MT Players for Cats/griz

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:19 pm

To the best of my ability here are the numbers:

Total Players from MT on each roster:

MSU: 39
UM: 51

Offensive Starters:

MSU: 3
UM: 4

Defensive Starters:

MSU: 2
UM: 7

Offensive 2-Deep:

MSU: 9
UM: 10

Defensive 2-Deep:

MSU: 5
UM: 13

Special Teams:

MSU: 1 (Bolton)
UM: 2

The difference is on Defense. No difference on Offense.

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:03 pm

I don't see what the big deal is about this, anyway. Everyone knows the Griz get a majority (not all) of the best players from Montana. It makes perfect sense that they should have more playing. The way I see it, all the Griz fans who bash MSU for not playing Montana kids are just worried because they can't beat us 49-3 every year anymore. As for the off-the-field stuff, Montana players can get in trouble too...we do need to take a look at our recruting practices, both for Montana players and out-of-state ones.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:32 pm

MSU01 wrote:I don't see what the big deal is about this, anyway. Everyone knows the Griz get a majority (not all) of the best players from Montana. It makes perfect sense that they should have more playing. The way I see it, all the Griz fans who bash MSU for not playing Montana kids are just worried because they can't beat us 49-3 every year anymore. As for the off-the-field stuff, Montana players can get in trouble too...we do need to take a look at our recruting practices, both for Montana players and out-of-state ones.

Exactly! The differences are not as great as many MT's would have us believe. If you read the coments in the Billings paper after the drug bust you would think we have zero MT kids playing and UM has 100.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:33 pm

gtapp wrote:
MSU01 wrote:I don't see what the big deal is about this, anyway. Everyone knows the Griz get a majority (not all) of the best players from Montana. It makes perfect sense that they should have more playing. The way I see it, all the Griz fans who bash MSU for not playing Montana kids are just worried because they can't beat us 49-3 every year anymore. As for the off-the-field stuff, Montana players can get in trouble too...we do need to take a look at our recruting practices, both for Montana players and out-of-state ones.
Exactly! The differences are not as great as many MT's would have us believe. If you read the coments in the Billings paper after the drug bust you would think we have zero MT kids playing and UM has 100.

Exactly the reason I don't pay to read the Billings paper.

19CAT · Post by **19CAT** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:12 am

who would pay to read the jizzette.....

Cat6Fan · Post by **Cat6Fan** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:03 am

i know this doesnt make much of a difference, just one kid, but msu has 2 on special teams, bolton and fisher, plus the core of the coverage units are montana kids, as i am sure they are for the griz too. so missoula doesn't have msu beat in every category, there is a tie in special teams.

Eastcoastgriz · Post by **Eastcoastgriz** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:48 am

MSU01 wrote:I don't see what the big deal is about this, anyway. Everyone knows the Griz get a majority (not all) of the best players from Montana. It makes perfect sense that they should have more playing. The way I see it, all the Griz fans who bash MSU for not playing Montana kids are just worried because they can't beat us 49-3 every year anymore. As for the off-the-field stuff, Montana players can get in trouble too...we do need to take a look at our recruting practices, both for Montana players and out-of-state ones.

You obviously don't remember the streak very well. Many of those games were very close and could have gone either way.

SenorWeezer · Post by **SenorWeezer** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:34 am

Just Win Baby!

If the best athletes available are from out of state and that is what it takes to win, that is who the Cats should recruit...and vice versa.

bobcatmaniac · Post by **bobcatmaniac** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:40 am

Eastcoastgriz wrote:
MSU01 wrote:I don't see what the big deal is about this, anyway. Everyone knows the Griz get a majority (not all) of the best players from Montana. It makes perfect sense that they should have more playing. The way I see it, all the Griz fans who bash MSU for not playing Montana kids are just worried because they can't beat us 49-3 every year anymore. As for the off-the-field stuff, Montana players can get in trouble too...we do need to take a look at our recruting practices, both for Montana players and out-of-state ones.
You obviously don't remember the streak very well. Many of those games were very close and could have gone either way.

You said it.

