"Winning the state" in recruiting

[Gaeilge1]

Havgrizfan, that is exactly the point I am making. I grew up in Helena watching Carroll College and have followed the Frontier Conference like you have for many years, going back to when Eastern was still playing football. I also appreciate the fact that the Frontier Conference gives Montana athletes a chance to play at a collegiate level.

The point is that this debate always focuses not so much on talent but on numbers. You always hear one fan base justify its Montana-ness, (if that's not a word it ought a be), by stating they have more Montana kids on their roster than the other one has. If that is the measure, both the Griz and Cat's get continually trounced in instate recruiting.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

I just spent the 4th weekend at Flathead Lake, and one of the guys staying with us used to be a head football coach for a Missoula high school. We discussed the recruiting Montana thing at length. He maintains that there are only about 2-4 kids in most years in the entire state that are worth recruiting at the FCS level. He makes a good point, which is why I have always advocated a goal to sign the top 5 high school kids from Montana each year. I have NEVER been into just signing a bunch of Montana kids who are not capable of starting. In fact, a head coach should only sign kids who he thinks have a very good chance to start. He will miss on quite a few, but if he never "reaches" on marginal kids, he will develop a great team, with lots of depth, and be able to re-tool each season like NDSU does. This is what we must strive to do...... re-tool every year, just like in years past.

 

[grizindabox]

I just spent the 4th weekend at Flathead Lake, and one of the guys staying with us used to be a head football coach for a Missoula high school. We discussed the recruiting Montana thing at length. He maintains that there are only about 2-4 kids in most years in the entire state that are worth recruiting at the FCS level. He makes a good point, which is why I have always advocated a goal to sign the top 5 high school kids from Montana each year. I have NEVER been into just signing a bunch of Montana kids who are not capable of starting. In fact, a head coach should only sign kids who he thinks have a very good chance to start. He will miss on quite a few, but if he never "reaches" on marginal kids, he will develop a great team, with lots of depth, and be able to re-tool each season like NDSU does. This is what we must strive to do...... re-tool every year, just like in years past.

There may or may not only be 2-4 FCS level kids each year.....which by your method means signing the top 5 would be a waste since there are not 5.....but your thought is flawed.....it is very worthwhile to bring in as many Montana kids as you can....of course you want to use as few scholarships as possible to do it...but it is the scatter gun approach....the more you bring in the increased chance that you hit.....I am sure I don't have to name all the kids that turned into good players for the Griz that would never have been a part of the program if a coach was dumb enough to recruit using your philosophy......

 

[Raider]

I just spent the 4th weekend at Flathead Lake, and one of the guys staying with us used to be a head football coach for a Missoula high school. We discussed the recruiting Montana thing at length. He maintains that there are only about 2-4 kids in most years in the entire state that are worth recruiting at the FCS level. He makes a good point, which is why I have always advocated a goal to sign the top 5 high school kids from Montana each year. I have NEVER been into just signing a bunch of Montana kids who are not capable of starting. In fact, a head coach should only sign kids who he thinks have a very good chance to start. He will miss on quite a few, but if he never "reaches" on marginal kids, he will develop a great team, with lots of depth, and be able to re-tool each season like NDSU does. This is what we must strive to do...... re-tool every year, just like in years past.

Interesting. That basically contradicts every post you have ever made on this subject.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I just spent the 4th weekend at Flathead Lake, and one of the guys staying with us used to be a head football coach for a Missoula high school. We discussed the recruiting Montana thing at length. He maintains that there are only about 2-4 kids in most years in the entire state that are worth recruiting at the FCS level. He makes a good point, which is why I have always advocated a goal to sign the top 5 high school kids from Montana each year. I have NEVER been into just signing a bunch of Montana kids who are not capable of starting. In fact, a head coach should only sign kids who he thinks have a very good chance to start. He will miss on quite a few, but if he never "reaches" on marginal kids, he will develop a great team, with lots of depth, and be able to re-tool each season like NDSU does. This is what we must strive to do...... re-tool every year, just like in years past.

