Statement from Jeremy Calhoun

[retiredpopo]

I hope this doesn't lead to Justin leaving as well.

No reason in the world that Justin will leave over this. Two different kids.

 

[retiredpopo]

I'm on a work break and haven't read anything. I'm sure some are bashing Hauck. To those people, what you don't know are the ways Calhoun did himself in and crossed a few lines. He didn't hold up with class attendance, questionable decisions off the field, and borderline grades. Hauck absolutely made the right decision. Calhoun's decisions led to all this. Now accept that and get off Hauck's ass.

rule, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious as to how you know about the kids academic record? That is confidential information. And I will add that if ANYONE who is employed by the University of Montana, including a member of the football coaching staff shared with you Jeremy's academic record, they could get in a ALOT of trouble.

seems like some of his classmates and teammates might be privy to his grades and attendance.

 

[PlayerRep]

Jeremy Calhoun is a liar.

This is one hundred percent on him, his actions. I am glad his brother is nothing like him and will stay with his teammates next year and contribute. At least one of them gets what it means to be a team player.

I'm curious. What is Jeremy lying about?

 

[Dutch Lane]

I think the new rule will lend to many of these type situations in the future for all schools. The Clemson qb that loss his job this year, decided to quit the team rather than be asked to play in 5 games or more. Within 5 years these type situations will be in the news even more.

I agree.

Schools and coaches (who rountinely quit on their teams when they take better jobs without a second thought about the guys they recruited) have had student/athletes by the balls for decades. Now that the ncaa has finally changed one rule that gives the players some bargaining power over their individual situtations, how can that be a bad thing?

Maybe it will force the coaches to be a little more pragmatic in how players are treated. That’s a nice way of saying maybe now they can’t be pricks everyday of the week.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think the new rule will lend to many of these type situations in the future for all schools. The Clemson qb that loss his job this year, decided to quit the team rather than be asked to play in 5 games or more. Within 5 years these type situations will be in the news even more.

I agree.

Schools and coaches (who rountinely quit on their teams when they take better jobs without a second thought about the guys they recruited) have had student/athletes by the balls for decades. Now that the ncaa has finally changed one rule that gives the players some bargaining power over their individual situtations, how can that be a bad thing?

Maybe it will force the coaches to be a little more pragmatic in how players are treated. That’s a nice way of saying maybe now they can’t be pricks everyday of the week.

How does the 4 game no redshirt rule do this? I don't understand your post.

 

[Dutch Lane]

Example, Kelly Bryant sat two years behind Deshaun Watson then starts in 2017 and leads Clemson to the playoffs eventually losing to Alabama in the first round. He starts the first four games of 2018 and they are 4-0 when Dabo benches him for a true freshman. He will graduate this year he decides to walk after 4 games because they already burned his redshirt year when he sat behind Watson. I would wager that Dabo now wishes he had both Bryant and Lawrence for the playoffs. Kind of like Saban being moved to tears because he knows he has both Tua and Hurts again for another championship run and will mostly likely need them both to win it again.

Under the old rule Dabo doesn’t have to give it much thought or Bryant any deference as a career 14-2 starter because he would be stuck behind Lawrence anyway his last year of eligibility. If Dabo had been more “pragmatic” and not simply benched him, but let him continue to start and maybe give him less snaps as the season progressed, maybe he would still be there for the playoffs. Just my take on the new rule which I like because it also of course gives redshirt freshmen 4 games.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I'm on a work break and haven't read anything. I'm sure some are bashing Hauck. To those people, what you don't know are the ways Calhoun did himself in and crossed a few lines. He didn't hold up with class attendance, questionable decisions off the field, and borderline grades. Hauck absolutely made the right decision. Calhoun's decisions led to all this. Now accept that and get off Hauck's ass.

rule, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious as to how you know about the kids academic record? That is confidential information. And I will add that if ANYONE who is employed by the University of Montana, including a member of the football coaching staff shared with you Jeremy's academic record, they could get in a ALOT of trouble.

seems like some of his classmates and teammates might be privy to his grades and attendance.

Doesn't take much to know about anyone's attendance. I am sure some teammates were in classes with him, and were well aware how often any of their fellow teammates missed. Hell, I'm not privy to attendance records at my job, but I guarantee, I pay attention on who is there and who isn't. It's pretty damn simple to just observe, who is there or not.

As for grades, I don't know what professors can or can't do at the U of M. Can a professor penalize students by lowering their grades after so many absences and/or tardies? If so, the 2 would go hand in hand. I am sure fellow students could figure out close to what other student's grades are.

