Patriot League Recruiting - LAFAYETTE

[carney2]

LAFAYETTE - 67

At least one long time Lafayette assistant coach has declared the last two recruiting classes the best in his memory. The Committee has declared these same two classes middle of the pack. True, Tavani recruited some much needed OL help in these classes, and there is mounting evidence that he grabbed some serious QB talent last year. In addition, a handful of 2011 recruits made significant contributions as freshmen. It remains to be seen however if they're that good or if they merely filled a huge talent void. Until the Leopards can post something a lot better than a 27% winning percentage (their record over the past two campaigns when they went 6-16), the proof just isn't in the pudding. Still, some of the faithful are buying into this glimmer of hope and have convinced themselves that the residents of Bourger Varsity Football House have discovered some secret trail that leads to the hidden back door of recruiting heaven. Let's see how that's working out.

THE GOOD
- Quality! 70% of these kids were Rated by one recruiting service or another. 70%! That is a very high number for a Patriot League recruiting class. As one might expect with a number so high, the quality is distributed on both sides of the ball and through all positions.
- Linemen! On signing day Tavani surprised some by stating that his biggest recruiting priority this year was interior linemen on both sides of the ball. He grabbed 6 OL (4 Rated) and 4 DL (2 Rated).
- Size! Possibly restating the previous point, but the linemen are absolutely huge. The OL recruits average more than 305 and the DL guys average in the 275 range. Only one non-Jumbo in the entire group. Thoughtful observers will say that size isn't everything. In the other hand, you can't coach a guy to be big.

THE BAD
- Defense! Tavani did as well with his defensive recruits as he did with the offense. No complaints there. The problem is that most observers feel that the Leopards need defensive front 7 help NOW. Some of these kids – probably too many - will end up in the 2-deep immediately simply because they have to. There is no indication however that any of these DL and LB recruits are ready for prime time just yet.
- Skill position recruiting is a little thin. The only RBs are listed as FBs. On paper, neither of the QB recruits seems capable of challenging the 3 incumbents for playing time until late in their careers. WR recruits may factor into the mix sooner because of graduation losses over the past two years.

QUALITY = 31: 21 of the 30 (70%) are Rated; two 2-stars and one 1-star, none confirmed. The usual numbers, but The Committee found it unsatisfying to say the least. The 70% number is indeed impressive, but to have only 3 of those 21 Rated recruits receive any kind of a star rating (and one of those a kicker) is puzzling. The Committee ultimately concluded that all of the rumors that the Pards were winning many, if not most, of the head to head recruiting battles with other Patriot League schools were probably true. In other words, it seems reasonable that they recruited a lot of the “top” kids that were coveted by their Patriot League rivals, but did not get many kids that were being recruited at higher levels. Is this a mixed bag? Perhaps, so The Committee decided to step out of character and define their opinion a little more:
Q: Is this group capable of helping the Pards out of the football wasteland they've been in for the last two years? A: Absolutely.
Q: Will these kids win a Patriot League championship or two before they're done? A: The odds are good if they get adequate support (e.g., skill positions) from other recruiting classes.
Q: Can this group consistently compete with the best of the Ivys and CAA? A: Not likely.
Q: Could this group contribute to the Pards' first ever victory in the FCS Playoffs? A: Surprisingly, yes. With the expanded and watered down playoffs as they currently exist, the Patriot League champion is no longer being thrown in against the number 1 or number 2 team in the country in the first round. Could happen.

CLASS SIZE = 6: 30 Recruits. “Another one coming” according to Tavani, plus a few more that he is wrestling with “the academies” over and he won't know about for a while.

DISTRIBUTION =8: All the bases were covered.

SPEED = 6: Not winged Mercury here. Because of the number of Rated recruits The Committee had more Speed information than it is accustomed to. The published numbers are not impressive.

TRIGGER = 0: Neither QB recruit received any star ratings.

JUMBO = 9: 9 of the 10 OL and DL recruits qualify – and most by a large margin. The 10th barely missed.

NEEDS = 7 (of 12):
DL = 4 (of 5): 4 recruits, 2 Rated, 3 Jumbos. All recruits appear to be the run stopping interior line types. A serious pass rush option from the outside would have earned the 5th point.
LB = 3 (of 4): 5 recruits, 2 rated is good. Better ratings would have been great.
RB = 0 (of 3): On signing day Tavani stated that he has a full stable of RBs and this was not a recruiting priority. The Committee and its advisors feel that the “stable” has only one reliable (tail)back, with the others being flawed with a history of serious injuries or off the field problems. Two FBs doesn't help the situation much. The Pards are already quite deep there. It is known that Tavani lost one top RB recruit who decided he'd rather sit on a Beaver Stadium (Penn State) bench than play on Fisher's artificial surface. The Committee freely admits that it might have blown this one and deprived the Leopards of some Patsy Points.

