Scholarship Money-Montana Kids

[HelenaHandBasket]

He can't. He just has a screaming hard-on based on the number of Montana kids with zero other information.

Nice language. And you have more information? If so, please list all Montana kids on the roster and the amount of their scholarship money. Then tell us those funds can’t be used elsewhere to recruit more talented players.

Spanky, let me use a hypothetical for you. Let's assume that 10 Montana kids are getting a partial scholarship that covers books only. Now let's assume that books for each kid is $1500/semester for a total of $15000. Now let's assume that out-of-state tuition is $16,000/semester and this doesn't include books or lodging. So even if you cut those 10 Montana kids, you still don't have enough money to cover the out-of-state tuition for 1 kids and still need to fill 9 more roster spaces. Even if you want to base the tuition at $5000/per semester, you need those Montana kids to fill the roster. Now factor in how many high school recruits last 4-5 years and contribute? How many high profile out of state kids don't pan out and how many walk-on or partial Montana kids do? I don't think you are necessarily wrong saying that recruiting has been as issue, especially the QB position, but I don't think the root of the problem is the number of Montana kids, it is the staffs ability to recruit and develop the position.

 

[Griz#64]

So. It is your position that Montana Scholarship money should go to Out of State over Montana Kids??? Get a Rope . Ha

 

[uofmman1122]

Spanky, do you think the program would be better with no Montana kids?

I know you didn't ask me, but I don't think the program would be better with no MT kids. I do think a hypothetical team with all out of state kids it targeted would be better that another team made up all MT kids it targeted.

I think part of that is weather, dedicated (crazy) parents, and single sport athletes. Take an average kid from Texas or California who starts playing tackle football at 10. First, he's already behind. He has probably a 10-game fall season, probably a short spring season, a couple 7 on 7 tournaments in the summer along with a few camps, and maybe private coaching for the skill positions. By the time he's getting ready to graduate HS, he will have played/practiced a lot more football over his youth than kids who grow up in places where the "norm" is to take time off for winter and/or other sports. I don't necessarily think playing/practicing the same sport all the time is a good thing for the kid, but it 100% happens. Couple that with almost everybody he competes with growing up doing the same thing, and he's probably going to be FCS ready before a kid who played/practiced half as much. Even if the talent is equal, he'll probably be more used to living and breathing FB as required in DI.

Two problems with going that route are (a) Having the best MT players play for the Griz is part of who we are IMO (maybe not so many, but the best we can get), and (b) The financial/scholarship issues many have mentioned.

That said, I know of several kids who would jump at the chance to walk-on at a program like MT to try to earn a scholarship, and they're parents would gladly pay the relatively low tuition at UM for a couple years to "buy" that chance. Instead, they might get beat out by the elite players for scholarships at area schools, and nobody else is calling. I think we could strategically use our low tuition and FBS feel to our advantage to lure some of these kids not just for scholarships, but as walk-ons as well. AZ probably sees it even more in TX.

I think this is a good idea, but I'd argue that the base level of skill and talent we're looking at from borderline D1 guys in Montana isn't any different from the borderline D1 guys from any other state. We might be scraping the bottom of a barrel for Montana kids, but we're just scraping the bottom of a much bigger barrel for out of state guys we want to walk on. Most of said guys can walk on in-state for cheaper than it costs to walk on at UM. The ones we lure away are the ones that probably get rejected from walking on to in-state FCS schools.

I just think it's a lot harder than what Spanky is suggesting, and his flippant attitude towards the majority of our in-state guys rubs me the wrong way.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Why aren’t we talking about Kris Brown? I don’t have a list of scholarship kids. Do you? There were two partials listed a few days ago. They are legacy recruits so maybe we don’t count them?

So you're just talking out of your ass here about how we're wasting scholarships on frontier players, and you're too chicken shit to say which players you don't think are good enough to be on the team.

With Vidlak and McDowell coming in, Brown likely is getting a partial at best. If you're basing this (IMO dumb) opinion about Montana kids on anything other than Kris Brown's maybe scholarship, I'm all ears.

Again, we've gone through the "let's get more out of state players" from 2015-2018, and the roster was worse. It's not some magic antidote to losing games.

