Any chance Gregorak goes back to Hauck?

[ImagineSanta]

I kinda doubt Hauck has the same energy level at 53 years old as he did at 38. Several players quit while he was coach at UM. It was an eight team league his first three years and nine teams the last four.

The best run in the BSC was the 1995-2001 Griz. They went 14-5 in the playoffs and won two NCs and were runner up twice.
Hauck followed that.

Next to that is EWU from 2010 to 2016. Eagles went 12-4 in playoffs, won the NC and made semis three other times. Hauck is following that. Big difference between 2003 and 2018.

Hauck was 11-7 in playoffs with no NC and three runner ups.

Actually your first sentence WAS my biggest concern. But after listening to his presser, hearing some reports from the player meeting from players and hearing what my nephew (former Griz and current coach) had to say, I’m not sure that needs be a concern. But honestly I agree with Haucks assessment of the BSC, it is what it has been, just the teams at the top changed. Teams at the top should have “Montana” in their name. Period. Of course I’m partial to which team with Montana in its name is #1...

But that's obviously not true. Weber is still playing, SUU and NAU made the playoffs this year and EWU had a down year, but have been crushing opponents for the last 7 years or so. This was probably it's best year in a long time and neither Montana schools made it. This time around is no where the same when he first started and it's 'delusional' to assume greatness just because of past success. It will be 17 years next year since the grizz won a NC, even though the fans think they win it every year...

[BleedingBLue]

I kinda doubt Hauck has the same energy level at 53 years old as he did at 38. Several players quit while he was coach at UM. It was an eight team league his first three years and nine teams the last four.

The best run in the BSC was the 1995-2001 Griz. They went 14-5 in the playoffs and won two NCs and were runner up twice.
Hauck followed that.

Next to that is EWU from 2010 to 2016. Eagles went 12-4 in playoffs, won the NC and made semis three other times. Hauck is following that. Big difference between 2003 and 2018.

Hauck was 11-7 in playoffs with no NC and three runner ups.

Actually your first sentence WAS my biggest concern. But after listening to his presser, hearing some reports from the player meeting from players and hearing what my nephew (former Griz and current coach) had to say, I’m not sure that needs be a concern. But honestly I agree with Haucks assessment of the BSC, it is what it has been, just the teams at the top changed. Teams at the top should have “Montana” in their name. Period. Of course I’m partial to which team with Montana in its name is #1...

But that's obviously not true. Weber is still playing, SUU and NAU made the playoffs this year and EWU had a down year, but have been crushing opponents for the last 7 years or so. This was probably it's best year in a long time and neither Montana schools made it. This time around is no where the same when he first started and it's 'delusional' to assume greatness just because of past success. It will be 17 years next year since the grizz won a NC, even though the fans think they win it every year...

Sac State was not even close to going 7-4 back then either.

[robgriz]

I kinda doubt Hauck has the same energy level at 53 years old as he did at 38. Several players quit while he was coach at UM. It was an eight team league his first three years and nine teams the last four.

The best run in the BSC was the 1995-2001 Griz. They went 14-5 in the playoffs and won two NCs and were runner up twice.
Hauck followed that.

Next to that is EWU from 2010 to 2016. Eagles went 12-4 in playoffs, won the NC and made semis three other times. Hauck is following that. Big difference between 2003 and 2018.

Hauck was 11-7 in playoffs with no NC and three runner ups.

Actually your first sentence WAS my biggest concern. But after listening to his presser, hearing some reports from the player meeting from players and hearing what my nephew (former Griz and current coach) had to say, I’m not sure that needs be a concern. But honestly I agree with Haucks assessment of the BSC, it is what it has been, just the teams at the top changed. Teams at the top should have “Montana” in their name. Period. Of course I’m partial to which team with Montana in its name is #1...

But that's obviously not true. Weber is still playing, SUU and NAU made the playoffs this year and EWU had a down year, but have been crushing opponents for the last 7 years or so. This was probably it's best year in a long time and neither Montana schools made it. This time around is no where the same when he first started and it's 'delusional' to assume greatness just because of past success. It will be 17 years next year since the grizz won a NC, even though the fans think they win it every year...

Your argument kinda goes to my point. The BSC is what it’s always been, only the names have changed.

[BleedingBLue]

I kinda doubt Hauck has the same energy level at 53 years old as he did at 38. Several players quit while he was coach at UM. It was an eight team league his first three years and nine teams the last four.

The best run in the BSC was the 1995-2001 Griz. They went 14-5 in the playoffs and won two NCs and were runner up twice.
Hauck followed that.

Next to that is EWU from 2010 to 2016. Eagles went 12-4 in playoffs, won the NC and made semis three other times. Hauck is following that. Big difference between 2003 and 2018.

Hauck was 11-7 in playoffs with no NC and three runner ups.

