PRESSURE!

[CDAGRIZ]

If the new coach is a guy I like (good guy; strong family) who gives me the access to which I'm entitled, I will tolerate about three to five down years, maybe more. If, however, he's an outsider and therefore has no idea what Montana Football is all about, then he gets exactly four games to prove himself.

 

[SoldierGriz]

If the new coach is a guy I like (good guy; strong family) who gives me the access to which I'm entitled, I will tolerate about three to five down years, maybe more. If, however, he's an outsider and therefore has no idea what Montana Football is all about, then he gets exactly four games to prove himself.

Reasonable. 4 games is adequate to assessass.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

Stitt went 21-14 here in 3 years...like a 7-4 average and he was shown the door. I think pressure here is well known. I doubt there has ever been an FCS coach with that type of production in his first 3 years shown the door.

Chris Hatcher and Jeff Monken in Statesboro.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I won’t be happy. There, I answered!

Kind of my point. Griz fans as a whole won't be happy. All the Stitt people will be throwing around the "I told you so". If it is Hauck, all the anti-Hauck people will do the same.

My take, I think we saw what Stitt was all about and I don't think it was going to be anything more than 6-8 win seasons. I think it was time to make a change, but so many are going to judge this based on next season, while I think you have to judge it on the next 2-3 years. I would rather take the chance on making a change and seeing results in 2 or 3 seasons than continue to watch the product of the last 3 and winning 7 games a season. Could things not turn out better, sure, but they could turn out much better. A lot of people gave Stitt the benefit of the doubt for a long time, and much of that changed on Saturday. There were many detractors from the beginning, but Stitt never accomplished anything to prove their fears wrong.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

If the new coach is a guy I like (good guy; strong family) who gives me the access to which I'm entitled, I will tolerate about three to five down years, maybe more. If, however, he's an outsider and therefore has no idea what Montana Football is all about, then he gets exactly four games to prove himself.

Reasonable. 4 games is adequate to assessass.

I think so, for a damned outsider who has no relatives that know any of my relatives.

 

[Eastern Montana Griz]

I don't know what's so friggin hard about this: BH gets three seasons to win the conference, and lead the Griz to a deep playoff run (National Semis at a minimum). Beating the cats is a given.

I don't know why he would or should be given more time. I suppose his MT roots might count for something in others' eyes. But, it doesn't in mine. 3 seasons.

+1

 

[reinell30]

Stitt went 21-14 here in 3 years...like a 7-4 average and he was shown the door. I think pressure here is well known. I doubt there has ever been an FCS coach with that type of production in his first 3 years shown the door.

Chris Hatcher and Jeff Monken in Statesboro.

You just can't go by a 7-4 record. You have to look at the teams he beat to achieve that record. Hell, if every coach got to play against' losing programs, most of them would have a winning record too.
Show me his record against' winning teams, teams that finished their seasons above 500.

 

[uofmman1122]

I won’t be happy. There, I answered!

Kind of my point. Griz fans as a whole won't be happy. All the Stitt people will be throwing around the "I told you so". If it is Hauck, all the anti-Hauck people will do the same.

My take, I think we saw what Stitt was all about and I don't think it was going to be anything more than 6-8 win seasons. I think it was time to make a change, but so many are going to judge this based on next season, while I think you have to judge it on the next 2-3 years. I would rather take the chance on making a change and seeing results in 2 or 3 seasons than continue to watch the product of the last 3 and winning 7 games a season. Could things not turn out better, sure, but they could turn out much better. A lot of people gave Stitt the benefit of the doubt for a long time, and much of that changed on Saturday. There were many detractors from the beginning, but Stitt never accomplished anything to prove their fears wrong.

I was a huge supporter and couldn’t wait for him to prove me right last Saturday.

And then he lost me for good. As much as I like the guy, as Brint said, it was inexcusable.

Hope we get a good one.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

It becomes a problem when a the high point of coaches 3 years is game 1.