Totally agree, but I think a good portion of the "why" was the "who" not the "where". We had some really good out-of-state skill position players come in during that timeframe but seemed to neglect the LOS.

 

[bgbigdog]

"If we could offer in-state tuition to Idaho and Washington kids".

So it sounds like a structural problem. Montana is hamstrung by any number of financial and geographic constraints that aren't there for comparable state schools in the region. Is there leadership or the political will to address these challenges/opportunities with the appropriate legislation, or figure out a method of paying for discounted tuition (which shouldn't be an issue of any kind). FCOA would be too much to ask. While it may change the composition of the football team, I'd also suspect discounted tuition would be an attractive option for regional kids who don't play sports and are looking for good schools. Somehow North and South Dakota have this figured out. Minnesota and Wisconsin have a receiprocal agreement. Is Montana able to do so? Or is it just better for everyone to focus on withdrawing from the American Library Association?

Or maybe, just adjust expectations? Which is likely what many have already done.

I'm not sure if they still do it, but in my day, there was the Western Undergraduate Exchange. I think out of staters from WA, ID, OR, and WY(?) paid 150% of in-state tuition instead of double, or something like that. It might've been grades-based.

So some type of discounting is not an entirely foreign concept.

You'll also likely recall that when you and I were in school, one or more economics classes introduced and built on the term Opportunity Cost, the forgone benefit that would have been derived from an option not chosen. Not allowing for these kinds of opportunities isn't helpful for the institution or the student, in the long run. And while I'm not advocating for every kid to be let it for any reason, I do feel like there's a potential for increasing enrollments and revenues, at an institution close to both our hearts, without too much muss or fuss and perhaps finding reciprocal agreements with those other states to benefit Montana kids looking for specific programs as well.

 

[uofmman1122]

So you're just talking out of your ass here about how we're wasting scholarships on frontier players, and you're too chicken shit to say which players you don't think are good enough to be on the team.

With Vidlak and McDowell coming in, Brown likely is getting a partial at best. If you're basing this (IMO dumb) opinion about Montana kids on anything other than Kris Brown's maybe scholarship, I'm all ears.

Again, we've gone through the "let's get more out of state players" from 2015-2018, and the roster was worse. It's not some magic antidote to losing games.

Totally agree, but I think a good portion of the "why" was the "who" not the "where". We had some really good out-of-state skill position players come in during that timeframe but seemed to neglect the LOS.

Yeah, it's not a perfect example, but I feel like with the more out of state strategy, you're going to have to make even more tradeoffs in your roster after a certain point. Tradeoffs that I don't think are any different had you just accepted Montana kids at that level, instead. These Montana kids can also become stars and still be okay getting partial scholly money, which I know was a big reason Bobby's 2000's teams performed so well. (TBF, not without some ruffled feathers at times)

I absolutely do believe there's an amount of Montana kids on our roster that gives diminishing returns, but I don't think we're at that number under Bobby.

 

[uofmman1122]

I'm not sure if they still do it, but in my day, there was the Western Undergraduate Exchange. I think out of staters from WA, ID, OR, and WY(?) paid 150% of in-state tuition instead of double, or something like that. It might've been grades-based.

So some type of discounting is not an entirely foreign concept.

You'll also likely recall that when you and I were in school, one or more economics classes introduced and built on the term Opportunity Cost, the forgone benefit that would have been derived from an option not chosen. Not allowing for these kinds of opportunities isn't helpful for the institution or the student, in the long run. And while I'm not advocating for every kid to be let it for any reason, I do feel like there's a potential for increasing enrollments and revenues, at an institution close to both our hearts, without too much muss or fuss and perhaps finding reciprocal agreements with those other states to benefit Montana kids looking for specific programs as well.

Above and beyond football, an in-state tuition agreement between us and other northwest states would be hugely beneficial to our institution, IMO.

 

[Spanky2]

Why aren’t we talking about Kris Brown? I don’t have a list of scholarship kids. Do you? There were two partials listed a few days ago. They are legacy recruits so maybe we don’t count them?