Actually your first sentence WAS my biggest concern. But after listening to his presser, hearing some reports from the player meeting from players and hearing what my nephew (former Griz and current coach) had to say, I’m not sure that needs be a concern. But honestly I agree with Haucks assessment of the BSC, it is what it has been, just the teams at the top changed. Teams at the top should have “Montana” in their name. Period. Of course I’m partial to which team with Montana in its name is #1...

But that's obviously not true. Weber is still playing, SUU and NAU made the playoffs this year and EWU had a down year, but have been crushing opponents for the last 7 years or so. This was probably it's best year in a long time and neither Montana schools made it. This time around is no where the same when he first started and it's 'delusional' to assume greatness just because of past success. It will be 17 years next year since the grizz won a NC, even though the fans think they win it every year...

Your argument kinda goes to my point. The BSC is what it’s always been, only the names have changed.

Not really. 2009 was the 1st year the BSC had 3 teams make the playoffs. And if u look at the standings during the Hauck years it's the same 5 teams at the top almost every year. UM, MSU, EWU, WSU and NAU. It's the same now, and everyone is better, and the Cats and Griz are not. Not to mention a team like Sac State never stood a chance back then.

[Bobcat4Ever]

But that's obviously not true. Weber is still playing, SUU and NAU made the playoffs this year and EWU had a down year, but have been crushing opponents for the last 7 years or so. This was probably it's best year in a long time and neither Montana schools made it. This time around is no where the same when he first started and it's 'delusional' to assume greatness just because of past success. It will be 17 years next year since the grizz won a NC, even though the fans think they win it every year...

You are absolutely right, it is nowhere near the same, and it's 'delusional' to think only the names have changed.

It's now a 13-team conference and that's much harder to win than an 8- or 9-team conference. If you don't believe that, extrapolate it out to a 20- or 30-team conference—the more members, the harder it is to win. The other big change is the unbalanced schedule. In the past maybe you had to beat 3 good teams out of 7, and since you played them all, your fate was in your hands. Now you could find yourself with a wicked hard schedule, while two other pretty good teams won more games because they drew the bottom of the conference—you no longer control your fate.

Things have changed.

[Grizaddict]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

[BleedingBLue]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

1 play away from the NC game is nothing? Interesting assessment.

[91catAlum]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

EWU was in the semi's last year, and if not for an incredible behind-the-defenders-back catch on the last play, they would've been in the title game.

Maybe that was 2 years ago? But I think it was last year, vs Youngstown State.

[ImagineSanta]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

If Eastern winning it all 7 years ago is "literally nothing" for years then the grizz win in '01 was the time of horse and buggies and by that logic, irrelevant in the FCS landscape...
With Idaho moving in next year, this conference only gets stronger. Things aren't the same whether you like it or not.

[turkey_johnson]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

Bobby promised a National Championship. Why is this even being discussed?

If the coaches poll doesn't have the griz at #1 pre-season then they are all crazy.

[Cat Grad]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

True. The Griz beat San Diego about four years ago, and EWU beat somebody from another conference and until Weber's win this year, that's been it for the Big Sky as far as wins in the tournament. The only wins have been against another Big Sky team essentially for four (or is it five?) years. And Lord, some of the losses were terrible! Unless Weber does something this weekend, next years committee is going to have a difficult time putting the third conference team into the tournament.

[onceacat]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

True. The Griz beat San Diego about four years ago, and EWU beat somebody from another conference and until Weber's win this year, that's been it for the Big Sky as far as wins in the tournament. The only wins have been against another Big Sky team essentially for four (or is it five?) years. And Lord, some of the losses were terrible! Unless Weber does something this weekend, next years committee is going to have a difficult time putting the third conference team into the tournament.

In fairness, the Griz also beat a pretty solid South Dakota State in Stitts first year. EWOO-as someone else pointed out, has been a fixture in the Quarters & Semis for a decade.

But, really, other then EWU, the Big Sky has been terrible out of conference for a pretty long time. Across the board. Last year, the top BSC team, UND, was 1-4 against a pretty mediocre out of conference slate, even with an 8-0 conference record. This year, NAU was 1-4 OOC in a similar circumstance.

So the conference has a little ways to go.

[robgriz]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

True. The Griz beat San Diego about four years ago, and EWU beat somebody from another conference and until Weber's win this year, that's been it for the Big Sky as far as wins in the tournament. The only wins have been against another Big Sky team essentially for four (or is it five?) years. And Lord, some of the losses were terrible! Unless Weber does something this weekend, next years committee is going to have a difficult time putting the third conference team into the tournament.

In fairness, the Griz also beat a pretty solid South Dakota State in Stitts first year. EWOO-as someone else pointed out, has been a fixture in the Quarters & Semis for a decade.