 

[SoldierGriz]

Example, Kelly Bryant sat two years behind Deshaun Watson then starts in 2017 and leads Clemson to the playoffs eventually losing to Alabama in the first round. He starts the first four games of 2018 and they are 4-0 when Dabo benches him for a true freshman. He will graduate this year he decides to walk after 4 games because they already burned his redshirt year when he sat behind Watson. I would wager that Dabo now wishes he had both Bryant and Lawrence for the playoffs. Kind of like Saban being moved to tears because he knows he has both Tua and Hurts again for another championship run and will mostly likely need them both to win it again.

Under the old rule Dabo doesn’t have to give it much thought or Bryant any deference as a career 14-2 starter because he would be stuck behind Lawrence anyway his last year of eligibility. If Dabo had been more “pragmatic” and not simply benched him, but let him continue to start and maybe give him less snaps as the season progressed, maybe he would still be there for the playoffs. Just my take on the new rule which I like because it also of course gives redshirt freshmen 4 games.

Clemson is in the final 4. Bryant will start for Missouri next year. Win-win. I am certain all parties have moved on....unlike us keyboard arm-chair quarterbacks.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

Jeremy Calhoun is a liar.

This is one hundred percent on him, his actions. I am glad his brother is nothing like him and will stay with his teammates next year and contribute. At least one of them gets what it means to be a team player.

Please can the crap. Whatever happened, happened. You were not there. I was not there. It is done. There is no need to put your speculative crap on a student. Let it go weedhopper. :ugeek:

 

[Dillon]

If Bobby wasn't such a hardass idiot, he'd take him back & give him a full scholarship for next year. We've already lost the '18 season, no reason to let a great player like that go for the '19 season. Bobby already lost Jensen, now Calhoun. He should swallow his pride & do what's best for the team.

Hauck did what's best for the team in his mind & I would assume other Griz coaches!

 

[horribilisfan8184]

...don't come to the coach right before the important last 2 games of the season and request/demand a redshirt

I would think that might depend on whether it was communicated as a request or a demand. So, which was it?

I don't think it matters, for purposes of what I said. But if it was request, and was denied, wouldn't he has stayed on the team. Seems like it must have been closer to a demand.

My only question: Because it was speculated on here as early, and then seriously after the game 6 (loss), whether the team should consider redshirting Jeremy after his 4th game if the playoff chances were dead, and after game 7 (loss) the consensus seemed to be they were dead, and many were rooting for that outcome, was this actually part of the coaches meetings well before the last two games? I can't believe it wasn't at least informally tossed around inside the brain trust. Both Hauck and Calhoun agree Hauck's response was an immediate "no", not let me think about it or talk to the OC and RB coaches, suggesting he had already decided what he would do if it came up, also implying he expected it to come up. If my hunches are correct, then my only criticism of Hauck is why it wasn't handled earlier in a manner which would have kept the situation off the gossip boards.

 

[EverettGriz]

If Bobby wasn't such a hardass idiot, he'd take him back & give him a full scholarship for next year. We've already lost the '18 season, no reason to let a great player like that go for the '19 season. Bobby already lost Jensen, now Calhoun. He should swallow his pride & do what's best for the team.

Hauck did what's best for the team in his mind & I would assume other Griz coaches!

That's fine. I agree that Bobby likely made what he believed was the best decision (although the entire point of the thread is to debate that very question. Many believe Hauck made a decision that was best for Hauck and damaging to the team). But in either event, the point many are making is this: even if it was clearly the best decision, Hauck could have and should have handled the situation much better and much more professionally. The messaging and communication could have improved markedly.

Hauck's biggest weaknesses during his first tenure were poor communication and (for lack of a better term) crisis management. Sometimes a leader has to make difficult decisions. We all get that. But a true leader leaves everyone firmly believing in the decision. BH has the opposite tendency.

 

[grizindabox]

Example, Kelly Bryant sat two years behind Deshaun Watson then starts in 2017 and leads Clemson to the playoffs eventually losing to Alabama in the first round. He starts the first four games of 2018 and they are 4-0 when Dabo benches him for a true freshman. He will graduate this year he decides to walk after 4 games because they already burned his redshirt year when he sat behind Watson. I would wager that Dabo now wishes he had both Bryant and Lawrence for the playoffs. Kind of like Saban being moved to tears because he knows he has both Tua and Hurts again for another championship run and will mostly likely need them both to win it again.

Under the old rule Dabo doesn’t have to give it much thought or Bryant any deference as a career 14-2 starter because he would be stuck behind Lawrence anyway his last year of eligibility. If Dabo had been more “pragmatic” and not simply benched him, but let him continue to start and maybe give him less snaps as the season progressed, maybe he would still be there for the playoffs. Just my take on the new rule which I like because it also of course gives redshirt freshmen 4 games.