 

[kemajic]

If the new coach is a guy I like (good guy; strong family) who gives me the access to which I'm entitled, I will tolerate about three to five down years, maybe more. If, however, he's an outsider and therefore has no idea what Montana Football is all about, then he gets exactly four games to prove himself.

Good, because Joe Glenn lost his first game to Hofstra (no longer play FB) at home.

 

[uofmman1122]

It becomes a problem when a the high point of coaches 3 years is game 1.

Unfortunately, but fairly, very true.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

If the new coach is a guy I like (good guy; strong family) who gives me the access to which I'm entitled, I will tolerate about three to five down years, maybe more. If, however, he's an outsider and therefore has no idea what Montana Football is all about, then he gets exactly four games to prove himself.

Good, because Joe Glenn lost his first game to Hofstra (no longer play FB) at home.

If the new guy does something like that, he'd better hope he has strong Montana roots and runs the program exactly how I think it should be run. Otherwise, ax time.

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

Stitt went 21-14 here in 3 years...like a 7-4 average and he was shown the door. I think pressure here is well known. I doubt there has ever been an FCS coach with that type of production in his first 3 years shown the door.

Chris Hatcher and Jeff Monken in Statesboro.

You just can't go by a 7-4 record. You have to look at the teams he beat to achieve that record. Hell, if every coach got to play against' losing programs, most of them would have a winning record too.
Show me his record against' winning teams, teams that finished their seasons above 500.

Then that begs the question as to why both Montana schools are content to play small college football. Both schools want to field a football team and basically that's all they aspire to accomplish. They are at the mercy of the Board of Regents comprised by and large of people who could care less if either school ever rose to national prominence in anything. Hell, the dean of the once proud school of journalism spent over 20 years in public radio? I don't know for certain whether it was public radio and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Hardly meets the eye test of significant accomplishments.

It's as if this school is content just being a research institution that simply critiques the works of research and development schools and it's sucking the athletic department down with it.

The football stadium and team is the gateway to a university. Any real leader historically knows he has to have a foe, real or imagined for the following to rally around. Bill Gates and Alex Spanos gets that. Spanos built onto the football fields at Davis, Poly and Sac State. Gates funded improvements on Lake Washington and in Pullman.

During that period in time when the Grizzlies were on top of the 1-AA world the fans and significant donors were expecting bigger and better venues and competition for both schools.

Who the hell wants to go watch our flagship schools play a commuter or directional bordering state institution? Seriously.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I won’t be happy. There, I answered!

Kind of my point. Griz fans as a whole won't be happy. All the Stitt people will be throwing around the "I told you so". If it is Hauck, all the anti-Hauck people will do the same.

My take, I think we saw what Stitt was all about and I don't think it was going to be anything more than 6-8 win seasons. I think it was time to make a change, but so many are going to judge this based on next season, while I think you have to judge it on the next 2-3 years. I would rather take the chance on making a change and seeing results in 2 or 3 seasons than continue to watch the product of the last 3 and winning 7 games a season. Could things not turn out better, sure, but they could turn out much better. A lot of people gave Stitt the benefit of the doubt for a long time, and much of that changed on Saturday. There were many detractors from the beginning, but Stitt never accomplished anything to prove their fears wrong.

There's your problem right there HHB.

 

[Spanky]

Stitt went 21-14 here in 3 years...like a 7-4 average and he was shown the door. I think pressure here is well known. I doubt there has ever been an FCS coach with that type of production in his first 3 years shown the door.

Chris Hatcher and Jeff Monken in Statesboro.

You just can't go by a 7-4 record. You have to look at the teams he beat to achieve that record. Hell, if every coach got to play against' losing programs, most of them would have a winning record too.
Show me his record against' winning teams, teams that finished their seasons above 500.

Then that begs the question as to why both Montana schools are content to play small college football. Both schools want to field a football team and basically that's all they aspire to accomplish. They are at the mercy of the Board of Regents comprised by and large of people who could care less if either school ever rose to national prominence in anything. Hell, the dean of the once proud school of journalism spent over 20 years in public radio? I don't know for certain whether it was public radio and I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Hardly meets the eye test of significant accomplishments.

