FB coach pays large dividends to UM. Most in Admin. understand that. Faculty, not so much. Continuing deterioration of the FB program will be seen at the bottom line.

and what do you base your statement about faculty on, exactly? sure, some may not like it and/or be philosophically opposed, but i'm pretty sure most understand that a winning fb coach does pay dividends to a university.

you really are the classic whiny old man who disparages anyone who you think might not have exactly the same values.

My impression of faculty views is similar to Kem's.

I will stick up for Kem. I don't think he disparages people who disagree with him at all. He's smart, does his homework, and writes well. He and I don't always agree, but, unless I've just come home from drinking all night with JD Quinn, most of our discussions are pretty good. Even though I am still supporting Stitt, I am also agreeing with a lot of what Kem is posting these days.

here's an example or two of him disparaging wide swaths of people with no real evidence:

Re: UM Marketing
Report this post Quote
Post by kemajic » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:49 am

The alt-left position has always been a turnoff for me but more recently their refusal to address the real cost issues with the University are bigger. UM is grossly overstaffed and overbuilt for the enrollment and their answer is to raise tuition and fees so they don't have to have difficult discussions with faculty.

Re: Is football a dying sport?
Report this post Quote
Post by kemajic » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:03 am

The good players are still going to play; I suspect a large proportion of the reductions are from kids that are not going to be real players anyhow. CA and WA - - - lots of liberal soccer moms.

 

[whitefishbear]

A winning FB coach pays large dividends to UM. Most in Admin. understand that. Faculty, not so much. Continuing deterioration of the FB program will be seen at the bottom line.

and what do you base your statement about faculty on, exactly? sure, some may not like it and/or be philosophically opposed, but i'm pretty sure most understand that a winning fb coach does pay dividends to a university.

you really are the classic whiny old man who disparages anyone who you think might not have exactly the same values.

My impression of faculty views is similar to Kem's.

I will stick up for Kem. I don't think he disparages people who disagree with him at all. He's smart, does his homework, and writes well. He and I don't always agree, but, unless I've just come home from drinking all night with JD Quinn, most of our discussions are pretty good. Even though I am still supporting Stitt, I am also agreeing with a lot of what Kem is posting these days.

here's an example or two of him disparaging wide swaths of people with no real evidence:

Re: UM Marketing
Report this post Quote
Post by kemajic » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:49 am

The alt-left position has always been a turnoff for me but more recently their refusal to address the real cost issues with the University are bigger. UM is grossly overstaffed and overbuilt for the enrollment and their answer is to raise tuition and fees so they don't have to have difficult discussions with faculty.

Re: Is football a dying sport?
Report this post Quote
Post by kemajic » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:03 am

The good players are still going to play; I suspect a large proportion of the reductions are from kids that are not going to be real players anyhow. CA and WA - - - lots of liberal soccer moms.

So, because you don't agree with his political views, he is disparaging people? Does that mean that ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC are also disparaging a large swath of America by their continued pummeling of Trump, many times by spewing fake news? Let's talk football, and leave the politically-correct stuff for a different forum. How about it?

 

[whitefishbear]

Some thoughts and questions for those who want to keep Stitt, but replace the DC and ST coaches. Just a reminder; these were "his guys". What leads you to believe his next choices will be better? Stitt and TG clearly weren't compatible, but like TG or not, he has taken one of the worst defenses in the Big Sky and made huge improvements. Maybe TG and those players loyal to him recognized that Stitt doesn't put the same amount of "dedication" into the defense as he does "his" offense? These factors could make it difficult to get a quality DC. Program stability has also been brought up a lot. 3 DC's in 4 seasons isn't exactly stability. Would the defense regress next year, having to learn a new system? If Stitt does stay, but does change some staff and there's another down year next season, then what? It really is a hard choice to make right now. Hopefully the rest of the season can provide some answers one way or the other. I don't think he deserves to be fired yet, even though most of what I have written is negative. I believe he is a good offensive coach. The rest is still a work in progress.

Great post. Very logical and well thought-out.

 

[whitefishbear]

If Stitt is somehow still here after this seasons' debacle, are fans still going to say" he still needs more time" next season? I say this has been a failed experiment already and it would best serve the student-athletes and fan base if they turn him loose after the Brawl and hire a proven winner. It's been hard to watch this proud program be reduced to a mediocre member of the Big Sky Conference. Even harder to believe that some fans are comfortable with being 7-4 and even 6-5.

I know of no fans (here or anywhere) that are "comfortable" with being 7-4 or 6-5. Not running around here with pitchforks doesn't mean we accept it. Understanding that it's a process, and being patient with that process, is completely different than being comfortable with anything.