Just me, but I don't think Dabo is giving his decision a second thought.

 

[PlayerRep]

If Bobby wasn't such a hardass idiot, he'd take him back & give him a full scholarship for next year. We've already lost the '18 season, no reason to let a great player like that go for the '19 season. Bobby already lost Jensen, now Calhoun. He should swallow his pride & do what's best for the team.

Hauck did what's best for the team in his mind & I would assume other Griz coaches!

That's fine. I agree that Bobby likely made what he believed was the best decision (although the entire point of the thread is to debate that very question. Many believe Hauck made a decision that was best for Hauck and damaging to the team). But in either event, the point many are making is this: even if it was clearly the best decision, Hauck could have and should have handled the situation much better and much more professionally. The messaging and communication could have improved markedly.

Hauck's biggest weaknesses during his first tenure were poor communication and (for lack of a better term) crisis management. Sometimes a leader has to make difficult decisions. We all get that. But a true leader leaves everyone firmly believing in the decision. BH has the opposite tendency.

Small point. How was the decision best for Hauck and damaging for the team? I don't understand.

 

[EverettGriz]

If Bobby wasn't such a hardass idiot, he'd take him back & give him a full scholarship for next year. We've already lost the '18 season, no reason to let a great player like that go for the '19 season. Bobby already lost Jensen, now Calhoun. He should swallow his pride & do what's best for the team.

Hauck did what's best for the team in his mind & I would assume other Griz coaches!

That's fine. I agree that Bobby likely made what he believed was the best decision (although the entire point of the thread is to debate that very question. Many believe Hauck made a decision that was best for Hauck and damaging to the team). But in either event, the point many are making is this: even if it was clearly the best decision, Hauck could have and should have handled the situation much better and much more professionally. The messaging and communication could have improved markedly.

Hauck's biggest weaknesses during his first tenure were poor communication and (for lack of a better term) crisis management. Sometimes a leader has to make difficult decisions. We all get that. But a true leader leaves everyone firmly believing in the decision. BH has the opposite tendency.

Small point. How was the decision best for Hauck and damaging for the team? I don't understand.

Me either. You'd have to ask Hauck that question.

 

[Ursa Major]

Jeremy Calhoun is a liar.

This is one hundred percent on him, his actions. I am glad his brother is nothing like him and will stay with his teammates next year and contribute. At least one of them gets what it means to be a team player.

This! I couldn't agree more. Jeremy reminds me of a former poster here named Steve Dill. Just a lying, worthless, miscreant fuck that shouldn't be allowed to be associated with the University of Montana.

 

[PlayerRep]

Hauck did what's best for the team in his mind & I would assume other Griz coaches!

That's fine. I agree that Bobby likely made what he believed was the best decision (although the entire point of the thread is to debate that very question. Many believe Hauck made a decision that was best for Hauck and damaging to the team). But in either event, the point many are making is this: even if it was clearly the best decision, Hauck could have and should have handled the situation much better and much more professionally. The messaging and communication could have improved markedly.

Hauck's biggest weaknesses during his first tenure were poor communication and (for lack of a better term) crisis management. Sometimes a leader has to make difficult decisions. We all get that. But a true leader leaves everyone firmly believing in the decision. BH has the opposite tendency.

Small point. How was the decision best for Hauck and damaging for the team? I don't understand.

Me either. You'd have to ask Hauck that question.

Hauck doesn't believe that. Who are the "many" you said believe that? And why do they believe it? I assume you didn't just make this up?

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

That's fine. I agree that Bobby likely made what he believed was the best decision (although the entire point of the thread is to debate that very question. Many believe Hauck made a decision that was best for Hauck and damaging to the team). But in either event, the point many are making is this: even if it was clearly the best decision, Hauck could have and should have handled the situation much better and much more professionally. The messaging and communication could have improved markedly.

Hauck's biggest weaknesses during his first tenure were poor communication and (for lack of a better term) crisis management. Sometimes a leader has to make difficult decisions. We all get that. But a true leader leaves everyone firmly believing in the decision. BH has the opposite tendency.

Small point. How was the decision best for Hauck and damaging for the team? I don't understand.

Me either. You'd have to ask Hauck that question.

Hauck doesn't believe that. Who are the "many" you said believe that? And why do they believe it? I assume you didn't just make this up?

How is this difficult to understand.....Jeremy comes to Hauck and asks him to sit out games, in the most important stretch of the season to extend his career at Montana.....it probably took Bobby 2 minutes to ponder these questions...

