• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Outlook for Lady Griz

citygriz

Well-known member
Henry David Thoreau said, "The world is far wider than our view of it."

Never was that more true than for the Lady Griz.

The program was built from the ground up by a man from Outlook, Montana. He built it mostly with Montana kids, mixed in with a few recruits from small towns in the Pacific Northwest.

Because he was a great coach, good with people, from a state that for its population has produced way more than its share of skilled women players, the program flourished--especially when women's basketball was in its infancy, overlooked by many of the bigger schools.

The program became a Montana institution, a source of pride for all Montanans not affiliated with the Cats.

But then other Big Sky coaches made links to the wider world. They recruited other states, urban schools, even internationally.

And so the hated Bobcats built a program that overshadowed the Lady Griz. As did two or three other schools in the Big Sky,

So any new coach, to be accepted, had to understand the history the tradition of the Lady Griz. Had to understand how Montanans want Montana kids first. Had to pay deference to the man from Outlook.

But at the same time, knew that if this program is to stay at the level Griz fans have come to expect, he had to recruit talent with a wider view of the world.

Listening to the press conference, I think Holzinger fully understands both imperatives.

The "Outlook" remains bright.
 
Perhaps. Or, the program had hired the wrong coach and things started going down. There was considerable team turmoil. That coach was replaced, after several years, but 2 top players left the program. The interim coached stabilized things but had to deal with the prior several years of decline, the 2 missing starters, and the pandemic. The interim coach had recruited 2 good recruits with the 2 open schollies before not being rehired.


Will the "old" LG fans all return to support the new regime after the changes and year off due to the pandemic?
 
PlayerRep said:
Perhaps. Or, the program had hired the wrong coach and things starting going down. There was considerable team turmoil. That coach was replaced, after several years but 2 top players left the program. The interim coached stabilized things but had to deal with the prior several years of decline, the 2 missing starters, and the pandemic. The interim had recruited 2 good recruits with the 2 open schollies.


Will the "old" LG fans all return to support the new regime after the changes and year off due to the pandemic?

The only full time starters we lost were lost by graduation - McKenzie Johnston and Emma Stockholm.

If you are referring to the two transfers Gabi Harrington and Jamie Pickens they were not full time starters and were not top players. Were they good? Yes! However, they were not top players based on their statistics. Gabi started 15 games out of 30, averaged 23.2 minutes of play and 7.5 points per game. Jamie had no starts out of 29 games, averaged 17.1 minutes of play and 7.6 points per game. Could we have used them compared to the new personnel that were brought in? Yes!

It is a fact that Gabi had a tremendous year at Idaho which brings up a question of did we misuse her during her junior year. Obviously Coach Jon Newlee at Idaho got a lot more out of her than we did here. Jamie did not have an outstanding freshman season IMO. She shot 28.9% on 3 pointers, struggled on defense (as freshman tend to do) and was constantly in foul trouble placing second on the team to Emma who played 260 more minutes and committed 1 more foul. I think she had, and has, a lot more potential than she exhibited in her playing time here.
 
PlayerRep said:
Perhaps. Or, the program had hired the wrong coach and things starting going down. There was considerable team turmoil. That coach was replaced, after several years but 2 top players left the program. The interim coached stabilized things but had to deal with the prior several years of decline, the 2 missing starters, and the pandemic. The interim had recruited 2 good recruits with the 2 open schollies.


Will the "old" LG fans all return to support the new regime after the changes and year off due to the pandemic?

Good post! Citay tries way too hard
 
Griz1 said:
PlayerRep said:
Perhaps. Or, the program had hired the wrong coach and things starting going down. There was considerable team turmoil. That coach was replaced, after several years but 2 top players left the program. The interim coached stabilized things but had to deal with the prior several years of decline, the 2 missing starters, and the pandemic. The interim had recruited 2 good recruits with the 2 open schollies.


Will the "old" LG fans all return to support the new regime after the changes and year off due to the pandemic?

The only full time starters we lost were lost by graduation - McKenzie Johnston and Emma Stockholm.

If you are referring to the two transfers Gabi Harrington and Jamie Pickens they were not full time starters and were not top players. Were they good? Yes! However, they were not top players based on their statistics. Gabi started 15 games out of 30, averaged 23.2 minutes of play and 7.5 points per game. Jamie had no starts out of 29 games, averaged 17.1 minutes of play and 7.6 points per game. Could we have used them compared to the new personnel that were brought in? Yes!

It is a fact that Gabi had a tremendous year at Idaho which brings up a question of did we misuse her during her junior year. Obviously Coach Jon Newlee at Idaho got a lot more out of her than we did here. Jamie did not have an outstanding freshman season IMO. She shot 28.9% on 3 pointers, struggled on defense (as freshman tend to do) and was constantly in foul trouble placing second on the team to Emma who played 260 more minutes and committed 1 more foul. I think she had, and has, a lot more potential than she exhibited in her playing time here.

Harrington and Pickens would have been starters this year, in my view. That was my point. Harrington averaged 16 points and 7 rebounds per game on a good team. Was first team all-conference. You don't think she would have helped the LG this year? Pickens averaged 13.6 points and 6.6 rebounds. Shot 53.5%. She would have helped alot too.
 
PlayerRep said:
Griz1 said:
The only full time starters we lost were lost by graduation - McKenzie Johnston and Emma Stockholm.

If you are referring to the two transfers Gabi Harrington and Jamie Pickens they were not full time starters and were not top players. Were they good? Yes! However, they were not top players based on their statistics. Gabi started 15 games out of 30, averaged 23.2 minutes of play and 7.5 points per game. Jamie had no starts out of 29 games, averaged 17.1 minutes of play and 7.6 points per game. Could we have used them compared to the new personnel that were brought in? Yes!

It is a fact that Gabi had a tremendous year at Idaho which brings up a question of did we misuse her during her junior year. Obviously Coach Jon Newlee at Idaho got a lot more out of her than we did here. Jamie did not have an outstanding freshman season IMO. She shot 28.9% on 3 pointers, struggled on defense (as freshman tend to do) and was constantly in foul trouble placing second on the team to Emma who played 260 more minutes and committed 1 more foul. I think she had, and has, a lot more potential than she exhibited in her playing time here.

Harrington and Pickens would have been starters this year, in my view. That was my point. Harrington averaged 16 points and 7 rebounds per game on a good team. Was first team all-conference. You don't think she would have helped the LG this year? Pickens averaged 13.6 points and 6.6 rebounds. Shot 53.5%. She would have helped alot too.

Yeah, they're both good. Would we have been better with both? Absolutely. Would they have elevated us to the upper echelons of the conference? I doubt it.

Neither would have solved the structural problem that Holsinger was hired to fix--recruiting.
 
I have only talked to one member of the search committee, but that person's opinion was that Holsinger was was far and away the best candidate, It was not even close. He interviewed best, and was extremely well prepared. The hardest part was having to tell Mike he wouldn't get the job. Many on the committee like Mike and consider him a friend.
 
maroonandsilver said:
I have only talked to one member of the search committee, but that person's opinion was that Holsinger was was far and away the best candidate, It was not even close. He interviewed best, and was extremely well prepared. The hardest part was having to tell Mike he wouldn't get the job. Many on the committee like Mike and consider him a friend.

Ask your friend who was first offered.
 
citay said:
PlayerRep said:
Harrington and Pickens would have been starters this year, in my view. That was my point. Harrington averaged 16 points and 7 rebounds per game on a good team. Was first team all-conference. You don't think she would have helped the LG this year? Pickens averaged 13.6 points and 6.6 rebounds. Shot 53.5%. She would have helped alot too.

Yeah, they're both good. Would we have been better with both? Absolutely. Would they have elevated us to the upper echelons of the conference? I doubt it.

Neither would have solved the structural problem that Holsinger was hired to fix--recruiting.

Those 2 would have made a big difference. The only structural problem was the wrong prior coach. That was already fixed. You should stick to commenting on men's hoops. Ha.
 
PlayerRep said:
citay said:
Yeah, they're both good. Would we have been better with both? Absolutely. Would they have elevated us to the upper echelons of the conference? I doubt it.

Neither would have solved the structural problem that Holsinger was hired to fix--recruiting.

Those 2 would have made a big difference. The only structural problem was the wrong prior coach. That was already fixed. You should stick to commenting on men's hoops. Ha.

PIckens left because Shannon was let go. Gabi left thinking Shannon was going to be retained, had already signed at Idaho before the coaching decision was made at UM. So, best case, only one of them would have stayed at UM.
 
maroonandsilver said:
PlayerRep said:
Those 2 would have made a big difference. The only structural problem was the wrong prior coach. That was already fixed. You should stick to commenting on men's hoops. Ha.

PIckens left because Shannon was let go. Gabi left thinking Shannon was going to be retained, had already signed at Idaho before the coaching decision was made at UM. So, best case, only one of them would have stayed at UM.

You are missing the point. The point of discussion is talent recruited to UM. Did you find out who was first offered the job yet?
 
I assume the finalists were Campbell and Holsinger. I'll bet that Haslem was appropriately afraid that because Campbell had always been at "big" time programs, he wouldn't understand UM's need to stay within a tight budget.

But, having run the program at Montana Tech for 2 years, Holsinger certainly knows about budget issues and would be less likely to run wild on Haslem.

I'll bet that was the difference in the decision making process. But, I'll admit I know nothing and was a total outsider on this search process.
 
717s7e said:
I assume the finalists were Campbell and Holsinger. I'll bet that Haslem was appropriately afraid that because Campbell had always been at "big" time programs, he wouldn't understand UM's need to stay within a tight budget.

But, having run the program at Montana Tech for 2 years, Holsinger certainly knows about budget issues and would be less likely to run wild on Haslem.

I'll bet that was the difference in the decision making process. But, I'll admit I know nothing and was a total outsider on this search process.

Perhaps. Maroon has good sources, so I'm hoping Maroon can probe a bit.
 
PlayerRep said:
maroonandsilver said:
I have only talked to one member of the search committee, but that person's opinion was that Holsinger was was far and away the best candidate, It was not even close. He interviewed best, and was extremely well prepared. The hardest part was having to tell Mike he wouldn't get the job. Many on the committee like Mike and consider him a friend.

Ask your friend who was first offered.

Robin was offered....turned it down. His wife didn't want to live in Missoula.
 
Talked to some LG last night at dinner. They were tall, stylish, beautiful, nice, and friendly. If basketball doesn't work out for them, they can be models.
 
PlayerRep said:
Talked to some LG last night at dinner. They were tall, stylish, beautiful, nice, and friendly. If basketball doesn't work out for them, they can be models.

They could also be doctors, lawyers and such. They just don’t have to depend on their beauty. Hope the ugly ball players have something else to fall back on besides modeling. :roll:
 
alabamagrizzly said:
PlayerRep said:
Talked to some LG last night at dinner. They were tall, stylish, beautiful, nice, and friendly. If basketball doesn't work out for them, they can be models.

They could also be doctors, lawyers and such. They just don’t have to depend on their beauty. Hope the ugly ball players have something else to fall back on besides modeling. :roll:

PR........"Sitting on a park bench...eyeing little girls with bad intent. Snot is running down his nose!"
 
Mousegriz said:
alabamagrizzly said:
They could also be doctors, lawyers and such. They just don’t have to depend on their beauty. Hope the ugly ball players have something else to fall back on besides modeling. :roll:

PR........"Sitting on a park bench...eyeing little girls with bad intent. Snot is running down his nose!"
AquaRep? :roll:
 
Back
Top