Until/unless someone, anyone, can convince me that STARTING OVER with a different coach, different scheme, etc., etc. is going to get us ANYWHERE faster than the current process, I'm not a fan of starting over. But I DO believe Stitt (regardless of the season outcome) will have to make changes if he hopes to remain as head coach. And DC and ST coaches are at the top of that list.

Why do you think that it is a given that a coaching change equals "starting over"? Tell that to the James Madison fan base after Mike Houston won the national championship with the previous coach's talent in his first year. Kelly won 11 games at Cincinnati in his first year. Petrino won 11 games in his first year at Louisville, and 9 games in his first year at Arkansas. It goes on and on. There is no valid correlation to predicting stagnation in a program after a new coach is hired.

Yeah. Except it doesn't go on and on...you can literally list them on one hand. And tell me...Who's the FCS coach that's done that that's willing to come to Montana?

Oh, I could list a hell of lot more if I wanted to do some research but those just popped out immediately. Bottom line is, you are crying wolf with your "starting over" fears. Look no further than our own Grizzly football program for all of the proof one needs. We "started over" several times since 1995, with Dennehy, Glenn, Hauck, and Pflu, and never missed a beat.

 

[whitefishbear]

Yes, but those are mistakes that under prepared and under motivated teams make. They are mistakes that differentiate a 5-6 team from a 9-2 team. I do lay the blame for how the Griz performed in the first half at the hands of the coaches. They had two weeks to prepare and the first two offensive series looked like they had an afternoon to prepare. I will give the coaches credit for the much improved second half performance. If that kind of performance can be carried over in the next 3 games, I will want Stitt to have another year; but if we revert back to that first half performance or the Cat performance of last year, then it will be time to cut bait.

Ranco, I am not disagreeing with you, but if you have time, can you explain why you think the big UM mistakes against Weber were the result of being under prepared or under motivated? Would like to see your analysis. I don't really know where the mistakes came from other than the qb mistakes were from a redshirt frosh, the KO mistakes were from a redshirt frosh, and the 2 targeting penalties were from seniors, one of whom has been here only 2 years. The penalty on the sideline, which I didn't think was much of a penalty, was from a redshirt frosh. I'm not blaming this all on inexperience, by the way.

Its difficult to sum it up on specifics, but I would point to our first two offensive possessions. It really looked like the offense was just going through the motions and there was nothing innovative about the play calling, in fact, it was the opposite of innovative. The first drive lasted for just over a minute and resulted in a short punt. Second drive was worse, going for negative 4 yards, with a shorter punt. That set the early tone for the game and resulted in a 10 point deficit. With the tone set, the mistakes followed. It seemed pretty clear to me that the team lacked the kind of motivation and focus needed for a big game. It may not be fair but I think the coaches are responsible for that. As to preparation, the initial play calling indicated to me that the coaches had failed to identify any particular tendencies of Weber that they could exploit. Conversely, we saw some early innovative plays from Weber that clearly exploited our defense. Weber was better motivated and better prepared.

From a more general perspective, it seems that poorly coached teams make more mistakes than better coached teams and, despite equal talent levels, loose more games. I actually thought that (giving Stitt credit) when we beat Portland State.

Thx. I don't know myself. Your explanation is plausible and as good any I've seen.

Yep, his explanation pretty much mirrors my feelings about that game. Even though Stitt had an extra week to innovate for this big game, he was out-coached and out-innovated again..... which seems to be an all-too-familiar pattern.

However, we must never forget the fact that every play he runs is a trick play.

 

[argh!]

and what do you base your statement about faculty on, exactly? sure, some may not like it and/or be philosophically opposed, but i'm pretty sure most understand that a winning fb coach does pay dividends to a university.

you really are the classic whiny old man who disparages anyone who you think might not have exactly the same values.

My impression of faculty views is similar to Kem's.

I will stick up for Kem. I don't think he disparages people who disagree with him at all. He's smart, does his homework, and writes well. He and I don't always agree, but, unless I've just come home from drinking all night with JD Quinn, most of our discussions are pretty good. Even though I am still supporting Stitt, I am also agreeing with a lot of what Kem is posting these days.

here's an example or two of him disparaging wide swaths of people with no real evidence:

Re: UM Marketing
Report this post Quote
Post by kemajic » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:49 am

The alt-left position has always been a turnoff for me but more recently their refusal to address the real cost issues with the University are bigger. UM is grossly overstaffed and overbuilt for the enrollment and their answer is to raise tuition and fees so they don't have to have difficult discussions with faculty.

Re: Is football a dying sport?
Report this post Quote
Post by kemajic » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:03 am

The good players are still going to play; I suspect a large proportion of the reductions are from kids that are not going to be real players anyhow. CA and WA - - - lots of liberal soccer moms.