Interesting. That basically contradicts every post you have ever made on this subject.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[brewskis]

I just spent the 4th weekend at Flathead Lake, and one of the guys staying with us used to be a head football coach for a Missoula high school. We discussed the recruiting Montana thing at length. He maintains that there are only about 2-4 kids in most years in the entire state that are worth recruiting at the FCS level. He makes a good point, which is why I have always advocated a goal to sign the top 5 high school kids from Montana each year. I have NEVER been into just signing a bunch of Montana kids who are not capable of starting. In fact, a head coach should only sign kids who he thinks have a very good chance to start. He will miss on quite a few, but if he never "reaches" on marginal kids, he will develop a great team, with lots of depth, and be able to re-tool each season like NDSU does. This is what we must strive to do...... re-tool every year, just like in years past.

Interesting. That basically contradicts every post you have ever made on this subject.

He's watching this next recruiting cycle blow his argument out of the water, so he's in the process of framing a new agenda upon which to bitch about through the next year and into next spring.

 

[Umista]

Recruiting the best is strictly in the eyes of the beholder. Period!
I always laugh when I hear Montana folks claim we should have more Montana kids in our program.
I laugh even louder when I hear the talk about rich out of staters owning ranches in Montana. Like it is a big problem having wealthy folks invade our state...
The endless stupidity of folks with such absurd thoughts makes their silly thoughts spin around and around.

So what are my stupid recruiting thoughts? I want us to get young men and women from other countries! A slick soccer kicker would fit our needs for kicking right now. A few girls should play for Selvigs basketball team. And guys for the mens basketball team. Track-Softball-Soccer-Volleyball could all stand to gain.

In my view, winning the "recruiting question" is silly but of course we all entertain ourselves, it's like drinking booze.

 

[UMGriz75]

In my view, winning the "recruiting question" is silly but of course we all entertain ourselves, it's like drinking booze.

It's interesting. Montanans, who spend a lot on these programs, naturally want to see Montanan's succeed. But, like "affirmative action," the idea of recruiting people for who they are rather than what they can do most often leads to the opposite result: failure and the burden of failure for someone who might otherwise thrive in a different environment.

It's also interesting, on the basketball side, no one raises any issues over Martin Breunig, Fabijan Krslovic or Jack Lopez being on the team; they are viewed as exciting and valuable additions. Similarly, everyone was cheering for home-town boy Riley Bradshaw, but it just wasn't working for him here despite terrific talent. He will now likely finish his collegiate career at Rocky being the natural team leader that he is, and leading off the bench every game. Nobody's grumbling about it, but seeing it as a positive all the way around.

 

[Grizfan-24]

Winning the state is a tool for boosters, message boards, and recruitment. Sell the 'brand.' Make people feel all warm and cuddly inside. Pack the seats. Get people all hot and bothered. Momentum. Choate, and my experience with him while at BSU, he could be in marketing as well. Maybe the best face of the coaching staff Petersen had at Boise. He is going to be a great face for MSU. The proof will be in the pudding in fall as to whether his coaching chops match his salesman skills.

Honestly, I appreciate what publications, Payton, Vim do, but they are largely for us. I don't think recruiting lists, stars mean much. I guess they do in the sense that most people agree that a kid was a stud on the high school field, and maybe he has an increased chance of doing to same on the college field by the number of stars.

There is way too much evidence, especially in the case of Montana high school recruiting, that lists and rankings aren't the best indicator of future success. Honestly, you can spend time recruiting who people think you should recruit and you are going to have some pretty crappy results on the field.

I'll use Alabama as an example, they had a bevy of two and three star scout/rivals kids over the past few years. Sort of odd when you consider they could pretty much have anyone they wanted. A few on their OL and a few other places both offensively and defensively weren't 'blue chippers.' The point is you can have 25 5 star guys or the best the state of Montana could offer, it isn't gonna matter if they don't fit.

Plus with Montana there frankly aren't the numbers to support hoarding as many athletes as you can get. I don't think total means as much as your ability to identify the kids (on or off the radar) that can help the program. They aren't going to be all 4 year stars, but you need to see in a kid who can provide something in the short or long term. That is on coaching to see the talent and then developing it, regardless of where they are from. Honestly from a coaching perspective, it would be great those lists didn't exist because it takes away baggage and undo pressure from a players and coaching perspective.

Winning the "state' and selling the 'brand' really come down to what you do with the talent you do have. Winning football games, beating your rival soundly, and going places in the playoffs means more than winning recruiting battles.

