The real issue with Hauck isn't player misbehavior...

[i_the_sky]

Boy are you confused! Some runny nose' little girl should not be allowed to call our football coach out, at will, (with fake news) , just to get her face plastered all over the local news! = Jimmy Wilson was kicked off the team only to be reinstated because he was innocent! She harped on this for months then he walked a free man.. There needs to be rules for corralling these self rightious, politically correct, juveniles who think they are to big for their britches!! Bobby Hauck is a damn good man and runs a very good program to think otherwise is to fool yourselves!!! Hire the man right now!!!

 

[bigsky33]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Excellent post! You really do get it!

 

[PDXGrizzly]

Lastly - anyone referring to criminal behavior during the BH regime as "scandals" needs to be band immediately.

We're starting a band? Exciting. I call the keytar.

It’s an old eGriz joke...

That aside, I understand your reservations about the player issues in the past. One of the good things to come from this decade of craziness is that there is a black and white, no nonsense written policy in regards to athlete behavior. The ambiguity is no longer present and it is completely out of the coaches hands.

As for the evolution question, is it a foregone conclusion that BH might have evolved too or are you convinced he is going to to do the same old go hum thing? What are you basing this on? What evidence do you have that it will be the same? People learn, grow, mature.

Regardless if it’s BH or the Easter Bunny as the new HC, I would hope you might give a millimeter of slack so that they can prove to Griz Nation that a good hire was made.

 

[Rxgrzz]

Nailed it!!

 

[UNImadman]

Honest question. Stitt had a fair share of players have run ins with the law. Why is it he seems to be treated with a different set of standards than Hauck, Phlugrad, Delany and the others?

Or is that not the case? Just seems that way to me, but I don't have a dog in the fight. UNI came a lot closer to beating you guys with Stitt than any other coach you guys had, so I wish you kept him.

From memory he has had players with DUIs, the deal that put the guy in ICU over in Oregon (seems like a serious deal). Had that group back before get charged with breaking and entering on a house at 3am or something that seemed serious, but was pleaded to as trespass or something less. I think that was your starting RB and a few others?

I don't follow all the legal stuff much. But it seems from my memory Stitt has had a fair share of guys in trouble also in only 3 years. Anyone got a list of Stitts trouble guys guys against Haucks? Compare apples to apples? Where would Stiits list be if he stayed as long as Hauck? I think if you are going to look at this stuff, you might as well do it objectively. But that would not make egriz as fun. lol.

Seems like the trouble is not so much with coaches, but players making stupid decisions. We had a few former UNI players that are NFL players now, come back for a game this year. Ended up at a bar, got into a huge fight. They were arrested. Is that their current coaches fault? Is that their former college football coaches fault, for somehow not instilling in them positive role modeling? I think the blame falls on them and them alone.

 

[PlayerRep]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Nope. You are wrong on virtually all points.

Most in the know do believe Hauck has good coaching, recruiting and fund-raising abilities, especially at UM.

No one in the know expects Hauck to repeat what he did previously, but almost all of those people think Hauck would take the Griz back towards the top and do it fairly quickly. UM still has good momentum, traditions and facilities, and now has the Performance Center, and, if Hauck is hired, will have plenty of willing big hitters to provide financial support.

Most people who played and understand football like wins, whether boring or not. Look at NDSU.

You have mis-analyzed Hauck. You have mis-analyzed the main reasons for the enrollment decline.

You have mischaracterized what happened under Hauck. At the house burglary, which was bad, one person, who may not have been a player, had a taser. Not sure that pistol-whipping by players is accurate in any respect. In any event, Hauck handled that by sending all of them packing. Do you thin he mishandled them?

I'm happy to explain and sometimes defend all of the legal issues, and as well as to point out all the BS and exaggerated things.

I'm fine with how Hauck dealt with the Kaimin reporter. I also saw an article from the UNLV student sports reporter who said Hauck had been very nice to him and easy to deal with. Maybe you should look at the Kaimin reporter(s), who caused the problem.

The Missoula media put huge pressure on UM, by often reporting in a biased manner, reporting rumors at times, and by putting stories on the front page, and by repeatedly "reporting" the same thing. You obviously weren't paying attention.

Hauck is now older, wiser, more experienced, a better coach, and a better recruiter. What's not to like about that.

 

[PlayerRep]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Excellent post! You really do get it!

The post is wrong in almost every major point the poster tried to make. The poster doesn't understand UM or Griz football, and appears to be living in his own fantasy world. Like you, he doesn't get it.

 

[bigsky33]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Excellent post! You really do get it!

The post is wrong in almost every major point the poster tried to make. The poster doesn't understand UM or Griz football, and appears to be living in his own fantasy world. Like you, he doesn't get it.

PR, you are wearing blinders. Haucks hiring will cause a shit show. The media will be all over it bringing up all the negatives. That's what the media does. The University does not need this. Puts
Bodnar in awkward situation as he will want to get the support of the community. This will not help him. Him pushing back at the media will be a bad move.

 

[Hawkeyebowhunter]

Boy are you confused! Some runny nose' little girl should not be allowed to call our football coach out, at will, (with fake news) , just to get her face plastered all over the local news! = Jimmy Wilson was kicked off the team only to be reinstated because he was innocent! She harped on this for months then he walked a free man.. There needs to be rules for corralling these self rightious, politically correct, juveniles who think they are to big for their britches!! Bobby Hauck is a damn good man and runs a very good program to think otherwise is to fool yourselves!!! Hire the man right now!!!

Agreed.

This site is full of a bunch of limp dick pussies.

They aren't running a presidential campaign you dumb shits. ITS FOOTBALL

2 best coaches in the game right now- Belichick and Saban- both NOTORIOUS for giving dumbshit reporters what they deserve. Good grief no wonder the team doesn't show any heart, even the damn fans are clamoring for a nice loser. WE JUST FIRED ONE OF THOSE YOU DAMN IDIOTS.

 

[jtgriz2]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Excellent post! You really do get it!

The post is wrong in almost every major point the poster tried to make. The poster doesn't understand UM or Griz football, and appears to be living in his own fantasy world. Like you, he doesn't get it.

PR, you are wearing blinders. Haucks hiring will cause a shit show. The media will be all over it bringing up all the negatives. That's what the media does. The University does not need this. Puts
Bodnar in awkward situation as he will want to get the support of the community. This will not help him. Him pushing back at the media will be a bad move.

I guess it would bigsky if you are lead by the media...my feeling is intelligent people are not. It is a source but not an end all. People who support the university I’m guessing feel the same way. I would listen to boosters and donators way ahead of what the media writes

 

[GrizBear]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Excellent post! You really do get it!

The post is wrong in almost every major point the poster tried to make. The poster doesn't understand UM or Griz football, and appears to be living in his own fantasy world. Like you, he doesn't get it.

PR, you are wearing blinders. Haucks hiring will cause a shit show. The media will be all over it bringing up all the negatives. That's what the media does. The University does not need this. Puts
Bodnar in awkward situation as he will want to get the support of the community. This will not help him. Him pushing back at the media will be a bad move.

What media? The minimum wagers at the Missoulian have this power? The "journalism" students at the Kaimin? The "Fair, Accurate, To the Pointers" at KPAX? Who? Gwen Florio?

Point is, our "media" is supposed to report ("Getting the Facts Right"). What we end up with (the shit show, in your words) is sensationalism disguised as reporting so these idiots (Gwen Florio) can make a name for themselves.

 

[PlayerRep]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Excellent post! You really do get it!

The post is wrong in almost every major point the poster tried to make. The poster doesn't understand UM or Griz football, and appears to be living in his own fantasy world. Like you, he doesn't get it.

PR, you are wearing blinders. Haucks hiring will cause a shit show. The media will be all over it bringing up all the negatives. That's what the media does. The University does not need this. Puts
Bodnar in awkward situation as he will want to get the support of the community. This will not help him. Him pushing back at the media will be a bad move.

Sure, there might be some media stuff, but it would die down or go away quickly. There isn't enough media to care about this old news now, and the Missoulian is so weak that it probably wouldn't be able to do much very long either.

It wouldn't put Bodnar in an awkward position. He's not the president yet. Jan. 1. UM and Bodnar will be interacting with the Missoulian early on in any respect. Bodnar is a huge talent. He will be able to deal with tough situations and will do very well. He's way smarter than the Missoullian and most of the rest of us.

 

[Catsrgrood]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Excellent post! You really do get it!

The post is wrong in almost every major point the poster tried to make. The poster doesn't understand UM or Griz football, and appears to be living in his own fantasy world. Like you, he doesn't get it.

In this world you’ve created for yourself, is anyone allowed an opinion? This is a damn good post with good points. Maybe you don’t agree with them, but they’re valid. But instead of saying you don’t agree, you simply tell him nope, he’s wrong.

 

[Catsrgrood]

Boy are you confused! Some runny nose' little girl should not be allowed to call our football coach out, at will, (with fake news) , just to get her face plastered all over the local news! = Jimmy Wilson was kicked off the team only to be reinstated because he was innocent! She harped on this for months then he walked a free man.. There needs to be rules for corralling these self rightious, politically correct, juveniles who think they are to big for their britches!! Bobby Hauck is a damn good man and runs a very good program to think otherwise is to fool yourselves!!! Hire the man right now!!!

I think you can do everyone a favor and sit the next few plays out. Let the keyboard rest for awhile.

 

[HookedonGriz]

You lost me at 27 paragraphs.

Cool. Thanks.

Okay my bad, I wasn't very fair earlier. That was just a long um75-like diatribe so I was skeptical. I read more of what you wrote. Your biggest point is how a coach handles these things.

Well that is pretty much completely out of the equation mow due to the new Code of Conduct. That gives certain punishment and suspensions to very specific crimes (misdemeanors, felonies, etc). So, in my mind, that is more of a moot point now. If you come play for the Griz and you cause trouble, here are the laid out consequnces of your actions. Nothing can really be swept under the rug like you're worried about.

In fact, I heard the opposite with Stitt. That there were many players who got into some minor trouble that a guy like Hauck would have had them running to the M until they puked, but Stitt just turned the other cheek. Yea that one surprised me, too. Not sure if it's true but it's out there.

You also failed to mention how bobby dealt directly with many of those players and those issues, much like the Missoulian article. Didn't Hauck kick a number of those guys off the team for serious infractions?

And I was very pro Stitt and I'll be very pro-Hauck. I'm very pro anything Grizzly. Most of all I just want this team to succeed and do well again, which means winning a lot.

 

[PlayerRep]

Going to weigh in on this because the way it's being shaped by the pro-Hauck crowd bugs me a great deal.

If you want Hauck to return, ok. On many levels, it's understandable. You want to return to an era when the Griz were successful on the field, and Hauck was the last person in charge when that happened. Personally I don't think Hauck possesses any special coaching abilities, and think Grizzly football was set up for success in that era by a number of factors, including institutional momentum (which no longer exists) but maybe you want to return to that brand of boring, but disciplined football. At least Hauck cared about playing defense and protecting his quarterback, two things Stitt seemed to think were annoying inconveniences. I don't believe Hauck will be successful again (at least not as successful as he was), but that's mostly because I believe the entire conference has evolved. Re-hiring him is a clear sign your school is trapped in the past, and that you don't trust yourself to find a dynamic coach because you whiffed on Stitt, who proved he was not nearly as smart as gushing profiles about his success at the friggen School of Mines made him out to be.