So you're just talking out of your ass here about how we're wasting scholarships on frontier players, and you're too chicken poop to say which players you don't think are good enough to be on the team.

With Vidlak and McDowell coming in, Brown likely is getting a partial at best. If you're basing this (IMO dumb) opinion about Montana kids on anything other than Kris Brown's maybe scholarship, I'm all ears.

Again, we've gone through the "let's get more out of state players" from 2015-2018, and the roster was worse. It's not some magic antidote to losing games.

The last I checked, we are a FCS school, not NAIA. Do you agree? We have 47-51 Montana kids on the roster. How many of those kids do you think are FCS caliber kids? 15? 20? You and Helena get back to me.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

So you're just talking out of your ass here about how we're wasting scholarships on frontier players, and you're too chicken poop to say which players you don't think are good enough to be on the team.

With Vidlak and McDowell coming in, Brown likely is getting a partial at best. If you're basing this (IMO dumb) opinion about Montana kids on anything other than Kris Brown's maybe scholarship, I'm all ears.

Again, we've gone through the "let's get more out of state players" from 2015-2018, and the roster was worse. It's not some magic antidote to losing games.

The last I checked, we are a FCS school, not NAIA. Do you agree? We have 47-51 Montana kids on the roster. How many of those kids do you think are FCS caliber kids? 15? 20? You and Helena get back to me.

Again, you are missing the entire point. And just for shitz and giggles, how many of those kids at the bottom of the roster at a FBS school are really FBS caliber kids, you know, the ones that were also recruited hard by FCS schools? Can't wait for you to get back to me.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

I can’t believe that we still every year have the out of state vs in state kids conversation in regards to D1 football.

I don’t care where the hell a kid comes from as long as he gives us the best chance to win. When it happens to be a kid from Montana it makes it even cooler. And we’re lucky enough that over the years we’ve had plenty of them.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Just for an adder, there are roughly 97 kids on the current Griz roster and they are allowed 63 FTE scholarships. That means there is the equivalent of 34 kids over the limit. This is why the in-state number is inflated, because you can only split the money so many ways.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I think this is a good idea, but I'd argue that the base level of skill and talent we're looking at from borderline D1 guys in Montana isn't any different from the borderline D1 guys from any other state. We might be scraping the bottom of a barrel for Montana kids, but we're just scraping the bottom of a much bigger barrel for out of state guys we want to walk on. Most of said guys can walk on in-state for cheaper than it costs to walk on at UM. The ones we lure away are the ones that probably get rejected from walking on to in-state FCS schools.

I just think it's a lot harder than what Spanky is suggesting, and his flippant attitude towards the majority of our in-state guys rubs me the wrong way.

I don't disagree with your thinking re: scraping the bottom of a bigger barrel. My point was more that because the barrel is bigger by a massive margin, we might be able to target better walk-ons or even small partials in that barrel.

Rough numbers for tuition/fees between UM (out-of-state) and the three BSC teams in CA (in-state):

UM out of state: 15,xxx (EDIT: I think this number might be way off. If so disregard post, haha)
Cal-Poly in state: 11,xxx (a difference of 4k)
Sac State in state: 8,xxx (a difference of 7k)
Davis: 15,xxx (a difference of about nothing)

Now, I'm not advocating that we should only try to get walk-ons from the above schools' walk-on pool.
But, academics and geography aside, the sheer size of the barrel could produce interesting results. I think at least some would want to play in a program with our facilities and support over those schools. I do agree with your overall points.

I'm still much more interested in the flipside. The guys who get offered PWOs at San Diego State/SJSU/Fresno/Oregon State/etc. I think those guys could be better players. Could it be possible to develop a strategy where we offer them just enough of a scholarship to make UM cheaper? Then, mom and dad get to say their boy is on a DI football scholarship. Trust me, it's a huge (and annoying) talking point.

The other thing with the finances that I've disagreed with some (not you) on is that out-of-state recruits won't commit to UM on anything less than a full ride. One thing I've learned about living here is that one shouldn't assume everyone is the same. There are simply too many good players and not enough spots in state. They have to go somewhere, and we should have our eyes open. I know a lot of CA natives who want something different for college, athletics aside. Just thinking while I'm typing.

