griz success good for Cats?

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:52 am

I've read on a number of threads now where people believe that the griz doing well in the post-season is somehow good for the Bobcats in terms of exposure & recruiting...

I'm afraid I have to vehemently disagree with this. Think about it, you have a recruit who's familiar with the griz & Wagriz stadium because of this playoff run, and then the Cats & griz start recruiting you...

Like it or not, Cat fans, for the forseeable future, OUR recruits will only consist of the following types of kids:

A) Have grown up as Bobcats
B) Dislike the griz for one reason or another
C) Prefer our coaches to theirs
D) Prefer the education at MSU

If a recruit is looking ONLY at the football program and all that's involved with it (tradition, wins/losses, stadium, crowds, game-day experience, etc), the only reason he'd pick MSU over dUM is for one of the 4 reasons above. If a recruit knows ANYTHING about football in our state, it's mainly due to griz success; I have a difficult time figuring how that HELPS US.

Bay, do you really think Kramer being able to claim 2 of the last 3 would outweigh hauck being able to claim 17 of the last 19?

I don't really know how long it will take us to overcome what I believe is a huge disadvantage for us in the recruiting war but I do know that because of this, I'm even MORE impressed with the job Coach Kramer & his staff have done, winning 2 of the last 3 Big Sky titles and having us solidly in the hunt again this past season. I'm sure that recruiting against dUM from Bozeman is tougher than it was to compete with WSU & UW when Kramer was at Eastern and that's one of the reasons he left Cheney in the first place.

I posed this on another thread but I'd like to reiterate here: If Kramer had taken over the griz program 5 years ago like they wanted him to, I'm pretty sure they'd have experienced EVEN MORE success than they have. I really don't believe that hauck could have matched Kramer's success had he taken over our program 5 or even 2 seasons ago; I can barely even think about that. It would be worse than the Solomonson era...

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:07 am

Here's my view on this. Number one, I think the whole "in-state recruiting war" thing is highly overblown. Let's name some Montana players MSU was able to recruit in the recent past while the streak was still alive: Kane Ioane, Scott Turnquist, Beau Clark, Chad Gluhm, Mac Mollohan, Nick Marudas, Adam Cordeiro, etc...Kramer will recruit in-state and will bring in quality Montana players, even though UM will admittedly get most of the so-called "blue-chip" recruits with 2 star ratings on some recruiting website most people have never heard of. He'll have to bring in more out-of-state kids than he might want, but that's a necessity and as long as he still does all he can to get the Montana kids he can get, I'm fine with that.

TV exposure for 1-AA football such as we've had this year helps the 1-AA division as a whole. UM can't recruit every single player that's out there! More specfically, TV exposure and success by Big Sky teams helps ALL Big Sky teams, as coaches can sell the program as being part of one of top two or three 1-AA conferences. I've said it before, people who thought Hauck would run the UM program into the ground were very very wrong. Kramer will have to bring MSU up to UM's level rather than wait for UM to fall before things will truly be "equal" recruiting-wise, whatever that means. Given that UM isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I would argue that UM/EWU success in the playoffs helps MSU to get there, whereas a first-round playoff loss for UM wouldn't help as much.

Then again, this is coming from someone who never actively roots against UM unless it directly benefits MSU.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:47 pm

El Gato: My scenario speaks to players that UM and MSU aren't both recruiting at the same time. That would include nearly all of our out of state recruits. We aren't in direct competition with UM for recruits for probably half of our recruiting targets. For those kids, yes, UM's exposure absolutely helps us as it shows them that playing at our level as opposed to, say, walking on at Auburn, can bring some glory and isn't complete bush league.

For kids that are already familiar with I-AA football and specifically MSU and UM (which is a relatively small part of the recruting pool on a national level), clearly this theory breaks down. In those situations, UM's success is clearly and exclusively a boost to UM, if UM happens to be recruiting the same athlete we are.

I think our level of disagreement on this comes down to a half-empty/half-full difference in percpetion. I am certainly not suggesting that we are benefitting 100% as much as UM from their success. I merely stated that we can gain some residual benefit from it.

DCC2MSU · Post by **DCC2MSU** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:54 pm

Even with the run the griz are making, people will realize that both teams have a shot at playoffs every year. One other case where a recruit may choose MSU over UM is dependant on the depth of their position. If you know you won't get a shot to play for 2 or 3 years (at either school) but would have the opportunity to compete for playing time immediately at the other, it would become a strong consideration to me.

VictorG · Post by **VictorG** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 2:26 pm

DCC2MSU wrote:Even with the run the griz are making, people will realize that both teams have a shot at playoffs every year. One other case where a recruit may choose MSU over UM is dependant on the depth of their position. If you know you won't get a shot to play for 2 or 3 years (at either school) but would have the opportunity to compete for playing time immediately at the other, it would become a strong consideration to me.

