Why recruiting is much tougher now that it used to be

[CV Griz Fan]

This theme of its harder to recruit / we don't get the same quality / FCS gaps vs FBS has been one of growler's many shtick's for years.

While a just a sample look at the amount of players the Griz have been sending to the pros in the last decade compared to the decades before that. It would suggest that Montana is either getting higher quality recruits now (which growler says isn't true) or that more NFL caliber type kids are coming to FCS programs (which growler says isn't true) or that NFL scouts are looking more at teams at the FCS level (which growler says isn't true).

This is why Growler is a good egriz poster schtick or not. He presents topics that create discussions. Although I agree with you Brint that bashing you and Obama every third post is tiresome, you gotta give Growler some credit for being provocative when it comes to football related posts. As far as past FCS talent, I don't think anybody can argue that the FCS/NFL prospects of today are as good as FCS prospects of yesteryear. There are too many former FCS/1AA players that are in the NFL HOF, or heading in that direction, to warrant a serious counter argument. As far as UM is concerned, I think you have to consider a a couple factors when you are comparing eras-

* is it a quality vs quantity thing? It would be difficult IMO to argue against Hauck, Gragg and Green as not having more SIGNIFICANT NFL careers than their more recent peers.

* where do you put the BH recruits? In the previous era or with the current crop of UM prospects? If you include his players in the previous era, then Growler's argument becomes a "slam dunk " IMO. The Griz had the FCS titles and Tittle Game appearance from those years so talent obviously was better overall. Either way, it's an excellent discussion topic.

 

[Spanky]

Stitt is going to be a first rate recruiter and will be able to attract talented student-athletes. Any conversation regarding the difficulty of recruiting as it may apply to UM is now moot. I would not want to recruit against him.

 

[getgrizzy]

Stitt is going to be a first rate recruiter and will be able to attract talented student-athletes. Any conversation regarding the difficulty of recruiting as it may apply to UM is now moot. I would not want to recruit against him.

Stitt will be a great recruiter here. He already is. If he wins the Big Sky and/or makes a deep playoff run in the next two years he's going to get picked up by a good FBS team. He has a strong desire to see his offense at the highest college level. Everyone in the business knows him. He has pro coaches calling for tips all the time. I hope he's grooming a heir apparent.

 

[Spanky]

I agree, getgrizzy. We are going to have some powerful times.

 

[Spanky]

sorry, I meant teams, but times also applys

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

This theme of its harder to recruit / we don't get the same quality / FCS gaps vs FBS has been one of growler's many shtick's for years.

While a just a sample look at the amount of players the Griz have been sending to the pros in the last decade compared to the decades before that. It would suggest that Montana is either getting higher quality recruits now (which growler says isn't true) or that more NFL caliber type kids are coming to FCS programs (which growler says isn't true) or that NFL scouts are looking more at teams at the FCS level (which growler says isn't true).

Did you even read the initial post of this thread? My post was a general one about FCS recruiting now versus the past. It had nothing to do with a focus on Montana recruiting!

I have read all of the rebuttals in this thread, and stand firmly behind my "shtick". Here are a few of my rebuttal comments aimed at multiple posts.

1) The argument that there are more quality football players now due to kids focusing only on one sport actually proves my point, since many kids who played multiple sports, including football are now out of the pool of football prospects, as they focused on other sports at the expense of playing football.

2) Wahlberg is twisting things around to attempt to make a point that I am wrong, but it is he who is wrong. There were many more FCS kids DRAFTED by the NFL from 1980 - 2005 than there were the past decade, especially the past 5 years. Yes, many more FCS kids are signed as free agents now, but the reason for that is that NFL teams are now signing waaaaay more free agents than they used to. This fact was confirmed by my NFL scouting buddy. NFL teams realize that there are a few hidden gems to be found by giving lots of kids a tryout, either by signing them as free agents, or inviting them to camp.

 

[getgrizzy]

sorry, I meant teams, but times also applys

Yes indeed. Reminds me of the Joe Glenn era.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

This theme of its harder to recruit / we don't get the same quality / FCS gaps vs FBS has been one of growler's many shtick's for years.

While a just a sample look at the amount of players the Griz have been sending to the pros in the last decade compared to the decades before that. It would suggest that Montana is either getting higher quality recruits now (which growler says isn't true) or that more NFL caliber type kids are coming to FCS programs (which growler says isn't true) or that NFL scouts are looking more at teams at the FCS level (which growler says isn't true).

