Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://wasatchswagger.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of my concerns about Montana, which I voiced in this blog nearly a year ago is the lack of local recruits. This is why Texas State is such a strong option, and probably the first option for the WAC. It is so much easier to justify the scholarship that will be given to an athlete if his/her parents are subsidizing the program indirectly through taxes. Look at the roster of any college team in Texas, including the University of Texas and Texas A & M, and the lion share of these athletes are Texans. The lion share of athletes on Montana's roster are from California.

This guy is smoking crack.

Lets see, our starting QB is from Billings, our starting RB is from Drummond, and there are about 40 OTHER guys on the roster from Montana. Oh, and by the way, the FIVE guys we have put into the NFL in the past 2 years are ALL from the state of Montana.

Do people just pull this shit out of their ASS? This is why I hate blogs.

AZGrizFan wrote:

One of my concerns about Montana, which I voiced in this blog nearly a year ago is the lack of local recruits. This is why Texas State is such a strong option, and probably the first option for the WAC. It is so much easier to justify the scholarship that will be given to an athlete if his/her parents are subsidizing the program indirectly through taxes. Look at the roster of any college team in Texas, including the University of Texas and Texas A & M, and the lion share of these athletes are Texans. The lion share of athletes on Montana's roster are from California.

This guy is smoking crack.

Lets see, our starting QB is from Billings, our starting RB is from Drummond, and there are about 40 OTHER guys on the roster from Montana. Oh, and by the way, the FIVE guys we have put into the NFL in the past 2 years are ALL from the state of Montana.

Do people just pull this **** out of their ASS? This is why I hate blogs.

I know what you mean, i would hate to be called a Californian to

Quick count of the roster:

Montana: 31
California: 24
Washington: 18
Arizona: 6
Oregon: 5
Other: 10

Wow I didn't realize that it has shifted away from the Montana Boys that much. 63 from out of state 24 from Montana, hardly the "Montana" Grizzlies any more!

Green Laser wrote:Wow I didn't realize that it has shifted away from the Montana Boys that much. 63 from out of state 24 from Montana, hardly the "Montana" Grizzlies any more!

Based on that count, to say that the "lion's share" of the roster is from Cali is a flat-out lie. Certainly, there's been a shift, but the center of gravity for the Griz is STILL Montana.

SuperHornet wrote:

Green Laser wrote:Wow I didn't realize that it has shifted away from the Montana Boys that much. 63 from out of state 24 from Montana, hardly the "Montana" Grizzlies any more!

Based on that count, to say that the "lion's share" of the roster is from Cali is a flat-out lie. Certainly, there's been a shift, but the center of gravity for the Griz is STILL Montana.

Did I ever claim that the "lion's share" was from California? Certainly the lion's share is from out of state. If 63 players are from out of state and only 31, less than half the roster is from Montana I would say that the lion's share (majority) of the roster is from out of state. If Montana had to rely on their beloved "Montana Boys" without tapping heavily into California and other football states for talent they would be dead last in the BSC. 24 players are currently from California and 31 are from Montana which is pretty significant portion. If the Griz move to the WAC the increased 22 scholarships would have to come from out of state, probably a large number from California . That would finally tip the balance between the California and Montana players and we could officially call them the University of California at Missoula Grizzlies!

Green Laser wrote:Wow I didn't realize that it has shifted away from the Montana Boys that much. 63 from out of state 24 from Montana, hardly the "Montana" Grizzlies any more!

Pretty sure the prelim numbers quoted by AZ say that 31 are from Montana, not 24. Way to read....Good California education you got there.

GL: I never said you used that terminology. Go back to the quote AZ pulled from the article. What I meant was that your argument seemed to give some sort of credence to that terminology, albeit a step away from it.

I'd guess that the BSC recruits all over the west.
Portland State-
CA - 39
OR- 30
Wash- 10
Tx- 7
Hi- 6
all over the country- 10 (mostly transfers except our intrepid punter from Australia)

I guess you could say our "core" is from Oregon, like Montana's is from Montana. We have one from Montana, and Montana's probably got 1 or 2 from Oregon. Maybe more now that Plugrad's there. But what's the point? You recruit the best you can find where you find them. California's got 30 million people; that's a lot of football players. Oregon's got 2 million; that's not a lot of football players. Montana's got how many? I'd say they do pretty well cleaning out what Montana players they've got. But it's not enough.

frinq wrote:I'd guess that the BSC recruits all over the west.
Portland State-
CA - 39
OR- 30
Wash- 10
Tx- 7
Hi- 6
all over the country- 10 (mostly transfers except our intrepid punter from Australia)

I guess you could say our "core" is from Oregon, like Montana's is from Montana. We have one from Montana, and Montana's probably got 1 or 2 from Oregon. Maybe more now that Plugrad's there. But what's the point? You recruit the best you can find where you find them. California's got 30 million people; that's a lot of football players. Oregon's got 2 million; that's not a lot of football players. Montana's got how many? I'd say they do pretty well cleaning out what Montana players they've got. But it's not enough.