LoyalCat · Post by **LoyalCat** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:45 pm

there are many other MT players on special teams:
Gazzero, Fletcher, and others also

kstack · Post by **kstack** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:04 pm

Yeah, that argument of MT kids is so lame. Junior Adams came from Oregon with a skeptical track record and he turned out alright, didn't he? Does anybody really think it's realistically possible to have a 100% clean program for the 2, 4, 6 years? I'm not trying to make an excuse for the coaching staffs or the athletics department but, especially on a football team, it's difficult to monitor 60, 70 kids and every move they make at every minute of every hour of every day of the year.

remember the SCOOP! · Post by **remember the SCOOP!** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:51 pm

Little bit off topic, but how many students go to MSU and UM are from in state?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:06 pm

kstack wrote:Yeah, that argument of MT kids is so lame. Junior Adams came from Oregon with a skeptical track record and he turned out alright, didn't he? Does anybody really think it's realistically possible to have a 100% clean program for the 2, 4, 6 years? I'm not trying to make an excuse for the coaching staffs or the athletics department but, especially on a football team, it's difficult to monitor 60, 70 kids and every move they make at every minute of every hour of every day of the year.

It's even more difficult to monitor the number of kids that are on a college football team roster (about 90-100).

kstack · Post by **kstack** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:49 pm

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. My buddy Tanner brought up a great point in saying that football coaches, when they visit a recruit's house, have a relatively short amount of time to make a very big decision. And it happens with 15-25 players per year. It's tough to get a great read on a person's makeup, and inevitably, they are going to have to take chances.
It's great to make the argument that coaches should recruit just good, wholesome kids and worry less about the talent level of a player, but that argument ignores one hard, cold fact: every football coach has the pressure from students, alumni, boosters, and the school's administration to win games. A coach won't have a job for long if games aren't won. And every coach needs talented players to win.

jhagemeister · Post by **jhagemeister** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:23 pm

kstack wrote:Yeah, that's what I'm saying. My buddy Tanner brought up a great point in saying that football coaches, when they visit a recruit's house, have a relatively short amount of time to make a very big decision. And it happens with 15-25 players per year. It's tough to get a great read on a person's makeup, and inevitably, they are going to have to take chances.
It's great to make the argument that coaches should recruit just good, wholesome kids and worry less about the talent level of a player, but that argument ignores one hard, cold fact: every football coach has the pressure from students, alumni, boosters, and the school's administration to win games. A coach won't have a job for long if games aren't won. And every coach needs talented players to win.

bpcats · Post by **bpcats** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:05 am

Here is somthing to think about

HKnee-jerk policy won’t fix problems

Some MSU fans believe the answer is simple: Recruit almost exclusively from Montana, which, they insist, is what rival Montana does.

How quickly perceptions can change in college athletics. Earlier this month, after his Montana State football team had played rival Montana tough, won a home playoff game and pushed eventual national champion Appalachian State into the fourth quarter, Mike Kramer was held in the highest regard.
His alma mater, Idaho, had him at the top of its list to replace the departed Dennis Erickson. MSU fans didn’t want to see Kramer go, but they would not begrudge him the opportunity because they were grateful that he appeared
to be leaving the program in better shape than he found it seven seasons ago. And, if Kramer decided to stay in Bozeman, the future looked darn good.
Last week, the picture wasn’t nearly so glossy. Kramer withdrew from consideration for the Idaho job — a decision encouraged by officials at that university. Now, rather than starting to rebuild a struggling Idaho program, he must begin to repair his image and that of his football program.
