Connect with us

Montana

Montana women’s tennis secures Big Sky Conference co-title for 1st time in 10 years

Published

on

Montana women’s tennis secures Big Sky Conference co-title for 1st time in 10 years


MISSOULA — Picked to finish fifth in the Big Sky Conference’s preseason poll after a decade mired in the depths of the league standings, no one predicted the Montana women’s tennis team would do what it did on Saturday.

The Griz handed rival Montana State its only dual loss of the year in Bozeman, beating the Bobcats 5-2 to clinch a share of the program’s first Big Sky regular season championship since 2014. 

To get the win and take home a trophy, Montana pulled out a nailbiter in doubles that saw two of the three matches go to a tiebreaker. In singles, the top of the Grizzly lineup came through big with wins at Nos. 1-3.

Advertisement

“They were able to step up and make shots, make a volley, it was just really fun,” Montana coach Steve Ascher said. “That’s one for the ages.”

Montana heads to the postseason tournament as the No. 2 seed after capping the regular season at 6-2 in conference play and 8-11 overall.

People are also reading…

Advertisement

Sophomore Hailey Murphy solidified her case for Big Sky MVP with a straight set win at No. 1 to improve her singles record to 16-3 and stay undefeated at 8-0 in league play at No. 1, having won 10 straight matches.

Kelsey Phillips is also a strong contender for Freshman of the Year after winning yet another come-from-behind thriller against MSU, down a set and rallying from down 4-1 in a third set tiebreaker for UM’s second win.

Phillips, a native of Minnesota, is now 6-2 in conference play and 9-8 overall, having won eight of her last nine matches and having to pull four of those out in three sets with two tiebreakers thrown in for good measure.

Montana State fell to 13-6 and at 4-4 in conference play will take the No. 4 seed at the tourney in Phoenix.

Advertisement

“MSU is very consistent,” Ascher said. “They don’t make a lot of mistakes and they don’t give you free points. So, we were able to take a little more risk and we had to win some points on our own because they didn’t give it to us.

“We talked about not waiting back for someone to make a mistake. You’re not going to be given a Big Sky title. We did that a little bit last week against ISU and today I think we went out and we got the win ourselves.”

Montana broke through with an early 1-0 lead after winning the doubles round in about as narrow of fashion is as possible in college tennis. 

Grace Haugen and Rosie Sterk dominated at No. 2 to start the round, blowing past MSU’s Cuquerella/Doughrty pair 6-0 to improve to 9-7 (6-2 BSC) as a pair this year and put the momentum firmly with Montana.

Murphy and Phillips held a brief lead over MSU’s Garcia-Reboredo/Hawkins pair at No. 1, but the Bobcats caught fire in the breaker and won the set 7-6 (1), leaving No. 3 as the decider.

Advertisement

It was the opposite for Maria Goheen and Olivia Oosterbaan, who found themselves trailing 5-3 but got a break to force a tiebreaker. The Grizzly seniors then found themselves tied 3-3 in the extra frame, but took control when their team need it most, winning the set 7-6 (4) and clinching the point for UM.

Murphy beat Maria Garcia-Reboredo at No. 1 singles, powering her way to a 6-2, 6-4 win. 

Phillips was the next to finish at No. 2 , having to rebound from a first set loss to do it. The Grizzly freshman lost the first set to MSU’s Paula Dougherty in convincing fashion, but found a new gear in the second set to win and force a third. From there it was neck and neck until the two eventually played a tiebreaker for the third.

Phillips found herself trailing 4-1 in the extra frame, but stormed back to beat Dougherty 2-6, 6-4, 7-6 (4) to put UM up, 3-0, and put the championship within sight.

At No. 3, Haugen fed off that shift in momentum, coming back from a first set loss of her own to beat Meg McCarty in three sets, and she didn’t need a tiebreaker to do it. The UM junior won the last two sets convincingly, 4-6, 6-2, 6-2, to clinch the win for the Grizzlies.

Advertisement

Oosterbaan then added the last win for the Griz at No. 5, beating MSU’s Felicia Jayasaputra in straight sets 6-2, 6-2 to give UM its fifth and final win.



Source link

Advertisement

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

on


The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Advertisement

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

  • Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
  • Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
  • Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
  • Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

on

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate


Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

Advertisement

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.

“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

Published

on

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV





Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending