• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

UM Head Coach Options - Hypothetical Speaking

Missoula223
For the most part, I do think some type of Montana tie is important, although it doesn’t have to be directly related to UM.
Click to expand...

Why? I think this is one of those egriz hand-me-downs that continue to plague the program. In the same vein as hiring a new coach will take years to bring about change and get "his guys". Did Vigen have ties to Montana because he seems to be just fine, in fact somewhat better, than BH at recruiting MT kids? Is it because it actually takes years or can we take a look at what Eck has done in Idaho. Maybe some traditions might go like 37 which in my opiinon would be a good thing. Either you embrace change or you don't but if you are satisfied with BH and his Montana ties and embracing Montana tradition then I would respectfully suggest you are part of the problem and not the solution.
 
I personally think it would be worth having a conversation with Andy Thompson. There needs to be some sort of tie to UM to help with familiarity in my opinion.
 
sdk.catfish said:
Missoula223
For the most part, I do think some type of Montana tie is important, although it doesn’t have to be directly related to UM.
Click to expand...

Why? I think this is one of those egriz hand-me-downs that continue to plague the program. In the same vein as hiring a new coach will take years to bring about change and get "his guys". Did Vigen have ties to Montana because he seems to be just fine, in fact somewhat better, than BH at recruiting MT kids? Is it because it actually takes years or can we take a look at what Eck has done in Idaho. Maybe some traditions might go like 37 which in my opiinon would be a good thing. Either you embrace change or you don't but if you are satisfied with BH and his Montana ties and embracing Montana tradition then I would respectfully suggest you are part of the problem and not the solution.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Burn it all down...get to winning programs ASAP.
 
bigtyme

I personally think it would be worth having a conversation with Andy Thompson. There needs to be some sort of tie to UM to help with familiarity in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be difficult here but why? Many many coaches with no ties to the programs they took over have been successful. Did Saban have ties to Alabama? I can't find any but I might be wrong.
 
bigtyme said:
I personally think it would be worth having a conversation with Andy Thompson. There needs to be some sort of tie to UM to help with familiarity in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Any Montana tie in should be considered a bonus at best, not a requirement. This is how we got Pease who literally has been fired from every OC job he has had. We need to get out of that way of thinking it limits us too much and potentially will keep us from hiring the best candidate available. Who gives a damn if he doesn't have a connection to Montana if he is the best choice/chance to actually RTD.
 
Oldschoolhornet said:
Pretty hard to believe at this point Andy Thompson would leave Sac State for the Griz job. I could be wrong but I seriously doubt it.
Click to expand...

Family lives here. Could be a reason.
 
SoldierGriz said:
sdk.catfish said:
Why? I think this is one of those egriz hand-me-downs that continue to plague the program. In the same vein as hiring a new coach will take years to bring about change and get "his guys". Did Vigen have ties to Montana because he seems to be just fine, in fact somewhat better, than BH at recruiting MT kids? Is it because it actually takes years or can we take a look at what Eck has done in Idaho. Maybe some traditions might go like 37 which in my opiinon would be a good thing. Either you embrace change or you don't but if you are satisfied with BH and his Montana ties and embracing Montana tradition then I would respectfully suggest you are part of the problem and not the solution.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Burn it all down...get to winning programs ASAP.
Click to expand...
Forget the cost of doing that. UM in floating in cash. Get real.
 
I’ve never been a CFB coach or an AD. That said, if a change is going to be made, I’d prefer a guy with California, Texas, or Southeast ties. I don’t really give a shit if the dude knows how to elk hunt, fly fish, or be friends with the mayor of Havre if it means we can get players from those areas.
 
kemajic said:
SoldierGriz said:
Exactly. Burn it all down...get to winning programs ASAP.
Click to expand...
Forget the cost of doing that. UM in floating in cash. Get real.
Click to expand...

Why would ANYONE ever trust a word you post here? Very, very few have been more wrong about Hauck 2.0 than you. You are the Assistant BH fluffer.

Get real. Get smarter.
 
sdk.catfish said:
Missoula223
For the most part, I do think some type of Montana tie is important, although it doesn’t have to be directly related to UM.
Click to expand...

Why? I think this is one of those egriz hand-me-downs that continue to plague the program. In the same vein as hiring a new coach will take years to bring about change and get "his guys". Did Vigen have ties to Montana because he seems to be just fine, in fact somewhat better, than BH at recruiting MT kids? Is it because it actually takes years or can we take a look at what Eck has done in Idaho. Maybe some traditions might go like 37 which in my opiinon would be a good thing. Either you embrace change or you don't but if you are satisfied with BH and his Montana ties and embracing Montana tradition then I would respectfully suggest you are part of the problem and not the solution.
Click to expand...

I’m part of the problem because I prefer guys that are close to the region that we are going to recruit? Do you not think it’s important to have previous connections to a region?

The HC at Davidson has done a great job over the last 6 years. Should we hire him? Been out east his whole life.
 