Kramer admitted as much on Friday when he announced that he was staying in Bozeman: “I think I have a long process ahead of me to reassure our university, our university community, the fans, the boosters, that this is not a program run amok.”
But it certainly can be perceived that way.
For the second time in six months, players with current or former connections to the program were arrested in the wake of serious crimes, including murder. On Monday, current Bobcat Andre Fuller and former players Eddie Sullivan and Derrick Davis were arrested on drug-related charges.
Kramer said the latest incident strongly influenced his decision to stay at MSU, but it also apparently cooled the interest of Idaho officials considerably.
What happens now? MSU athletic director Peter Fields said that he and Kramer will meet soon to talk about the direction of the football program. Kramer said he already is having those discussions with his assistant coaches.
Much of that will revolve around recruiting, including where the Bobcats should go to find talent.
Some MSU fans believe the answer is simple: Recruit almost exclusively from Montana, which, they insist, is what rival Montana does. That way, the reasoning goes, MSU coaches know exactly what they’re getting.
But the two programs aren’t all that different in that regard: MSU’s 2006 roster featured 42 players from Montana, while UM’s included 52.
The Bobcats had more players from California; the Grizzlies had more from Washington.
The latest arrests prompted Kramer to say last week that he will no longer recruit the state of Florida.
Two of the athletes arrested in the past six months, including Fuller, hail from that state.
It’s a knee-jerk reaction intended to placate unhappy boosters and fans in the short run, but it might not serve the long-term interests of the program. It’s never wise to shut out any potential source of talent. Even Ohio State and Texas, which draw from massive talent pools in their states, recruit elsewhere.
While players from Montana (and surrounding states) should form the foundation of MSU’s roster — and they do — there will always be a need to fill out the roster with players from other places. And coaches are always on the lookout for “separators,” players who help take a team to the next level. That might mean going to a place such as Aumsville, Ore., to find a Travis Lulay.
Trouble is, as MSU’s experience with Fuller demonstrates, recruiting is not an exact science.
By all accounts, Fuller was a model citizen in Pompano Beach, Fla. He had a strong family background and was a solid student and a team leader. He appeared to be the same person here, a team captain candidate for next season. Because of that, Kramer and several MSU players said they were stunned by Fuller’s alleged involvement. He appeared to be the kind of player around whom you could build a program, not someone who would tear it apart.
Still, it’s a huge jump from high school to college. Does a student-athlete have the smarts and heart to make it? Will he take care of business in the classroom? Can he avoid serious injury? Or, will he, as Fuller appeared to do, fall in with the wrong crowd?
Kramer said all the right things last week, promising that he and his staff will be more careful in assessing recruits. And it’s certain they will try to keep an even closer eye on players once they get to Bozeman.
But, no matter how diligent, there is only so much Kramer can control. He is coaching young men, most of whom are on their own for the first time in their lives. All of them will make decisions about their college, football and personal lives; not all choices will be good ones.
Kramer cannot monitor his players 24 hours a day, as much as he might have liked to when it came to Fuller. He is their coach, and as such he has certain responsibilities when it comes to their actions on the field, at the university and in the community. But he is not their parent, and he certainly is not their baby-sitter. They are young men, accountable for their actions.
There a simple fact about college athletics that hasn’t changed, and is not likely to: No matter how promising a student-athlete appears to be coming out of high school, there are no guarantees. There is no certainty of athletic, academic or personal success. The landscape is littered with former college athletes with everything going for them, but squandered their opportunity. There are also plenty athletes who succeed in spite of massive odds stacked against them.
The thing is, it’s hard to predict which athletes will fall where.
And that’s going to be true, whether they hail from Montana, Wyoming, California or Florida.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:31 am