EDIT: Holy sh*t, this is a long post. It shouldn't be read by anyone. My apologies to the board.

 

[Spanky2]

Just for an adder, there are roughly 97 kids on the current Griz roster and they are allowed 63 FTE scholarships. That means there is the equivalent of 34 kids over the limit. This is why the in-state number is inflated, because you can only split the money so many ways.

Ok. I wonder why Idaho only has 21 Idaho kids on their roster? Maybe their AD isn’t in the know?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Just for an adder, there are roughly 97 kids on the current Griz roster and they are allowed 63 FTE scholarships. That means there is the equivalent of 34 kids over the limit. This is why the in-state number is inflated, because you can only split the money so many ways.

Ok. I wonder why Idaho only has 21 Idaho kids on their roster? Maybe their AD isn’t in the know?

Spanky, so?

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I think this is a good idea, but I'd argue that the base level of skill and talent we're looking at from borderline D1 guys in Montana isn't any different from the borderline D1 guys from any other state. We might be scraping the bottom of a barrel for Montana kids, but we're just scraping the bottom of a much bigger barrel for out of state guys we want to walk on. Most of said guys can walk on in-state for cheaper than it costs to walk on at UM. The ones we lure away are the ones that probably get rejected from walking on to in-state FCS schools.

I just think it's a lot harder than what Spanky is suggesting, and his flippant attitude towards the majority of our in-state guys rubs me the wrong way.

I don't disagree with your thinking re: scraping the bottom of a bigger barrel. My point was more that because the barrel is bigger by a massive margin, we might be able to target better walk-ons or even small partials in that barrel.

Rough numbers for tuition/fees between UM (out-of-state) and the three BSC teams in CA (in-state):

UM out of state: 15,xxx
Cal-Poly in state: 11,xxx (a difference of 4k)
Sac State in state: 8,xxx (a difference of 7k)
Davis: 15,xxx (a difference of about nothing)

Now, I'm not advocating that we should only try to get walk-ons from the above schools' walk-on pool.
But, academics and geography aside, the sheer size of the barrel could produce interesting results. I think at least some would want to play in a program with our facilities and support over those schools. I do agree with your overall points.

I'm still much more interested in the flipside. The guys who get offered PWOs at San Diego State/SJSU/Fresno/Oregon State/etc. I think those guys could be better players. Could it be possible to develop a strategy where we offer them just enough of a scholarship to make UM cheaper? Then, mom and dad get to say their boy is on a DI football scholarship. Trust me, it's a huge (and annoying) talking point.

The other thing with the finances that I've disagreed with some (not you) on is that out-of-state recruits won't commit to UM on anything less than a full ride. One thing I've learned about living here is that one shouldn't assume everyone is the same. There are simply too many good players and not enough spots in state. They have to go somewhere, and we should have our eyes open. I know a lot of CA natives who want something different for college, athletics aside. Just thinking while I'm typing.

EDIT: Holy sh*t, this is a long post. It shouldn't be read by anyone. My apologies to the board.

CDA, I think an issue that makes it difficult to compare published tuition is that the in-house accounting may not use that same figure. I am certain that UM charges the athletic department the full-cost, but am pretty sure that Idaho doesn't for example.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

https://govandals.com/sports/football/roster

I just went and looked at the Idaho roster, and I noticed that some players have a link under there name taking you to a NIL page

https://opendorse.com/profile/jermaine-jackson?from=idaho-vandals

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I don't disagree with your thinking re: scraping the bottom of a bigger barrel. My point was more that because the barrel is bigger by a massive margin, we might be able to target better walk-ons or even small partials in that barrel.

Rough numbers for tuition/fees between UM (out-of-state) and the three BSC teams in CA (in-state):

UM out of state: 15,xxx
Cal-Poly in state: 11,xxx (a difference of 4k)
Sac State in state: 8,xxx (a difference of 7k)
Davis: 15,xxx (a difference of about nothing)

Now, I'm not advocating that we should only try to get walk-ons from the above schools' walk-on pool.
But, academics and geography aside, the sheer size of the barrel could produce interesting results. I think at least some would want to play in a program with our facilities and support over those schools. I do agree with your overall points.