But, really, other then EWU, the Big Sky has been terrible out of conference for a pretty long time. Across the board. Last year, the top BSC team, UND, was 1-4 against a pretty mediocre out of conference slate, even with an 8-0 conference record. This year, NAU was 1-4 OOC in a similar circumstance.

So the conference has a little ways to go.

Exactly. People claiming it’s stronger, while all the evidence proves otherwise

[TomCat88]

It isn’t stronger. It just isn’t as weak. From 97 to 2009 there was rarely a good runner up team in the league. It hasn’t been quite as bad the last eight years, but ‘stronger’ is the wrong word.

The best the BSC has ever been was from the mid-70s to 1996. Five national titles split between four teams. Nevada and Idaho were good, but weren’t one of the four national championship teams. Practically every year was a fight to the finish. Since then two titles, but probably only two teams that could hold a torch to those 5-6 teams from the mid-70s to ‘96.

[Cat Grad]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

True. The Griz beat San Diego about four years ago, and EWU beat somebody from another conference and until Weber's win this year, that's been it for the Big Sky as far as wins in the tournament. The only wins have been against another Big Sky team essentially for four (or is it five?) years. And Lord, some of the losses were terrible! Unless Weber does something this weekend, next years committee is going to have a difficult time putting the third conference team into the tournament.

In fairness, the Griz also beat a pretty solid South Dakota State in Stitts first year. EWOO-as someone else pointed out, has been a fixture in the Quarters & Semis for a decade.

But, really, other then EWU, the Big Sky has been terrible out of conference for a pretty long time. Across the board. Last year, the top BSC team, UND, was 1-4 against a pretty mediocre out of conference slate, even with an 8-0 conference record. This year, NAU was 1-4 OOC in a similar circumstance.

So the conference has a little ways to go.

Exactly. People claiming it’s stronger, while all the evidence proves otherwise

So, anyone who follows podunk, small college football would agree the Big Sky sucks. And the conference image were Weber somehow to make a decent showing is going to be viewed with an asterick because it's one of those teams full of grown men playing against kids. Thanks for screwing the conference over Fullerton.

[info197176]

I think the argument can go many ways. I'd say there may be more parity in the Big Sky but as a conference overall I don't think Hauck is far off in his assessment. The big sky hasn't done anything in the playoffs for years. Literally nothing, and many of our teams get bounced in the first round. The Eagles are the only team to have any kind of buzz in the playoffs as of late and even that hasn't been much. This has led to very little love for the Big Sky from the committee rankings to playoff picks, and deservedly so.

So even though the parity may be stronger or more even, the conference winners or playoff teams aren't good enough to do crap, lately. I'm rooting for Weber to change that. If not, there will be little love for the Big Sky again next year. I think that is what Hauck is assessing.

True. The Griz beat San Diego about four years ago, and EWU beat somebody from another conference and until Weber's win this year, that's been it for the Big Sky as far as wins in the tournament. The only wins have been against another Big Sky team essentially for four (or is it five?) years. And Lord, some of the losses were terrible! Unless Weber does something this weekend, next years committee is going to have a difficult time putting the third conference team into the tournament.

In fairness, the Griz also beat a pretty solid South Dakota State in Stitts first year. EWOO-as someone else pointed out, has been a fixture in the Quarters & Semis for a decade.

But, really, other then EWU, the Big Sky has been terrible out of conference for a pretty long time. Across the board. Last year, the top BSC team, UND, was 1-4 against a pretty mediocre out of conference slate, even with an 8-0 conference record. This year, NAU was 1-4 OOC in a similar circumstance.

So the conference has a little ways to go.

Exactly. People claiming it’s stronger, while all the evidence proves otherwise

So, anyone who follows podunk, small college football would agree the Big Sky sucks. And the conference image were Weber somehow to make a decent showing is going to be viewed with an asterick because it's one of those teams full of grown men playing against kids. Thanks for screwing the conference over Fullerton.

It’s not a coincidence that the two best teams in the BSC this year are full of 25 year old men and have the lowest academic standards in the league.

[Hawks86]

Is the BSC worse or better compared to some historical time period? Yes and no. Can't really be proven.

[wapiti]

I heard on the local Missoula news last night that Hauck offered the DC position to the San Diego State linebackers coach.

He had yet to accept. I would guess that it would be a pay cut.

[Cledus]

It’s not a coincidence that the two best teams in the BSC this year are full of 25 year old men and have the lowest academic standards in the league.

Weber State's acceptance rate is 100%. Southern Utah's is 61%. By comparison, missoula's is 92%.

[robgriz]

I heard on the local Missoula news last night that Hauck offered the DC position to the San Diego State linebackers coach.

He had yet to accept. I would guess that it would be a pay cut.

I can’t remember which sports news agency it was that first reported that yesterday morning but they also reported that he likely would not take the job.