 

[VimSince03]

Winning the state is a tool for boosters, message boards, and recruitment. Sell the 'brand.' Make people feel all warm and cuddly inside. Pack the seats. Get people all hot and bothered. Momentum. Choate, and my experience with him while at BSU, he could be in marketing as well. Maybe the best face of the coaching staff Petersen had at Boise. He is going to be a great face for MSU. The proof will be in the pudding in fall as to whether his coaching chops match his salesman skills.

Honestly, I appreciate what publications, Payton, Vim do, but they are largely for us. I don't think recruiting lists, stars mean much. I guess they do in the sense that most people agree that a kid was a stud on the high school field, and maybe he has an increased chance of doing to same on the college field by the number of stars.

There is way too much evidence, especially in the case of Montana high school recruiting, that lists and rankings aren't the best indicator of future success. Honestly, you can spend time recruiting who people think you should recruit and you are going to have some pretty crappy results on the field.

I'll use Alabama as an example, they had a bevy of two and three star scout/rivals kids over the past few years. Sort of odd when you consider they could pretty much have anyone they wanted. A few on their OL and a few other places both offensively and defensively weren't 'blue chippers.' The point is you can have 25 5 star guys or the best the state of Montana could offer, it isn't gonna matter if they don't fit.

Plus with Montana there frankly aren't the numbers to support hoarding as many athletes as you can get. I don't think total means as much as your ability to identify the kids (on or off the radar) that can help the program. They aren't going to be all 4 year stars, but you need to see in a kid who can provide something in the short or long term. That is on coaching to see the talent and then developing it, regardless of where they are from. Honestly from a coaching perspective, it would be great those lists didn't exist because it takes away baggage and undo pressure from a players and coaching perspective.

Winning the "state' and selling the 'brand' really come down to what you do with the talent you do have. Winning football games, beating your rival soundly, and going places in the playoffs means more than winning recruiting battles.

Another well said post.

 

[AZGrizFan]

In my view, winning the "recruiting question" is silly but of course we all entertain ourselves, it's like drinking booze.

It's interesting. Montanans, who spend a lot on these programs, naturally want to see Montanan's succeed. But, like "affirmative action," the idea of recruiting people for who they are rather than what they can do most often leads to the opposite result: failure and the burden of failure for someone who might otherwise thrive in a different environment.

It's also interesting, on the basketball side, no one raises any issues over Martin Breunig, Fabijan Krslovic or Jack Lopez being on the team; they are viewed as exciting and valuable additions. Similarly, everyone was cheering for home-town boy Riley Bradshaw, but it just wasn't working for him here despite terrific talent. He will now likely finish his collegiate career at Rocky being the natural team leader that he is, and leading off the bench every game. Nobody's grumbling about it, but seeing it as a positive all the way around.

Mmmm....while I agree with the first paragraph, I don't agree with the 2nd. There's been plenty of grumbling on the basketball board over the past couple years as the number of Montana-born players has dwindled....

edit: and I don't want to derail this thread, which has been a good read so far.

 

[UMGriz75]

[
Mmmm....while I agree with the first paragraph, I don't agree with the 2nd. There's been plenty of grumbling on the basketball board over the past couple years as the number of Montana-born players has dwindled....

Yes, there's been some grumbling, but as I have been reading it, much of the fall-off has been due to declining basketball interest or capabilities in Montana High Schools.

Wayne Tinkle tried very hard to recruit "Montana," and did a credible job -- one of the best recruiting coaches I have seen in terms of personal style and engagement with the kids. I really admire how careful he was at following the kids in their high school careers, and following up important games with phone calls the next day. After Fish fumbled it, Wayne got DeJong just because he was the only coach to call during DeJong's senior year the day after he broke his leg in football, and it looked like his athletic career might be over. Offering encouragement. That kid will never forget that. He was a terrific coach that way.

But, his biggest successes were still with kids not just from "somewhere else, " but often a different "continent somewhere else."

I don't have a sense of DeCuire yet. This staff is probably the least connected to "Montana" from a recruiting perspective as any in years. But, is the talent out there to recruit?

Stitt has a well-engaged Montana staff, and Montana still produces plenty of good football players, producing some of the best, frankly, in terms of Montana's population.

But therein is the rub. Looking to population centers with 4-5 times the population of the whole state of Montana, there are higher levels of rivalries; a longer statistical distribution of talent, and often deeper immersion in the sport. Montana kids still play football, basketball, track, go hunting, and buck bales. Some of these city kids just play basketball, or just football. It's their way "out."