bpcats wrote:Here is somthing to think about

HKnee-jerk policy won’t fix problems

Some MSU fans believe the answer is simple: Recruit almost exclusively from Montana, which, they insist, is what rival Montana does.

How quickly perceptions can change in college athletics. Earlier this month, after his Montana State football team had played rival Montana tough, won a home playoff game and pushed eventual national champion Appalachian State into the fourth quarter, Mike Kramer was held in the highest regard.
His alma mater, Idaho, had him at the top of its list to replace the departed Dennis Erickson. MSU fans didn’t want to see Kramer go, but they would not begrudge him the opportunity because they were grateful that he appeared
to be leaving the program in better shape than he found it seven seasons ago. And, if Kramer decided to stay in Bozeman, the future looked darn good.
Last week, the picture wasn’t nearly so glossy. Kramer withdrew from consideration for the Idaho job — a decision encouraged by officials at that university. Now, rather than starting to rebuild a struggling Idaho program, he must begin to repair his image and that of his football program.
Kramer admitted as much on Friday when he announced that he was staying in Bozeman: “I think I have a long process ahead of me to reassure our university, our university community, the fans, the boosters, that this is not a program run amok.”
But it certainly can be perceived that way.
For the second time in six months, players with current or former connections to the program were arrested in the wake of serious crimes, including murder. On Monday, current Bobcat Andre Fuller and former players Eddie Sullivan and Derrick Davis were arrested on drug-related charges.
Kramer said the latest incident strongly influenced his decision to stay at MSU, but it also apparently cooled the interest of Idaho officials considerably.
What happens now? MSU athletic director Peter Fields said that he and Kramer will meet soon to talk about the direction of the football program. Kramer said he already is having those discussions with his assistant coaches.
Much of that will revolve around recruiting, including where the Bobcats should go to find talent.
Some MSU fans believe the answer is simple: Recruit almost exclusively from Montana, which, they insist, is what rival Montana does. That way, the reasoning goes, MSU coaches know exactly what they’re getting.
But the two programs aren’t all that different in that regard: MSU’s 2006 roster featured 42 players from Montana, while UM’s included 52.
The Bobcats had more players from California; the Grizzlies had more from Washington.
The latest arrests prompted Kramer to say last week that he will no longer recruit the state of Florida.
Two of the athletes arrested in the past six months, including Fuller, hail from that state.
It’s a knee-jerk reaction intended to placate unhappy boosters and fans in the short run, but it might not serve the long-term interests of the program. It’s never wise to shut out any potential source of talent. Even Ohio State and Texas, which draw from massive talent pools in their states, recruit elsewhere.
While players from Montana (and surrounding states) should form the foundation of MSU’s roster — and they do — there will always be a need to fill out the roster with players from other places. And coaches are always on the lookout for “separators,” players who help take a team to the next level. That might mean going to a place such as Aumsville, Ore., to find a Travis Lulay.
Trouble is, as MSU’s experience with Fuller demonstrates, recruiting is not an exact science.
By all accounts, Fuller was a model citizen in Pompano Beach, Fla. He had a strong family background and was a solid student and a team leader. He appeared to be the same person here, a team captain candidate for next season. Because of that, Kramer and several MSU players said they were stunned by Fuller’s alleged involvement. He appeared to be the kind of player around whom you could build a program, not someone who would tear it apart.
Still, it’s a huge jump from high school to college. Does a student-athlete have the smarts and heart to make it? Will he take care of business in the classroom? Can he avoid serious injury? Or, will he, as Fuller appeared to do, fall in with the wrong crowd?
Kramer said all the right things last week, promising that he and his staff will be more careful in assessing recruits. And it’s certain they will try to keep an even closer eye on players once they get to Bozeman.
But, no matter how diligent, there is only so much Kramer can control. He is coaching young men, most of whom are on their own for the first time in their lives. All of them will make decisions about their college, football and personal lives; not all choices will be good ones.
Kramer cannot monitor his players 24 hours a day, as much as he might have liked to when it came to Fuller. He is their coach, and as such he has certain responsibilities when it comes to their actions on the field, at the university and in the community. But he is not their parent, and he certainly is not their baby-sitter. They are young men, accountable for their actions.
There a simple fact about college athletics that hasn’t changed, and is not likely to: No matter how promising a student-athlete appears to be coming out of high school, there are no guarantees. There is no certainty of athletic, academic or personal success. The landscape is littered with former college athletes with everything going for them, but squandered their opportunity. There are also plenty athletes who succeed in spite of massive odds stacked against them.
The thing is, it’s hard to predict which athletes will fall where.
And that’s going to be true, whether they hail from Montana, Wyoming, California or Florida.

That was very well written! Nice job!

ArvCat · Post by **ArvCat** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:43 am

It’s not about recruiting all Montana kids, it’s about putting a bit more emphasis on it. After all, it is MONTANA State University. Of course I’m not privy to Kramer’s recruiting strategy, but it just seems that year after year he signs just a hand full of in state kids. I find it hard to believe that there just aren’t enough talented kids in a 900,000 + people state or that when they compete with the Griz the Griz get them all, even if the Cats have more money on the table.

Prior to the Idaho & Fuller situation, I posted on another thread that this year is a golden opportunity for Kramer to walk the talk and sign up more Montanan’s. Given these recent negative events, it is even more imperative that he up the ante for the in state prospects. Yes I’m old school but I recall the Sonny’s use to offer around 10 in state kids every year and sign at least half if not 75% of them. Call it a quota system if you like, but I think Kramer needs try harder in state and offer around 10 scholarships every year to Montana kids. Oh well if he loses some to the Griz, University of Big Time, or Whatsamatter U, at least he made a more tangible effort and then he can use these unaccepted scholarship $’s on the supposed more talented Californians, JC transfers, dropdowns, etc.

BTW, being given the opportunity to be a “preferred walkon” seems to me like joining the Army as a brevet private. What a deal!

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:53 am

gtapp wrote:
MSU01 wrote:I don't see what the big deal is about this, anyway. Everyone knows the Griz get a majority (not all) of the best players from Montana. It makes perfect sense that they should have more playing. The way I see it, all the Griz fans who bash MSU for not playing Montana kids are just worried because they can't beat us 49-3 every year anymore. As for the off-the-field stuff, Montana players can get in trouble too...we do need to take a look at our recruting practices, both for Montana players and out-of-state ones.
Exactly! The differences are not as great as many MT's would have us believe. If you read the coments in the Billings paper after the drug bust you would think we have zero MT kids playing and UM has 100.

I'm sure Kusek is working on another article on this right as we speak

MAGOO · Post by **MAGOO** » Mon Dec 18, 2006 10:03 am

bpcats wrote:Here is somthing to think about

HKnee-jerk policy won’t fix problems

Some MSU fans believe the answer is simple: Recruit almost exclusively from Montana, which, they insist, is what rival Montana does.

