This has been discussed ad naseum, but part of the LG recruiting budget was historically calibrated and part of it self fulfilling.
When your success was defined by recruiting a particular type of player, from a particular place, who is to say that is a poor strategy to keep mining it. There comes an expectation that UM should continue, in face of compelling information to the contrary, to mine the same places. I don’t think Robin was ever complacent, but he was successful in part because for nearly a generation, those Montana girls were enough. They were above replacement players, and not at all a detriment to Big Sky Conference and some national success.
To alter that strategy, requires a substantive recalibration of efforts that may have been outside the scope of the staff and administration to engage upon. To be honest, I don’t know that some of it wouldn’t be possible without a change in direction within the staff.
If you consider how the men’s program has landed the likes of Pridgett, Oguine, Rorie, Anderson and others, you have to look at the types of connections DeCuire had. I don’t know that UM is on the same playing field as those guys without DeCuire. Presence in a region is less important as having coaches who have capital in those regions. Maybe in a few years, Montana can continue to recruit those areas without DeCuire.
If you go back to the football programs recruiting of two places: Hawaii and Florida during the 90’s. Their connections were entirely a product of who the coaches were and their understanding of the actual talent there.
So the women’s program could recruit places in California, metro San Francisco/Oakland, LA or San Diego. They could. They could spend a lot of time and money on places that might not bear fruit for years, with the current staff they have. I just think it would take a significant and concerted shift to go that direction. Just don’t know if they see that as efficient or possible.