Did you even read the initial post of this thread? My post was a general one about FCS recruiting now versus the past. It had nothing to do with a focus on Montana recruiting!

I have read all of the rebuttals in this thread, and stand firmly behind my "shtick". Here are a few of my rebuttal comments aimed at multiple posts.

1) The argument that there are more quality football players now due to kids focusing only on one sport actually proves my point, since many kids who played multiple sports, including football are now out of the pool of football prospects, as they focused on other sports at the expense of playing football.

2) Wahlberg is twisting things around to attempt to make a point that I am wrong, but it is he who is wrong. There were many more FCS kids DRAFTED by the NFL from 1980 - 2005 than there were the past decade, especially the past 5 years. Yes, many more FCS kids are signed as free agents now, but the reason for that is that NFL teams are now signing waaaaay more free agents than they used to. This fact was confirmed by my NFL scouting buddy. NFL teams realize that there are a few hidden gems to be found by giving lots of kids a tryout, either by signing them as free agents, or inviting them to camp.

3) Finally, the statement made that "many more high school kids are playing football than in the past" is absolutely FALSE! To the contrary, the number of kids playing high school football has dropped in recent years. Apathy, video games, being "un-cool to be a jock", and the most important reason....... parents not letting their kids play because of the focus on the long-term effects of concussions.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I do feel the number of kids playing HS football has declined over the last several years. Many class A to C MT schools have way less kids playing football. Many parents won't let kids play because of concussions and injuries.

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

Stitt is going to be a first rate recruiter and will be able to attract talented student-athletes. Any conversation regarding the difficulty of recruiting as it may apply to UM is now moot. I would not want to recruit against him.

Stitt will be a great recruiter here. He already is. If he wins the Big Sky and/or makes a deep playoff run in the next two years he's going to get picked up by a good FBS team. He has a strong desire to see his offense at the highest college level. Everyone in the business knows him. He has pro coaches calling for tips all the time. I hope he's grooming a heir apparent.

Coach Stitt will soon be highly successful here and will still be here far longer than 2 years. :twocents:

 

[PlayerRep]

For anyone who cares about actual facts. Stats for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 matched that against 1992-93.

"The 1,088,158 athletes who played on these teams in the 2012-2013 school year made football the No. 1 participation sport in the nation's high schools, according to the most recent data published by the National Federation of State High School Associations." "National Federation of State High School Associations numbers showing that high school football participation increased in the 2013-14 school year. According to the NFHS, 1,093,234 boys played 11-player football (as did 1,715 girls).

"In 1992-93, when the 12-17 population (the closest U.S. Census division to high-school age) had fallen to 21 million, the NFHS reported only 886,840 males participating in 11-player football."

Just under 1.1 million seems higher than just under 900,000, by my calculation.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

For anyone who cares about actual facts. Stats for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 matched that against 1992-93.

"The 1,088,158 athletes who played on these teams in the 2012-2013 school year made football the No. 1 participation sport in the nation's high schools, according to the most recent data published by the National Federation of State High School Associations." "National Federation of State High School Associations numbers showing that high school football participation increased in the 2013-14 school year. According to the NFHS, 1,093,234 boys played 11-player football (as did 1,715 girls).

"In 1992-93, when the 12-17 population (the closest U.S. Census division to high-school age) had fallen to 21 million, the NFHS reported only 886,840 males participating in 11-player football."

Just under 1.1 million seems higher than just under 900,000, by my calculation.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Typical lawyer-speak

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

For anyone who cares about actual facts. Stats for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 matched that against 1992-93.

"The 1,088,158 athletes who played on these teams in the 2012-2013 school year made football the No. 1 participation sport in the nation's high schools, according to the most recent data published by the National Federation of State High School Associations." "National Federation of State High School Associations numbers showing that high school football participation increased in the 2013-14 school year. According to the NFHS, 1,093,234 boys played 11-player football (as did 1,715 girls).

"In 1992-93, when the 12-17 population (the closest U.S. Census division to high-school age) had fallen to 21 million, the NFHS reported only 886,840 males participating in 11-player football."

Just under 1.1 million seems higher than just under 900,000, by my calculation.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Typical lawyer-speak

Missoula high schools are a close-and-personal example of my point. They used to produce lots of FCS talent. Now, they have to beg kids to go out for football, and the teams are routinely in the bottom of the state in rankings.

 

[BWahlberg]

For anyone who cares about actual facts. Stats for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 matched that against 1992-93.