Wow 39 to 30, so I guess we can officially call your school Cal State U at Portland (just kidding)! FYI Sac State is 100% Californians, I believe Cal Poly and davis are as well. I agree with the statement on the linked blog site. Although the author may have had his current numbers wrong stating that "the lion share of Montana players are from California" his basic logic is valid.
Compared to the Texas schools Montana would be facing a uphill battle to attract additional scholarship athletes especially of the quality to have a impact at the FBS level. A school like UTSA or Texas State located in a "player exporting state" would be attractive to a lot of Texas players that want to play at the FBS level but previously had to go out of state to do so. As you have said Montana does pretty well recruiting in state talent but they have had to reach out to states with more football talent to stay competitive at the FCS level. Going to FBS would require out of state recruiting to increase. I am not sure how Montana fans would react to a Griz team primarily composed of out of state players especially as the losses began to mount moving up a level.

In contrast, in spite of having 4 other FCS and 10 FBS schools to recruit against, our roster consists of
Texas - 83
California - 2
Nevada - 1
Minnesota (via TX) - 1
(includes redshirts)

not than anyone really gives a damn.

MSU:

Montana : 49
Texas : 18
California : 12

The rest are WA and AZ mostly.

Green Laser wrote:FYI Sac State is 100% Californians...

Almost, but not quite.

We have a DB from the State of Washington. He's our only out-of-state player, a transfer from Western Washington. We also have a kid from Stockton who dropped down from U of Washington.

catbob wrote:MSU:

Montana : 49
Texas : 18
California : 12

The rest are WA and AZ mostly.

Congratulations! The Bobcats are officially Montana's team!

SuperHornet wrote:

Green Laser wrote:FYI Sac State is 100% Californians...

Almost, but not quite.

We have a DB from the State of Washington. He's our only out-of-state player, a transfer from Western Washington. We also have a kid from Stockton who dropped down from U of Washington.

that is pretty cool you have almost the whole team from your state. would be cool to see that in utah but that is not possible. I took a look at our roster after seeing all this chat about where the players are from and it was interesting to see we have players from all over.

Utah 29
Calif 14
Hawaii 13
Okla 9
Idaho 5 (1 from pocatello )
Arizona 2
Colorado 2
Alaska 1
Canada 1
Missouri 1
Minnesota 1
Nevada 1
Oregon 1
Texas 1
Washington 1

SuperHornet wrote:

Green Laser wrote:FYI Sac State is 100% Californians...

Almost, but not quite.

We have a DB from the State of Washington. He's our only out-of-state player, a transfer from Western Washington. We also have a kid from Stockton who dropped down from U of Washington.

I forgot about Zach Schrader, we picked him up after Western Washington pulled the plug on their program, and hes a good one! Curtis Shaw U of Washington via Stockton, Jeff Fleming New Mexico State via Fullerton etc. are all California talent that went elsewhere, saw the light and came home!

weberwildcat wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Almost, but not quite.

We have a DB from the State of Washington. He's our only out-of-state player, a transfer from Western Washington. We also have a kid from Stockton who dropped down from U of Washington.

that is pretty cool you have almost the whole team from your state. would be cool to see that in utah but that is not possible. I took a look at our roster after seeing all this chat about where the players are from and it was interesting to see we have players from all over.

Utah 29
Calif 14
Hawaii 13
Okla 9
Idaho 5 (1 from pocatello )
Arizona 2
Colorado 2
Alaska 1
Canada 1
Missouri 1
Minnesota 1
Nevada 1
Oregon 1
Texas 1
Washington 1

Good job Weber! I was surprised to see so many players from Hawaii!

It is not remarkable that schools from all over the country recruit in California. Everybody recruits in California because there are fewer per capita football scholarship opportunities in California than in other places, and therefore lots of outstanding players available.

For example, San Diego County has a population of roughly 3 million and only TWO four year college football programs, only ONE of which is scholarship - San Diego State. In contrast, the state of Mississippi also has a population of roughly 3 million, but sports SIX four year Division I football programs offering scholarships 3 FBS and 3 FCS. Montana has a population of less than a million but two four-year Division I scholarship programs.

Green Laser wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Based on that count, to say that the "lion's share" of the roster is from Cali is a flat-out lie. Certainly, there's been a shift, but the center of gravity for the Griz is STILL Montana.