"When in doubt," pick the Montana kid. "When not in doubt," pick the talent.

 

[AZGrizFan]

All true.

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

[
Mmmm....while I agree with the first paragraph, I don't agree with the 2nd. There's been plenty of grumbling on the basketball board over the past couple years as the number of Montana-born players has dwindled....

Yes, there's been some grumbling, but as I have been reading it, much of the fall-off has been due to declining basketball interest or capabilities in Montana High Schools.

Wayne Tinkle tried very hard to recruit "Montana," and did a credible job -- one of the best recruiting coaches I have seen in terms of personal style and engagement with the kids. I really admire how careful he was at following the kids in their high school careers, and following up important games with phone calls the next day. After Fish fumbled it, he got DeJong just because he was the only coach to call during DeJong's senior year the day after he broke his leg in football, and it looked like his athletic career might be over. Offering encouragement. He was a terrific coach that way.

But, his biggest successes were still with kids not just from "somewhere else, " but often a different "continent somewhere else."

I don't have a sense of DeCuire yet. This staff is probably the least connected to "Montana" from a recruiting perspective as any in years. But, is the talent out there to recruit?

Stitt has a well-engaged Montana staff, and Montana still produces plenty of good football players, producing some of the best, frankly, in terms of Montana's population.

But therein is the rub. Looking to population centers with 4-5 times the population of the whole state of Montana, there are higher levels of rivalries; a longer statistical distribution of talent, and often deeper immersion in the sport. Montana kids still play football, basketball, track, go hunting, and buck bales. Some of these city kids just play basketball, or just football. It's their way "out."

"When in doubt," pick the Montana kid. "When not in doubt," pick the talent.

Really good post.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Stitt has a well-engaged Montana staff, and Montana still produces plenty of good football players, producing some of the best, frankly, in terms of Montana's population.

Yep. Montana ranks 4th in the NATION WRT players in the NFL on a per-capita basis...

California
Texas
Louisiana
Montana

The obviously didn't all play for Montana, but doesn't change the fact that, on a per capita basis, Montana produces a LOT of football players.

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

Stitt has a well-engaged Montana staff, and Montana still produces plenty of good football players, producing some of the best, frankly, in terms of Montana's population.

Yep. Montana ranks 4th in the NATION WRT players in the NFL on a per-capita basis...

California
Texas
Louisiana
Montana

The obviously didn't all play for Montana, but doesn't change the fact that, on a per capita basis, Montana produces a LOT of football players.

It also works out to our benefit that many of these kids fly under the radar. Getting back to 24's point, the whole "win the state" thing is mostly just marketing, but I do really believe that the emphasis on in-state recruits is based more on the amount of historical success the programs have had by getting those players than it is making fans happy with the demographic makeup of the roster. The funny thing is that many of those players probably weren't considered the top recruits in the state when they came on, but coaches had the relationships and were able to identify talent and potential on these kids. They are also able to bring these kids on at a discount either through partials or even as PWO as they don't have to compete as much against other D1 programs like they might on the out-of-state kids that come in on the price of a full scholly. They don't always pan out, but its a lower risk, and the results from the list you provided prove to be worth the effort.

 

[UMGriz75]

I might add this point.

If circumstances are so limiting that a sport can only recruit from a local area; Montana would be a good one and a capable coach could put together a very credible NAIA team, as they often do.

Montana has been able, however, to exploit a key advantage, "program recognition." That's how successful programs grow and sustain: utilize their competitive advantage to recruit ever-better players and levels of talent.

I cannot imagine a competitive coach, program or school walking away from that very-hard-to-reach competitive advantage.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

I just spent the 4th weekend at Flathead Lake, and one of the guys staying with us used to be a head football coach for a Missoula high school. We discussed the recruiting Montana thing at length. He maintains that there are only about 2-4 kids in most years in the entire state that are worth recruiting at the FCS level. He makes a good point, which is why I have always advocated a goal to sign the top 5 high school kids from Montana each year. I have NEVER been into just signing a bunch of Montana kids who are not capable of starting. In fact, a head coach should only sign kids who he thinks have a very good chance to start. He will miss on quite a few, but if he never "reaches" on marginal kids, he will develop a great team, with lots of depth, and be able to re-tool each season like NDSU does. This is what we must strive to do...... re-tool every year, just like in years past.