I'm still much more interested in the flipside. The guys who get offered PWOs at San Diego State/SJSU/Fresno/Oregon State/etc. I think those guys could be better players. Could it be possible to develop a strategy where we offer them just enough of a scholarship to make UM cheaper? Then, mom and dad get to say their boy is on a DI football scholarship. Trust me, it's a huge (and annoying) talking point.

The other thing with the finances that I've disagreed with some (not you) on is that out-of-state recruits won't commit to UM on anything less than a full ride. One thing I've learned about living here is that one shouldn't assume everyone is the same. There are simply too many good players and not enough spots in state. They have to go somewhere, and we should have our eyes open. I know a lot of CA natives who want something different for college, athletics aside. Just thinking while I'm typing.

EDIT: Holy sh*t, this is a long post. It shouldn't be read by anyone. My apologies to the board.

CDA, I think an issue that makes it difficult to compare published tuition is that the in-house accounting may not use that same figure. I am certain that UM charges the athletic department the full-cost, but am pretty sure that Idaho doesn't for example.

Yeah, I edited. I double checked and found about seven different numbers for out of state tuition/fees for UM in 2022-2023 alone. :lol: And none of the other schools mentioned if it was for the academic year or per semester. Bad study by yours truly.

 

[wbtfg]

"If we could offer in-state tuition to Idaho and Washington kids".

So it sounds like a structural problem. Montana is hamstrung by any number of financial and geographic constraints that aren't there for comparable state schools in the region. Is there leadership or the political will to address these challenges/opportunities with the appropriate legislation, or figure out a method of paying for discounted tuition (which shouldn't be an issue of any kind). FCOA would be too much to ask. While it may change the composition of the football team, I'd also suspect discounted tuition would be an attractive option for regional kids who don't play sports and are looking for good schools. Somehow North and South Dakota have this figured out. Minnesota and Wisconsin have a receiprocal agreement. Is Montana able to do so? Or is it just better for everyone to focus on withdrawing from the American Library Association?

Or maybe, just adjust expectations? Which is likely what many have already done.

I'm not sure if they still do it, but in my day, there was the Western Undergraduate Exchange. I think out of staters from WA, ID, OR, and WY(?) paid 150% of in-state tuition instead of double, or something like that. It might've been grades-based.

WUE is becoming increasingly more competitive, to the point where some schools no longer offer, or it's only offered to students in certain degree programs. It looks like UM requires at least a 3.9 high school GPA to be offered a WUE award.

https://www.umt.edu/admissions/costs_aid/scholarships/wue.php

 

[uofmman1122]

I think this is a good idea, but I'd argue that the base level of skill and talent we're looking at from borderline D1 guys in Montana isn't any different from the borderline D1 guys from any other state. We might be scraping the bottom of a barrel for Montana kids, but we're just scraping the bottom of a much bigger barrel for out of state guys we want to walk on. Most of said guys can walk on in-state for cheaper than it costs to walk on at UM. The ones we lure away are the ones that probably get rejected from walking on to in-state FCS schools.

I just think it's a lot harder than what Spanky is suggesting, and his flippant attitude towards the majority of our in-state guys rubs me the wrong way.

I don't disagree with your thinking re: scraping the bottom of a bigger barrel. My point was more that because the barrel is bigger by a massive margin, we might be able to target better walk-ons or even small partials in that barrel.

Rough numbers for tuition/fees between UM (out-of-state) and the three BSC teams in CA (in-state):

UM out of state: 15,xxx (EDIT: I think this number might be way off. If so disregard post, haha)
Cal-Poly in state: 11,xxx (a difference of 4k)
Sac State in state: 8,xxx (a difference of 7k)
Davis: 15,xxx (a difference of about nothing)

Now, I'm not advocating that we should only try to get walk-ons from the above schools' walk-on pool.
But, academics and geography aside, the sheer size of the barrel could produce interesting results. I think at least some would want to play in a program with our facilities and support over those schools. I do agree with your overall points.