SoldierGriz said:
sdk.catfish said:
Why? I think this is one of those egriz hand-me-downs that continue to plague the program. In the same vein as hiring a new coach will take years to bring about change and get "his guys". Did Vigen have ties to Montana because he seems to be just fine, in fact somewhat better, than BH at recruiting MT kids? Is it because it actually takes years or can we take a look at what Eck has done in Idaho. Maybe some traditions might go like 37 which in my opiinon would be a good thing. Either you embrace change or you don't but if you are satisfied with BH and his Montana ties and embracing Montana tradition then I would respectfully suggest you are part of the problem and not the solution.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Burn it all down...get to winning programs ASAP.
Click to expand...

Regional ties, especially what I would imagine will be a first time HC has value. Eck had coached at Idaho before, and Vigen was at Wyoming and ND for his whole career. Literally Montanas two neighboring states. You’re crazy if you don’t think so.
 
Missoula223 said:
SoldierGriz said:
Exactly. Burn it all down...get to winning programs ASAP.
Click to expand...

Regional ties, especially what I would imagine will be a first time HC has value. Eck had coached at Idaho before, and Vigen was at Wyoming and ND for his whole career. Literally Montanas two neighboring states. You’re crazy if you don’t think so.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that...I disagree with retaining or holding over any of the current coaches.
 
I think a regional tie in terms of understanding the recruiting region is a great quality, but not a requirement. You can hire assistants and recruiting staff familiar with those areas that can bridge any gap there might be if a new head coach is not from the area. Recruiting is recruiting, as long as you wind up in front of the right kids, its pretty much the same everywhere you go. Doesn't matter if the head coach knows the hot spots or if the recruiting coordinator does, its all the same.

My gripe with purposely seeking and hiring someone with Montana ties is the AD and more so the boosters wanting someone they have an "in" with so their voice can be heard. It muddies up the water and adds a bunch of unwarranted pressure to perform. Far to many meddling boosters at UM who don't know a damn thing about football, coaching, or hiring a coach.
 
Missoula223 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 5:59 am

Regional ties, especially what I would imagine will be a first time HC has value. Eck had coached at Idaho before, and Vigen was at Wyoming and ND for his whole career. Literally Montanas two neighboring states. You’re crazy if you don’t think so.
Click to expand...

Well, I do believe that ND and Idaho neighbor Montana so I don't want to be called crazy. I don't understand the relevence however. My problem with Montana ties thing being a mandatory criteria is that it restricts options for us to get the best coast in a fair and competive hire. Contrary to the popular opinion, and thankfully, the NCAA has never carved out recruiting teritories for each institution, with UM's being MT, CA, ID, WA and OR. Minneapolis is somewhat closer to Missoula than LA. We all saw what those midwest boys from Ferris brought to the table at a division below us. So don't just throw coaches like Vigen out of the process just because they have mid-west ties and not west coast ties. And from what I can see from the last couple of years current west coast and Montana recruits aren't really standing out from their competition. All i'm saying is its time to throw out some of these myths that keep getting carried down and take a new approach if that is required to attract the most qualified canidates. But UM could still win out and all this talk will be moot.
 
sdk.catfish said:
Missoula223 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 5:59 am

Regional ties, especially what I would imagine will be a first time HC has value. Eck had coached at Idaho before, and Vigen was at Wyoming and ND for his whole career. Literally Montanas two neighboring states. You’re crazy if you don’t think so.
Click to expand...

Well, I do believe that ND and Idaho neighbor Montana so I don't want to be called crazy. I don't understand the relevence however. My problem with Montana ties thing being a mandatory criteria is that it restricts options for us to get the best coast in a fair and competive hire. Contrary to the popular opinion, and thankfully, the NCAA has never carved out recruiting teritories for each institution, with UM's being MT, CA, ID, WA and OR. Minneapolis is somewhat closer to Missoula than LA. We all saw what those midwest boys from Ferris brought to the table at a division below us. So don't just throw coaches like Vigen out of the process just because they have mid-west ties and not west coast ties. And from what I can see from the last couple of years current west coast and Montana recruits aren't really standing out from their competition. All i'm saying is its time to throw out some of these myths that keep getting carried down and take a new approach if that is required to attract the most qualified canidates. But UM could still win out and all this talk will be moot.
Click to expand...

I think the only real point I tried to make was a coach having ties to areas that montana is going to recruit. Some of the names I listed don’t have any direct montana ties. Jerry Neuheisel would be one of my top picks. No montana ties. But is a top recruiter in California and Texas and nationally quite frankly. I said Tyler Roehl as well. No Montana ties, but is certainly close to the state of montana. With that being said, I don’t know how much success we would have trying to pull guys from Minneapolis when that region has 2 premier FCS schools in such close proximity. And the obvious counterpoint to that would be the guys on MSUs roster, however i would say those are anecdotal and the likelihood of that happening wouldn’t be worth our time. Do you disagree? If a Minneapolis kid has an NDSU offer, an SDSU offer, and a UM offer, do you feel good about getting them? If they don’t have those offers, we may not want them.

I guess i don’t understand how wanting recruiting ties to the region that Montana will successfully recruit is diagnosed as being part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top