"The 1,088,158 athletes who played on these teams in the 2012-2013 school year made football the No. 1 participation sport in the nation's high schools, according to the most recent data published by the National Federation of State High School Associations." "National Federation of State High School Associations numbers showing that high school football participation increased in the 2013-14 school year. According to the NFHS, 1,093,234 boys played 11-player football (as did 1,715 girls).

"In 1992-93, when the 12-17 population (the closest U.S. Census division to high-school age) had fallen to 21 million, the NFHS reported only 886,840 males participating in 11-player football."

Just under 1.1 million seems higher than just under 900,000, by my calculation.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Typical lawyer-speak

Missoula high schools are a close-and-personal example of my point. They used to produce lots of FCS talent. Now, they have to beg kids to go out for football, and the teams are routinely in the bottom of the state in rankings.

I've heard time and time again how poor the Missoula schools are with developing high school talent and how the middle school / pop warner / little grizzly stuff is so screwed up here. While I have no clue if they have to "beg" kids for football I think locally there's more kids playing at the FCS level (mostly Montana) than I've seen in quite a while. Even under Hauck there would just be a handful of local kids on the team, if not just one or two.

At this point there are two local kids in the NFL, let alone the FCS. I don't recall ever a time that Missoula could claim that.

The Griz have a handful of local kids who are not just there to fill the roster but are in the 2-deep and some are starting (Janssen and Peevey). as of late I've seen more local guys on the roster and actively contributing than I have in years before.

 

[PlayerRep]

This theme of its harder to recruit / we don't get the same quality / FCS gaps vs FBS has been one of growler's many shtick's for years.

While a just a sample look at the amount of players the Griz have been sending to the pros in the last decade compared to the decades before that. It would suggest that Montana is either getting higher quality recruits now (which growler says isn't true) or that more NFL caliber type kids are coming to FCS programs (which growler says isn't true) or that NFL scouts are looking more at teams at the FCS level (which growler says isn't true).

This is why Growler is a good egriz poster schtick or not. He presents topics that create discussions. Although I agree with you Brint that bashing you and Obama every third post is tiresome, you gotta give Growler some credit for being provocative when it comes to football related posts. As far as past FCS talent, I don't think anybody can argue that the FCS/NFL prospects of today are as good as FCS prospects of yesteryear. There are too many former FCS/1AA players that are in the NFL HOF, or heading in that direction, to warrant a serious counter argument. As far as UM is concerned, I think you have to consider a a couple factors when you are comparing eras-

* is it a quality vs quantity thing? It would be difficult IMO to argue against Hauck, Gragg and Green as not having more SIGNIFICANT NFL careers than their more recent peers.

* where do you put the BH recruits? In the previous era or with the current crop of UM prospects? If you include his players in the previous era, then Growler's argument becomes a "slam dunk " IMO. The Griz had the FCS titles and Tittle Game appearance from those years so talent obviously was better overall. Either way, it's an excellent discussion topic.

Can you truly not understand that the discussion is about FCS recruiting, and not about whether FCS schools produced more great NFL players than FCS does now? Jeez, even Growler is saying his initial post was about FCS recruiting in general.

 

[PlayerRep]

Just eyeballing the 1994 and 1995 NFL drafts, it looks to me that there were a few more FCS players drafted in 2015 and 2014. I didn't find compiled stats for the earlier drafts.

 

[PlayerRep]

For anyone who cares about actual facts. Stats for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 matched that against 1992-93.

"The 1,088,158 athletes who played on these teams in the 2012-2013 school year made football the No. 1 participation sport in the nation's high schools, according to the most recent data published by the National Federation of State High School Associations." "National Federation of State High School Associations numbers showing that high school football participation increased in the 2013-14 school year. According to the NFHS, 1,093,234 boys played 11-player football (as did 1,715 girls).

"In 1992-93, when the 12-17 population (the closest U.S. Census division to high-school age) had fallen to 21 million, the NFHS reported only 886,840 males participating in 11-player football."

Just under 1.1 million seems higher than just under 900,000, by my calculation.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Typical lawyer-speak

Yes, the typical lawyer looks up the stats and proves that Growler is wrong.

Almost 1.1 million kids playing high school football now (each of the 2 years of 2012 and 2013) compared to the just under 900,000 playing high school football in 1992).

Growler quote that was proven wrong: "Finally, the statement made that "many more high school kids are playing football than in the past" is absolutely FALSE! To the contrary, the number of kids playing high school football has dropped in recent years."