And if you're Pro-Hauck person, you're mad (so mad!) that the local media is recounting a number of things that shaped the culture of the program -- and the school -- during Bobby's tenure. You're mad mostly because you don't want to defend these things, even though no matter how hard you try, you know basic acts of criminality aren't the fault of the media (but the actual criminals).

I don't expect a football coach to babysit his players 24/7. College kids (in particular college-aged men) often do stupid things, and this is true at Montana, at Eastern Washington, at Baylor at Florida State and Clemson. You have to factor "character concerns" into recruiting, but in reality, winning is primarily what matters so if you have to gamble that you can keep a few talented bad actors in line, you'll do it. Everybody does it, from Saban on down.

What matters, though, is how you react to those misdeeds. How you handle the fallout when when of your players pistol whips a drug dealer (in order to steal and sell his drugs) or is accused of sexually assaulting a woman, or gets in a fight at a party and runs from the cops. (All things that happened under Hauck.) How a coach handles crisis is where I still have major reservations about Hauck, and don't believe he'll ever change. Whether you like the media or not, you're the most high profile (and highest paid) employee at a public university. There is a maturity and responsibility that comes with that job. Even Nick Saban is asked how he's going to handle the discipline of his players when they misbehave, and instead of throwing tantrums and acting like a child, he understands one of his jobs is to defuse the tension, not escalate it. The idea that the Missoula media puts any real pressure on the football coach is laughable when you compare it to how major programs are covered. No one benefits from the head coach throwing a tantrum and yelling at student reporters in a press conference for asking why two players aren't in the line-up when they've been involved in a fight. No one at the university benefits when you act like a child and refuse to answer questions from the same reporters for weeks, simply for daring to ask questions about how you're disciplining your football team.

Grizzly football has never been something Missoula has supported blindly. The town and the fanbase supported it, and grew to love it, because of people like Don Reed and Joe Glenn. And a big reason for that was they didn't treat it like war, they wanted the program to feel like part of the community. They didn't feud with the local media, they understood that the relationship was mutually beneficial. Grizzly athletics did not feel corporate, they felt like something you were emotionally invested in. If you don't think the deterioration of that had an eventual effect on enrollment, you're living in a total fantasy. No, Montana's enrollment issues aren't entirely related to football or the sexual assault stuff — plenty of it has to do with the long-term value of STEM degrees vs. liberal arts degrees — but they certainly played a roll. Longing to return to an era where the most high-profile employee carries himself with a snarling arrogance is not a way to fix those issues. If I were Bodnar, or the Board of Regents, I'd be very hesitant to hand the keys to an employee who seems to believe "I answer to no one, and FU if you don't like it."

If Bobby Hauck has grown from his UNLV experience and understands he can be both a hard-ass on the practice field, but handle his larger responsibilities with more charm and humility than he previously did, great. I'll be impressed. (I did enjoy the way he used to troll the Cats, mostly in good fun.) But blaming the media for Hauck's self-inflicted problems (which then contributed to the university's most pressing problems) is a foolish approach.

Excellent post! You really do get it!

The post is wrong in almost every major point the poster tried to make. The poster doesn't understand UM or Griz football, and appears to be living in his own fantasy world. Like you, he doesn't get it.

In this world you’ve created for yourself, is anyone allowed an opinion? This is a damn good post with good points. Maybe you don’t agree with them, but they’re valid. But instead of saying you don’t agree, you simply tell him nope, he’s wrong.

He is wrong. He is wrong in almost everything he has said. I provided explanation. He's welcome to express his opinion. It's a free country. He gets to say what he wants, and I get to say what I want. Telling someone they are wrong doesn't = telling them they can't express their opinion.

Okay, why don't you pick out "good point", and you and I can discuss it?

 

[Catsrgrood]

As a longtime lurker who browses this board but never posts, I felt compelled to register an account to say this is probably the best post I've ever read on eGriz. Thanks for talking sense. Unfortunately, I doubt you'll find many sympathetic ears here.