Is Jeremy a good RB? YES
Has he done everything off the field that I expect of my players? NO
Has he been performing in the classroom as I expect my players to do so? NO
Have I had to discipline him more than once for his actions off the field? YES
Has this kid really shown me anything that he deserves for me to help him out extending his career here? NO
Is he helping his team by sitting out the end of the season? NO

Easy decision, hes not worth the extra effort, hes not worth Bobby giving him special help with this, Bobby owes him nothing.

 

[AZDoc]

Small point. How was the decision best for Hauck and damaging for the team? I don't understand.

Me either. You'd have to ask Hauck that question.

Hauck doesn't believe that. Who are the "many" you said believe that? And why do they believe it? I assume you didn't just make this up?

How is this difficult to understand.....Jeremy comes to Hauck and asks him to sit out games, in the most important stretch of the season to extend his career at Montana.....it probably took Bobby 2 minutes to ponder these questions...

Is Jeremy a good RB? YES
Has he done everything off the field that I expect of my players? NO
Has he been performing in the classroom as I expect my players to do so? NO
Have I had to discipline him more than once for his actions off the field? YES
Has this kid really shown me anything that he deserves for me to help him out extending his career here? NO
Is he helping his team by sitting out the end of the season? NO

Easy decision, hes not worth the extra effort, hes not worth Bobby giving him special help with this, Bobby owes him nothing.

Agree with this. Probably very close to his thought process. For the record, initially I thought it was a terrible decision, but looking at it, I'm sure he's used that scholarship in his mind already. Yes, may help next year, but someone may step up and take the position over anyway. It's good for multiple reasons as well. need to balance the scholarships, get a (sometimes/possible) distraction away from the team. Who knows, but I think it's the right call after thinking about it.

 

[Ursa Major]

Small point. How was the decision best for Hauck and damaging for the team? I don't understand.

Me either. You'd have to ask Hauck that question.

Hauck doesn't believe that. Who are the "many" you said believe that? And why do they believe it? I assume you didn't just make this up?

How is this difficult to understand.....Jeremy comes to Hauck and asks him to sit out games, in the most important stretch of the season to extend his career at Montana.....it probably took Bobby 2 minutes to ponder these questions...

Is Jeremy a good RB? YES
Has he done everything off the field that I expect of my players? NO
Has he been performing in the classroom as I expect my players to do so? NO
Have I had to discipline him more than once for his actions off the field? YES
Has this kid really shown me anything that he deserves for me to help him out extending his career here? NO
Is he helping his team by sitting out the end of the season? NO

Easy decision, hes not worth the extra effort, hes not worth Bobby giving him special help with this, Bobby owes him nothing.

Zactly! Bobby has a history of making well thought out adult decisions.

Griz coach Bobby Hauck ripped on ESPN.com
Gazette News Service Oct 21, 2009
MISSOULA - University of Montana football coach Bobby Hauck is making news on ESPN, but not necessarily the kind of news Griz fans want to see.

ESPN college football reporter Pat Forde blasted Hauck in this week's edition of "The Dash," which is Forde's weekly column on espn.com. Forde called Hauck "The Bum of the first half of the season" for his treatment of The Kaimin, UM's student newspaper.

"Nobody likes a bully, and that's what Hauck has been to an easy target - the student paper at the school," wrote Forde, who continued "Hauck has retaliated at a story in the paper, The Kaimin, about an alleged assault of a student by two football players. He has publicly belittled its reporters, refused to answer questions from the paper and the players have followed suit by declining to comment to Kaimin staffers."

The school newspaper published a news story last month on an alleged assault outside a fraternity earlier this year by two Griz football players on a UM student, who required medical attention. While the incident went unreported to local authorities, some UM officials were made aware of the situation, including Hauck, who punished the athletes internally and contacted the victim's father.

Since the story was published, Hauck and his players have been giving the Kaimin the silent treatment.

At a recent weekly news conference, a Kaimin reporter asked Hauck whether he was going to continue rotating quarterbacks.

"You want something from me now?" replied Hauck. "You've got to be kidding me."

A Missoulian sportswriter immediately followed up with the same question, to which Hauck provided an answer.

At the following week's news conference, the Kaimin reporter again asked a question - this one on how the Grizzly defense would defend against the speed of an opposing running back.

Hauck's reply: "I'll give you this, you're persistent. Who's next?"

After a recent practice, a student reporter asked a question of a player, who replied that he "wasn't allowed to talk to the Kaimin," the school newspaper reported.

UM officials strongly deny that claim, saying the athletes decided among themselves not to talk.