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

For anyone who cares about actual facts. Stats for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 matched that against 1992-93.

"The 1,088,158 athletes who played on these teams in the 2012-2013 school year made football the No. 1 participation sport in the nation's high schools, according to the most recent data published by the National Federation of State High School Associations." "National Federation of State High School Associations numbers showing that high school football participation increased in the 2013-14 school year. According to the NFHS, 1,093,234 boys played 11-player football (as did 1,715 girls).

"In 1992-93, when the 12-17 population (the closest U.S. Census division to high-school age) had fallen to 21 million, the NFHS reported only 886,840 males participating in 11-player football."

Just under 1.1 million seems higher than just under 900,000, by my calculation.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Typical lawyer-speak

Missoula high schools are a close-and-personal example of my point. They used to produce lots of FCS talent. Now, they have to beg kids to go out for football, and the teams are routinely in the bottom of the state in rankings.

I've heard time and time again how poor the Missoula schools are with developing high school talent and how the middle school / pop warner / little grizzly stuff is so screwed up here. While I have no clue if they have to "beg" kids for football I think locally there's more kids playing at the FCS level (mostly Montana) than I've seen in quite a while. Even under Hauck there would just be a handful of local kids on the team, if not just one or two.

At this point there are two local kids in the NFL, let alone the FCS. I don't recall ever a time that Missoula could claim that.

The Griz have a handful of local kids who are not just there to fill the roster but are in the 2-deep and some are starting (Janssen and Peevey). as of late I've seen more local guys on the roster and actively contributing than I have in years before.

It was predictable that you would single-out the two Missoula kids in the NFL, and once again fail to prove anything regarding my example. The Griz & Bobcats used to have 6-7 kids each on their rosters from Missoula high schools. There was about a 10-year period from 2000-2010 where the Griz had very few Missoula kids on their roster. Missoula is 4 times the size of Helena, and twice the size of Kalispell and Great Falls, yet produces far fewer FBS players than those towns.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

For anyone who cares about actual facts. Stats for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 matched that against 1992-93.

"The 1,088,158 athletes who played on these teams in the 2012-2013 school year made football the No. 1 participation sport in the nation's high schools, according to the most recent data published by the National Federation of State High School Associations." "National Federation of State High School Associations numbers showing that high school football participation increased in the 2013-14 school year. According to the NFHS, 1,093,234 boys played 11-player football (as did 1,715 girls).

"In 1992-93, when the 12-17 population (the closest U.S. Census division to high-school age) had fallen to 21 million, the NFHS reported only 886,840 males participating in 11-player football."

Just under 1.1 million seems higher than just under 900,000, by my calculation.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Typical lawyer-speak

Yes, the typical lawyer looks up the stats and proves that Growler is wrong.

Almost 1.1 million kids playing high school football now (each of the 2 years of 2012 and 2013) compared to the just under 900,000 playing high school football in 1992).

Growler quote that was proven wrong: "Finally, the statement made that "many more high school kids are playing football than in the past" is absolutely FALSE! To the contrary, the number of kids playing high school football has dropped in recent years."

I just want to post before Growler pivots his argument into something completely unrelated.

 

[Tod]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Typical lawyer-speak

Missoula high schools are a close-and-personal example of my point. They used to produce lots of FCS talent. Now, they have to beg kids to go out for football, and the teams are routinely in the bottom of the state in rankings.

I've heard time and time again how poor the Missoula schools are with developing high school talent and how the middle school / pop warner / little grizzly stuff is so screwed up here. While I have no clue if they have to "beg" kids for football I think locally there's more kids playing at the FCS level (mostly Montana) than I've seen in quite a while. Even under Hauck there would just be a handful of local kids on the team, if not just one or two.

At this point there are two local kids in the NFL, let alone the FCS. I don't recall ever a time that Missoula could claim that.

The Griz have a handful of local kids who are not just there to fill the roster but are in the 2-deep and some are starting (Janssen and Peevey). as of late I've seen more local guys on the roster and actively contributing than I have in years before.

It was predictable that you would single-out the two Missoula kids in the NFL, and once again fail to prove anything regarding my example. The Griz & Bobcats used to have 6-7 kids each on their rosters from Missoula high schools. There was about a 10-year period from 2000-2010 where the Griz had very few Missoula kids on their roster. Missoula is 4 times the size of Helena, and twice the size of Kalispell and Great Falls, yet produces far fewer FBS players than those towns.

You need to educate yourself on the populations of Montana cities.