Did I ever claim that the "lion's share" was from California? Certainly the lion's share is from out of state. If 63 players are from out of state and only 31, less than half the roster is from Montana I would say that the lion's share (majority) of the roster is from out of state. If Montana had to rely on their beloved "Montana Boys" without tapping heavily into California and other football states for talent they would be dead last in the BSC. 24 players are currently from California and 31 are from Montana which is pretty significant portion. If the Griz move to the WAC the increased 22 scholarships would have to come from out of state, probably a large number from California . That would finally tip the balance between the California and Montana players and we could officially call them the University of California at Missoula Grizzlies!

UW has 41 players from Washington, out of 103 on the roster.
WSU has 54 players from Washington, out of 112 on the roster.
Boise State has 24 players from Idaho, out of 111 on the roster
Utah has 40 players from Utah, out of 119 on the roster

Those are the four closest (meaninfgul) I-A schools to Montana, and even if the Griz took ALL 22 extra schollies and recruited from outside Montana, they wouldn't be out of line with other schools in the Pacific Northwest. Like it or not, the mass of population in the Western US is in California. So, it's easy to sit and say "well, at least Sac State recruits local boys, but there's more people in greater Sacramento than there are in the entire state of Montana, and yet STILL Montana manages to have 31 Montana boys on the roster.

I think we'll be fine, and I think the writer's comment was way off base.

Green Laser wrote:

frinq wrote:I'd guess that the BSC recruits all over the west.
Portland State-
CA - 39
OR- 30
Wash- 10
Tx- 7
Hi- 6
all over the country- 10 (mostly transfers except our intrepid punter from Australia)

I guess you could say our "core" is from Oregon, like Montana's is from Montana. We have one from Montana, and Montana's probably got 1 or 2 from Oregon. Maybe more now that Plugrad's there. But what's the point? You recruit the best you can find where you find them. California's got 30 million people; that's a lot of football players. Oregon's got 2 million; that's not a lot of football players. Montana's got how many? I'd say they do pretty well cleaning out what Montana players they've got. But it's not enough.

Wow 39 to 30, so I guess we can officially call your school Cal State U at Portland (just kidding)! FYI Sac State is 100% Californians, I believe Cal Poly and davis are as well. I agree with the statement on the linked blog site. Although the author may have had his current numbers wrong stating that "the lion share of Montana players are from California" his basic logic is valid.
Compared to the Texas schools Montana would be facing a uphill battle to attract additional scholarship athletes especially of the quality to have a impact at the FBS level. A school like UTSA or Texas State located in a "player exporting state" would be attractive to a lot of Texas players that want to play at the FBS level but previously had to go out of state to do so. As you have said Montana does pretty well recruiting in state talent but they have had to reach out to states with more football talent to stay competitive at the FCS level. Going to FBS would require out of state recruiting to increase. I am not sure how Montana fans would react to a Griz team primarily composed of out of state players especially as the losses began to mount moving up a level.

Maybe Suck State ought to try "reaching out to other states with more football talent". Being 100% California hasn't gotten you much.

Your logic is laughable.

I don't necessarily buy into the whole "homegrown" argument (it smacks of NIMBYism), but I do like to have a preponderance of the roster from the general area when possible. For Sac, that would include from roughly Modesto to the Oregon border and Dixon to the Nevada border. (Yes, that does include some overlap with the Extension.)

weberwildcat: It's not possible to field a preponderance of your roster from UT? How is that possible? When I was at UOP, one of my favorite teammates came to us (along with our QBs coach) from Snow. Can't you get good players out of there?

Hawaiians at Weber State? I'd guess there are a fair number of Mormons in Hawaii. Or maybe it's just a very good coach connection.

AZGrizFan wrote:

One of my concerns about Montana, which I voiced in this blog nearly a year ago is the lack of local recruits. This is why Texas State is such a strong option, and probably the first option for the WAC. It is so much easier to justify the scholarship that will be given to an athlete if his/her parents are subsidizing the program indirectly through taxes. Look at the roster of any college team in Texas, including the University of Texas and Texas A & M, and the lion share of these athletes are Texans. The lion share of athletes on Montana's roster are from California.

This guy is smoking crack.

Lets see, our starting QB is from Billings, our starting RB is from Drummond, and there are about 40 OTHER guys on the roster from Montana. Oh, and by the way, the FIVE guys we have put into the NFL in the past 2 years are ALL from the state of Montana.

Do people just pull this shit out of their ASS? This is why I hate blogs.

Non-California Western WAC teams home grown talent compared to Montana:

Montana - 31 Montanans on the roster
Nevada - 9 Nevadans on the roster
Boise - 24 Idahoans on the roster
Idaho - 12 Idahoans on the roster
Utah State - 42 Utahians on the roster
New Mexico State - 9 New Mexicans on the roster

Again. This guy is talking out his ASS.

California: 40,000,000 people
Texas: 25,000,000 people

while on the other hand:

Washington: 6,500,000
Oregon: 3,800,000
Utah: 2,800,000
Nevada: 2,600,000
Idaho: 1,500,000
Montana: 975,000