So, because you don't agree with his political views, he is disparaging people? Does that mean that ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC are also disparaging a large swath of America by their continued pummeling of Trump, many times by spewing fake news? Let's talk football, and leave the politically-correct stuff for a different forum. How about it?

i didn't make any comment on whether i agree or not with his political views. i made a comment that says i think he disparages people based on assumptions he is making about them and their political beliefs (i.e. 'liberal soccer moms' don't let their kids play football, and their kids would be no good if they did, anyway). and he is doing that on a football forum.

 

[PlayerRep]

A winning FB coach pays large dividends to UM. Most in Admin. understand that. Faculty, not so much. Continuing deterioration of the FB program will be seen at the bottom line.

and what do you base your statement about faculty on, exactly? sure, some may not like it and/or be philosophically opposed, but i'm pretty sure most understand that a winning fb coach does pay dividends to a university.

you really are the classic whiny old man who disparages anyone who you think might not have exactly the same values.

My impression of faculty views is similar to Kem's.

I will stick up for Kem. I don't think he disparages people who disagree with him at all. He's smart, does his homework, and writes well. He and I don't always agree, but, unless I've just come home from drinking all night with JD Quinn, most of our discussions are pretty good. Even though I am still supporting Stitt, I am also agreeing with a lot of what Kem is posting these days.

here's an example or two of him disparaging wide swaths of people with no real evidence:

Re: UM Marketing
Report this post Quote
Post by kemajic » Sun Apr 16, 2017 9:49 am

The alt-left position has always been a turnoff for me but more recently their refusal to address the real cost issues with the University are bigger. UM is grossly overstaffed and overbuilt for the enrollment and their answer is to raise tuition and fees so they don't have to have difficult discussions with faculty.

Re: Is football a dying sport?
Report this post Quote
Post by kemajic » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:03 am

The good players are still going to play; I suspect a large proportion of the reductions are from kids that are not going to be real players anyhow. CA and WA - - - lots of liberal soccer moms.

Okay, if you are focusing more the political comments, then I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing Griz football.

While a generalization, I don't disagree with him about liberal soccer moms, and their views of football. But, again, I was addressing the political aspect of his comments. I largely ignore the the political aspects that get mixed with the football comments.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I know of no fans (here or anywhere) that are "comfortable" with being 7-4 or 6-5. Not running around here with pitchforks doesn't mean we accept it. Understanding that it's a process, and being patient with that process, is completely different than being comfortable with anything.

Until/unless someone, anyone, can convince me that STARTING OVER with a different coach, different scheme, etc., etc. is going to get us ANYWHERE faster than the current process, I'm not a fan of starting over. But I DO believe Stitt (regardless of the season outcome) will have to make changes if he hopes to remain as head coach. And DC and ST coaches are at the top of that list.

Why do you think that it is a given that a coaching change equals "starting over"? Tell that to the James Madison fan base after Mike Houston won the national championship with the previous coach's talent in his first year. Kelly won 11 games at Cincinnati in his first year. Petrino won 11 games in his first year at Louisville, and 9 games in his first year at Arkansas. It goes on and on. There is no valid correlation to predicting stagnation in a program after a new coach is hired.

Yeah. Except it doesn't go on and on...you can literally list them on one hand. And tell me...Who's the FCS coach that's done that that's willing to come to Montana?

Oh, I could list a hell of lot more if I wanted to do some research but those just popped out immediately. Bottom line is, you are crying wolf with your "starting over" fears. Look no further than our own Grizzly football program for all of the proof one needs. We "started over" several times since 1995, with Dennehy, Glenn, Hauck, and Pflu, and never missed a beat.

That's about as relative to our current situation as me bringing up Don Read. :roll: :roll:

 

[i_the_sky]

You support Stitt, all you want, but until he becomes a, complete, football coach rather than a politician I will not! He doesn't support his players off the field and until he does I say replace him! It's no wonder they fold every year!

 

[whitefishbear]

Why do you think that it is a given that a coaching change equals "starting over"? Tell that to the James Madison fan base after Mike Houston won the national championship with the previous coach's talent in his first year. Kelly won 11 games at Cincinnati in his first year. Petrino won 11 games in his first year at Louisville, and 9 games in his first year at Arkansas. It goes on and on. There is no valid correlation to predicting stagnation in a program after a new coach is hired.

Yeah. Except it doesn't go on and on...you can literally list them on one hand. And tell me...Who's the FCS coach that's done that that's willing to come to Montana?

Oh, I could list a hell of lot more if I wanted to do some research but those just popped out immediately. Bottom line is, you are crying wolf with your "starting over" fears. Look no further than our own Grizzly football program for all of the proof one needs. We "started over" several times since 1995, with Dennehy, Glenn, Hauck, and Pflu, and never missed a beat.

That's about as relative to our current situation as me bringing up Don Read. :roll: :roll:

Well, you do have somewhat of a point.