Interesting. That basically contradicts every post you have ever made on this subject.

Raider, you have been hanging around these hacks too long. Don't be a dick like them. You know very well that I only want the Top 5 Montana high school recruits. How many times do I have to post it before you will stop mis-quoting me and feeding the lemmings?

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

Winning the state is a tool for boosters, message boards, and recruitment. Sell the 'brand.' Make people feel all warm and cuddly inside. Pack the seats. Get people all hot and bothered. Momentum. Choate, and my experience with him while at BSU, he could be in marketing as well. Maybe the best face of the coaching staff Petersen had at Boise. He is going to be a great face for MSU. The proof will be in the pudding in fall as to whether his coaching chops match his salesman skills.

Honestly, I appreciate what publications, Payton, Vim do, but they are largely for us. I don't think recruiting lists, stars mean much. I guess they do in the sense that most people agree that a kid was a stud on the high school field, and maybe he has an increased chance of doing to same on the college field by the number of stars.

There is way too much evidence, especially in the case of Montana high school recruiting, that lists and rankings aren't the best indicator of future success. Honestly, you can spend time recruiting who people think you should recruit and you are going to have some pretty crappy results on the field.

I'll use Alabama as an example, they had a bevy of two and three star scout/rivals kids over the past few years. Sort of odd when you consider they could pretty much have anyone they wanted. A few on their OL and a few other places both offensively and defensively weren't 'blue chippers.' The point is you can have 25 5 star guys or the best the state of Montana could offer, it isn't gonna matter if they don't fit.

Plus with Montana there frankly aren't the numbers to support hoarding as many athletes as you can get. I don't think total means as much as your ability to identify the kids (on or off the radar) that can help the program. They aren't going to be all 4 year stars, but you need to see in a kid who can provide something in the short or long term. That is on coaching to see the talent and then developing it, regardless of where they are from. Honestly from a coaching perspective, it would be great those lists didn't exist because it takes away baggage and undo pressure from a players and coaching perspective.

Winning the "state' and selling the 'brand' really come down to what you do with the talent you do have. Winning football games, beating your rival soundly, and going places in the playoffs means more than winning recruiting battles.

I call bullsh*t on your Alabama analogy. First, they can't get anyone they want. They may have the #1 rated recruiting class, but there is not an FCS program in the country who doesn't have some 2-star and 3-star recruits on their team. In the case of Alabama, most of their 2-star players are simply legacy players, sons of former players, sons of big-time boosters, etc., just like signing Delaney here. They know they'll be nothing but scout team players, but just want to be able to say they played football for The Crimson Tide.

 

[Raider]

I just spent the 4th weekend at Flathead Lake, and one of the guys staying with us used to be a head football coach for a Missoula high school. We discussed the recruiting Montana thing at length. He maintains that there are only about 2-4 kids in most years in the entire state that are worth recruiting at the FCS level. He makes a good point, which is why I have always advocated a goal to sign the top 5 high school kids from Montana each year. I have NEVER been into just signing a bunch of Montana kids who are not capable of starting. In fact, a head coach should only sign kids who he thinks have a very good chance to start. He will miss on quite a few, but if he never "reaches" on marginal kids, he will develop a great team, with lots of depth, and be able to re-tool each season like NDSU does. This is what we must strive to do...... re-tool every year, just like in years past.

Interesting. That basically contradicts every post you have ever made on this subject.

Raider, you have been hanging around these hacks too long. Don't be a dick like them. You know very well that I only want the Top 5 Montana high school recruits. How many times do I have to post it before you will stop mis-quoting me and feeding the lemmings?

I realize your game is to spin and talk out of both sides of your mouth, but I’ll play along anyway.

I asked you over and over to provide specific examples of the long list of MT players we have lost to MSU to support your “we are losing the in state recruiting battle” nonsense. You managed to come up with a grand total of 3 names to support your case. 2 of the 3 don’t start, have done very little at MSU, and certainly wouldn’t start here. So, which is it?

Like always you are try to spin this any angle you can, in hopes it proves some kind of point.

You have some good football insight, but as it relates to this in state recruiting issue, you are just flat ass wrong. Period. And don’t try to spew the “I am friends with insiders who agree with me” crap. That is a non-starter.