How quickly perceptions can change in college athletics. Earlier this month, after his Montana State football team had played rival Montana tough, won a home playoff game and pushed eventual national champion Appalachian State into the fourth quarter, Mike Kramer was held in the highest regard.
His alma mater, Idaho, had him at the top of its list to replace the departed Dennis Erickson. MSU fans didn’t want to see Kramer go, but they would not begrudge him the opportunity because they were grateful that he appeared
to be leaving the program in better shape than he found it seven seasons ago. And, if Kramer decided to stay in Bozeman, the future looked darn good.
Last week, the picture wasn’t nearly so glossy. Kramer withdrew from consideration for the Idaho job — a decision encouraged by officials at that university. Now, rather than starting to rebuild a struggling Idaho program, he must begin to repair his image and that of his football program.
Kramer admitted as much on Friday when he announced that he was staying in Bozeman: “I think I have a long process ahead of me to reassure our university, our university community, the fans, the boosters, that this is not a program run amok.”
But it certainly can be perceived that way.
For the second time in six months, players with current or former connections to the program were arrested in the wake of serious crimes, including murder. On Monday, current Bobcat Andre Fuller and former players Eddie Sullivan and Derrick Davis were arrested on drug-related charges.
Kramer said the latest incident strongly influenced his decision to stay at MSU, but it also apparently cooled the interest of Idaho officials considerably.
What happens now? MSU athletic director Peter Fields said that he and Kramer will meet soon to talk about the direction of the football program. Kramer said he already is having those discussions with his assistant coaches.
Much of that will revolve around recruiting, including where the Bobcats should go to find talent.
Some MSU fans believe the answer is simple: Recruit almost exclusively from Montana, which, they insist, is what rival Montana does. That way, the reasoning goes, MSU coaches know exactly what they’re getting.
But the two programs aren’t all that different in that regard: MSU’s 2006 roster featured 42 players from Montana, while UM’s included 52.
The Bobcats had more players from California; the Grizzlies had more from Washington.
The latest arrests prompted Kramer to say last week that he will no longer recruit the state of Florida.
Two of the athletes arrested in the past six months, including Fuller, hail from that state.
It’s a knee-jerk reaction intended to placate unhappy boosters and fans in the short run, but it might not serve the long-term interests of the program. It’s never wise to shut out any potential source of talent. Even Ohio State and Texas, which draw from massive talent pools in their states, recruit elsewhere.
While players from Montana (and surrounding states) should form the foundation of MSU’s roster — and they do — there will always be a need to fill out the roster with players from other places. And coaches are always on the lookout for “separators,” players who help take a team to the next level. That might mean going to a place such as Aumsville, Ore., to find a Travis Lulay.
Trouble is, as MSU’s experience with Fuller demonstrates, recruiting is not an exact science.
By all accounts, Fuller was a model citizen in Pompano Beach, Fla. He had a strong family background and was a solid student and a team leader. He appeared to be the same person here, a team captain candidate for next season. Because of that, Kramer and several MSU players said they were stunned by Fuller’s alleged involvement. He appeared to be the kind of player around whom you could build a program, not someone who would tear it apart.
Still, it’s a huge jump from high school to college. Does a student-athlete have the smarts and heart to make it? Will he take care of business in the classroom? Can he avoid serious injury? Or, will he, as Fuller appeared to do, fall in with the wrong crowd?
Kramer said all the right things last week, promising that he and his staff will be more careful in assessing recruits. And it’s certain they will try to keep an even closer eye on players once they get to Bozeman.
But, no matter how diligent, there is only so much Kramer can control. He is coaching young men, most of whom are on their own for the first time in their lives. All of them will make decisions about their college, football and personal lives; not all choices will be good ones.
Kramer cannot monitor his players 24 hours a day, as much as he might have liked to when it came to Fuller. He is their coach, and as such he has certain responsibilities when it comes to their actions on the field, at the university and in the community. But he is not their parent, and he certainly is not their baby-sitter. They are young men, accountable for their actions.
There a simple fact about college athletics that hasn’t changed, and is not likely to: No matter how promising a student-athlete appears to be coming out of high school, there are no guarantees. There is no certainty of athletic, academic or personal success. The landscape is littered with former college athletes with everything going for them, but squandered their opportunity. There are also plenty athletes who succeed in spite of massive odds stacked against them.
The thing is, it’s hard to predict which athletes will fall where.
And that’s going to be true, whether they hail from Montana, Wyoming, California or Florida.

Of all the posts concerning MSU's recruiting and drugs, this is the best I've read.