Agreed, perspective is a beautiful thing when everyone takes a step back and realizes there is more to this than just winning and losing some football games. These are 18 to 22-year-old young man playing a game trying to earn a degree, and represent the university and the state of Montana as best they can and hopefully win as many football games as possible in the process.

 

[Yossarian3345]

The post is wrong in almost every major point the poster tried to make. The poster doesn't understand UM or Griz football, and appears to be living in his own fantasy world. Like you, he doesn't get it.

I'm a UM graduate and I played Griz football for two seasons before injury (and a lack of talent) steered me toward other interests. I love the program dearly, and am weary of tough guy apologists like yourself telling me that the behavior of the head coach doesn't matter, that the media is BAD BAD BAD for merely asking questions about how he was going to handle their behavior. Adults deal with crises in a calm, mature manner instead of blaming others.

One of the Kaimin reporters Hauck screamed at for asking simple questions about why Tim Parks was still on the team after hitting his girlfriend in the head with the butt of a gun now covers the LA Lakers for the OC Register. The reporter who asked Hauck what the status was of two players who were in an off-campus fight and not starting, and was screamed at during a presser "I'm not answering your questions!" now covers the Oregon Ducks for the Oregonian. They've done just fine in their profession, and been successful at a higher level than Hauck was when he tried to go up a level. At no point was any member of the student newspaper ever seen as having handled themselves as anything other than a professional, Hauck simple did not like being challenged.

The Missoulian, in my opinion, unfairly lumped the sexual assault claim against the international exchange student in with the various sexual assault claims against Donaldson and Johnson. That attempt to create a "culture of chaos" at UM narrative struck me as entirely unfair, since I'm not sure how Hauck or the athletic department should be accountable for any decisions made by the administration. While Jimmy Wilson was charged with murder, I think it's also unfair to continue to used what happened in his situation as any kind of evidence he was a bad person since it seems clear, morally and legally, he was justified in killing a piece of shit who he felt was likely going to kill his mom and sister.

The Missoulian was not unfair, in my opinion, in writing about what happened with Coleman, Shelton and Pate, all of whom were Hauck's players and all of whom did participate in an armed robbery where they duck tapped a woman's mouth shut, her arms behind her back, beat her and her boyfriend with a pistol, and held a Tech 9 to their heads while they stole various drugs. The idea that Hauck bore no responsibility for what Coleman did is a curious one since he had previous assault charges prior to him coming to UM. Of a police officer!

I'm willing to listen to the argument that Hauck may be wiser and more at peace with who he is, able to handle the complexities of the job. He may even be a good fundraiser, which is why I suspect the old moneymen are pushing to hard for his return.

But he is an average football coach. Better than Stitt maybe, but that is not saying much. The comment about longing to date your old high school girlfriend was spot on. He had five seasons at UNLV to show us his coaching ability. UNLV may be a dumpster fire of an athletic program, but he was less successful there than Mick Dennehy was at Utah State or Glenn was at Wyoming, and they're both dumpster fire programs and no one is clambering for their return.

 

[argh!]

http://buttesports.com/bobby-hauck-tell-grizzlies-take-hike/

Maybe Bobby should say NO

Griz would be lucky to get him at this point...

that rant by a prepubescent boy was actually published?

 

[Yossarian3345]

What media? The minimum wagers at the Missoulian have this power? The "journalism" students at the Kaimin? The "Fair, Accurate, To the Pointers" at KPAX? Who? Gwen Florio?

Point is, our "media" is supposed to report ("Getting the Facts Right"). What we end up with (the shit show, in your words) is sensationalism disguised as reporting so these idiots (Gwen Florio) can make a name for themselves.

Please point to what the Kaimin/Missoulian got wrong. Be specific. I'll wait.

Don't just say "MEDIA BAD!" and put journalism in quotes like some sort of MAGA code.

Show your work.

Why was asking Hauck to comment to get his side of things unfair?