VERY TRUE! Nice post!

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:42 pm

DCC2MSU wrote:Even with the run the griz are making, people will realize that both teams have a shot at playoffs every year. One other case where a recruit may choose MSU over UM is dependant on the depth of their position. If you know you won't get a shot to play for 2 or 3 years (at either school) but would have the opportunity to compete for playing time immediately at the other, it would become a strong consideration to me.

What about a case like Hartman who grey shirted with the Griz rather than signing with MSU? We did however luck out with Travis Lulay...but Hartman had no chance to play very soon fo UM...he was told he would get a chance....but disney was there, and found out different when Ochs arrived.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:22 pm

I'm guessing that the Griz didn't even have an interest in Travis. If they did, we're damn lucky we got him.

Helcat72 · Post by **Helcat72** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:06 pm

I'm saying the Hartman signed with the friz even though we might have given him a chance to play right away. Kramer said he was real interested in Hartman, however he may have given him the same "walk on and earn it" that he gave others.

DCC2MSU · Post by **DCC2MSU** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:19 pm

Didn't Cody Samuelson sign with the Cats because he wanted a chance to play right away? Not sure, but I thought that was one of his reasons.

thecitygriz · Post by **thecitygriz** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 11:18 am

the bobcats are still suffering the consequences of four events: montana hired don read; you fired sonny lubick; you failed to offer dave dickinson a full ride; we hired joe glenn. if even three of these four decisions had gone your way, the bobcats would be the dominant program in montana today.

as to recruiting, the griz run helps in-state, but actually helps you out of state. because--for every in state player we get, that's one less we can go after out of state; and out of state--as kramer has found out--most people don't know the difference between the two schools anyway, only that "montana" produces winning football teams. if you doubt this last statement, why don't you ask kramer about it. he'll set you straight.

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:41 pm

thecitygriz wrote:the bobcats are still suffering the consequences of four events: montana hired don read; you fired sonny lubick; you failed to offer dave dickinson a full ride; we hired joe glenn. if even three of these four decisions had gone your way, the bobcats would be the dominant program in montana today.

Tough to say for sure, but those things sure would have helped. So, would Dickinson have come to MSU had he been offered? Guess I hadn't heard that.

as to recruiting, the griz run helps in-state, but actually helps you out of state. because--for every in state player we get, that's one less we can go after out of state; and out of state--as kramer has found out--most people don't know the difference between the two schools anyway, only that "montana" produces winning football teams. if you doubt this last statement, why don't you ask kramer about it. he'll set you straight.

You're exacty right about the out-of-state recruits.

Regarding the Grizzly program, I'm still not sold on Bobby's ability as a head coach. Admittedly, he's looking pretty decent right now, and I've seen him do some good things, but I've seen him do some pretty dumb things too. Time will tell whether or not he's able to maintain the Grizzly dominance. I'm not convinced after 2 convincing playoff wins, but like I said, he's looking better in my book. If The Griz win the Big Sky next year, and advance deep into the playoffs again, given your graduation hit, THEN I will throw in my hat and proclaim Baby Huck a great head coach...

catbooster · Post by **catbooster** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:51 pm

I think one indirect benefit is showing the writers from the east coast that there is some good football out west. Maybe EWU should have been ranked higher and Cal-Poly should have made the playoffs. If Big Sky teams consistently do well, at-large berths may be easier to justify.

um's success provides us with some indirect benefits as you guys have mentioned above. However, it probably helps them directly more than it does us. So I think it helps us somewhat, but doesn't help us to close the gap with them (if there is still a gap

).

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:08 pm

Thanks for hitting the nail on the head.

While I agree that the Griz's success does give us some minimal, residual help, there is NO WAY that their continued success is helping us "gain on them".

We are at the crossroads in football I feel. We've made some HUGE strides forward in results (2 BSC titles), attendance, atmosphere, recognition, etc. But 7-5 and 6-5 records aren't going to move us forward.

The time has come to post a 9-2 or 10-1 record or we may be in danger of slipping BACKWARD toward mediocrity or worse. This season was definitely a setback, record-wise. Although I do feel we are in position for a good year in 2005, if we experience a similar record to this one (with our brutal schedule, not unimaginable), I'm afraid this 2 year period will have moved us a few BIG steps backward.

Whatever it takes, we need to reach that next plateau. Open your wallets, everyone, and do what you can financially to help us reach it. Between giving $$$ and screaming our lungs out at games, that's really about all we can do.

The last few years, we knocked on the door; this season, we didn't quite git on the porch; next year, we need to KNOCK THAT SUCKER OFF THE HINGES, imho... (my apologies to Bum Phillips)