It's as if this school is content just being a research institution that simply critiques the works of research and development schools and it's sucking the athletic department down with it.

The football stadium and team is the gateway to a university. Any real leader historically knows he has to have a foe, real or imagined for the following to rally around. Bill Gates and Alex Spanos gets that. Spanos built onto the football fields at Davis, Poly and Sac State. Gates funded improvements on Lake Washington and in Pullman.

During that period in time when the Grizzlies were on top of the 1-AA world the fans and significant donors were expecting bigger and better venues and competition for both schools.

Who the hell wants to go watch our flagship schools play a commuter or directional bordering state institution? Seriously.

Good post!

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I won’t be happy. There, I answered!

Kind of my point. Griz fans as a whole won't be happy. All the Stitt people will be throwing around the "I told you so". If it is Hauck, all the anti-Hauck people will do the same.

My take, I think we saw what Stitt was all about and I don't think it was going to be anything more than 6-8 win seasons. I think it was time to make a change, but so many are going to judge this based on next season, while I think you have to judge it on the next 2-3 years. I would rather take the chance on making a change and seeing results in 2 or 3 seasons than continue to watch the product of the last 3 and winning 7 games a season. Could things not turn out better, sure, but they could turn out much better. A lot of people gave Stitt the benefit of the doubt for a long time, and much of that changed on Saturday. There were many detractors from the beginning, but Stitt never accomplished anything to prove their fears wrong.

There's your problem right there HHB.

Actually it would seem the problem was 8, 6, 7 and 2.

 

[Ursus1]

I won’t be happy. There, I answered!

Kind of my point. Griz fans as a whole won't be happy. All the Stitt people will be throwing around the "I told you so". If it is Hauck, all the anti-Hauck people will do the same.

My take, I think we saw what Stitt was all about and I don't think it was going to be anything more than 6-8 win seasons. I think it was time to make a change, but so many are going to judge this based on next season, while I think you have to judge it on the next 2-3 years. I would rather take the chance on making a change and seeing results in 2 or 3 seasons than continue to watch the product of the last 3 and winning 7 games a season. Could things not turn out better, sure, but they could turn out much better. A lot of people gave Stitt the benefit of the doubt for a long time, and much of that changed on Saturday. There were many detractors from the beginning, but Stitt never accomplished anything to prove their fears wrong.

There's your problem right there HHB.

Actually it would seem the problem was 8, 6, 7 and 2.

And 3rd and over 30 yards multiple times

 

[IntuitiveGriz]

21-14 in three years is closer to a 7-5 avg. That’s one game over .500.

Bold statement, you really think people here understand how that works?

Obviously Hookedongriz didn't with his selective rounding to favor his point.

7-4.6 then, is that better. Still doesn't change the point I was making that I bet there has never been another FCS coach shown the door with that type of production

Many expected Shock and Awe from Stitt when he was hired. There was Shock and Awe all right, he was just: with many of those wins coming against the bottom half of the conference this year

14-10 in the BSC :shock:

 

[mondayamqb]

is having two small kids, a pregnant wife, nothing in the checking account, only cereal in the cupboard and needing three sales before the end of the month to earn a commission.

 

[jodcon]

I won’t be happy. There, I answered!

Kind of my point. Griz fans as a whole won't be happy. All the Stitt people will be throwing around the "I told you so". If it is Hauck, all the anti-Hauck people will do the same.

My take, I think we saw what Stitt was all about and I don't think it was going to be anything more than 6-8 win seasons. I think it was time to make a change, but so many are going to judge this based on next season, while I think you have to judge it on the next 2-3 years. I would rather take the chance on making a change and seeing results in 2 or 3 seasons than continue to watch the product of the last 3 and winning 7 games a season. Could things not turn out better, sure, but they could turn out much better. A lot of people gave Stitt the benefit of the doubt for a long time, and much of that changed on Saturday. There were many detractors from the beginning, but Stitt never accomplished anything to prove their fears wrong.

Chatty today aren't you?