I'm still much more interested in the flipside. The guys who get offered PWOs at San Diego State/SJSU/Fresno/Oregon State/etc. I think those guys could be better players. Could it be possible to develop a strategy where we offer them just enough of a scholarship to make UM cheaper? Then, mom and dad get to say their boy is on a DI football scholarship. Trust me, it's a huge (and annoying) talking point.

The other thing with the finances that I've disagreed with some (not you) on is that out-of-state recruits won't commit to UM on anything less than a full ride. One thing I've learned about living here is that one shouldn't assume everyone is the same. There are simply too many good players and not enough spots in state. They have to go somewhere, and we should have our eyes open. I know a lot of CA natives who want something different for college, athletics aside. Just thinking while I'm typing.

EDIT: Holy sh*t, this is a long post. It shouldn't be read by anyone. My apologies to the board.

Nah, I absolutely prefer the longer posts that generate more discussion. Don't worry about that!

I think in theory a lot of what you're saying is true. The competition is better in CA and WA, for example, so the fringe players should be better on average (in theory).

We don't really have an in-practice example, apart from the recruiting efforts we did from 2015-2017, and looking back on those classes, there were a bunch of out of state guys that were partials/walk-ons that ended up leaving. Now, that could have been the coach, I can't say, but the ones that stuck around tended to be in-state guys. I don't know if those players left because they weren't good enough, or because perhaps they didn't want to be at UM for some other reason, but it looked like even with that out of state effort, the Montana kids stuck more than the others did.

I absolutely think we can convince out of state kids to commit to partial scholarships, although I'm less sure those partial guys are gonna want to stick around on partials if they aren't cracking the 2-deep.

This IMO is far more productive a discussion than just blanketing our Montana kids as Frontier players that shouldn't be on the team.

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

I think this is a good idea, but I'd argue that the base level of skill and talent we're looking at from borderline D1 guys in Montana isn't any different from the borderline D1 guys from any other state. We might be scraping the bottom of a barrel for Montana kids, but we're just scraping the bottom of a much bigger barrel for out of state guys we want to walk on. Most of said guys can walk on in-state for cheaper than it costs to walk on at UM. The ones we lure away are the ones that probably get rejected from walking on to in-state FCS schools.

I just think it's a lot harder than what Spanky is suggesting, and his flippant attitude towards the majority of our in-state guys rubs me the wrong way.

I don't disagree with your thinking re: scraping the bottom of a bigger barrel. My point was more that because the barrel is bigger by a massive margin, we might be able to target better walk-ons or even small partials in that barrel.

Rough numbers for tuition/fees between UM (out-of-state) and the three BSC teams in CA (in-state):

UM out of state: 15,xxx (EDIT: I think this number might be way off. If so disregard post, haha)
Cal-Poly in state: 11,xxx (a difference of 4k)
Sac State in state: 8,xxx (a difference of 7k)
Davis: 15,xxx (a difference of about nothing)

Now, I'm not advocating that we should only try to get walk-ons from the above schools' walk-on pool.
But, academics and geography aside, the sheer size of the barrel could produce interesting results. I think at least some would want to play in a program with our facilities and support over those schools. I do agree with your overall points.

I'm still much more interested in the flipside. The guys who get offered PWOs at San Diego State/SJSU/Fresno/Oregon State/etc. I think those guys could be better players. Could it be possible to develop a strategy where we offer them just enough of a scholarship to make UM cheaper? Then, mom and dad get to say their boy is on a DI football scholarship. Trust me, it's a huge (and annoying) talking point.

The other thing with the finances that I've disagreed with some (not you) on is that out-of-state recruits won't commit to UM on anything less than a full ride. One thing I've learned about living here is that one shouldn't assume everyone is the same. There are simply too many good players and not enough spots in state. They have to go somewhere, and we should have our eyes open. I know a lot of CA natives who want something different for college, athletics aside. Just thinking while I'm typing.

EDIT: Holy sh*t, this is a long post. It shouldn't be read by anyone. My apologies to the board.

I'm always here for long and thoughtful posts. Best discussion on the board in a while, and I, for one, have enjoyed reading it even if I don't have a lot to contribute to this discussion. Keep up with the long and thoughtful posts.