COMMITTEE ADJUSTMENTS = O
Tavani has to put up with more out and out crap and interference from his administration than probably any coach in the League. For that reason alone the Pards probably deserve to have their Patsy Points doubled or even tripled. To put together something this good in the middle of a blatant anti-athletics culture is nothing short of a miracle. The Committee did, in fact, consider adding points for the remarkable 70% Rating figure and/or for possibly screwing the pooch by including RB as a Need. In the end however, it was decided that the Pards have been adequately rewarded for their efforts. Besides, with a few potential shoes yet to fall, the number could yet approach or exceed 70.

Oh yeah, we won't know about that secret recruiting path to the recruiting back door that was mentioned in the opening paragraph – at least not this year. The Leopards came straight through the front door with this group.

[RichH2]

May be the best in PL ,certainly the best class Pards have had ina number of years. Congratulations.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Thanks a bunch for bursting my bubble, Your Curmudgeonlyness.

No Patsy Points for winning just about every head-to-head recruiting battle with those Saucon Skidmarks, and correcting the mindset of their erstwhile QB of the future (Pappas)? Just six points for a class size over 30?

I'm consistently amazed at the time and effort you put into the Patsies, as well as their prescience over the years, but this class deserves high 70s, and a forced rank better than those Assa Packers over there.

At least.

[carney2]

Thanks a bunch for bursting my bubble, Your Curmudgeonlyness.

No Patsy Points for winning just about every head-to-head recruiting battle with those Saucon Skidmarks, and correcting the mindset of their erstwhile QB of the future (Pappas)? Just six points for a class size over 30?

I'm consistently amazed at the time and effort you put into the Patsies, as well as their prescience over the years, but this class deserves high 70s, and a forced rank better than those Assa Packers over there.

At least.

As I said on the Lafayette board, the kick carney line forms to your right. On the plus side, when/if I get official confirmation of that "one more," the class size bumps up to 31 and the Pards get one more Patsy Point even if the kid can't tie his shoes.

[RichH2]

Thought "shoe tieing" was part of the frosh curriculum at Pard U.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Thought "shoe tieing" was part of the frosh curriculum at Pard U.


It is now. However it remains a senior honors course for the Drinker Twinkies - reserved for those upperclassmen who have both a faculty recommendation and a proven ability to spell their name the same way twice in a row.

And you know as well as I that the practice of importing name-spelling, shoe-tying co-eds from Albright College and plying them with alcohol to sit for exams has been frowned upon by the new administration over there. Caution is the word. Or is it cowshun?

[RichH2]

It is now, though it remains a senior honors course for the Drinker Twinkies - reserved for those upperclassmen who have both a faculty recommendation and a proven ability to spell their name the same way twice in a row.


xlmaoxxlmaoxxlmaoxxhandshakex

[van]

Thanks a bunch for bursting my bubble, Your Curmudgeonlyness.

No Patsy Points for winning just about every head-to-head recruiting battle with those Saucon Skidmarks, and correcting the mindset of their erstwhile QB of the future (Pappas)? Just six points for a class size over 30?

I'm consistently amazed at the time and effort you put into the Patsies, as well as their prescience over the years, but this class deserves high 70s, and a forced rank better than those Assa Packers over there.

At least.

I don't know Bogie, 67 is a pretty good Patsy #. Understand that after losing 4 in a row you were hoping for more, but be patient, your day is coming.

[ngineer]

Always impressed with Frank's ability to get a good number of big uglies. The key, though, is whether they can move. Looks like a very solid class, and I'd agree that barring injury, there is not a pressing need at QB as both Shoop and the 'Young Gun' should be sufficient for another year. Heard from some LC disgruntles that the Administration 'cutting down' on the Engineering Department and giving more emphasis to the 'arts'. Hopefully not a sign of trying to become a 'Swarthmore', cause you know how that's ended up.

[carney2]

Always impressed with Frank's ability to get a good number of big uglies. The key, though, is whether they can move. Looks like a very solid class, and I'd agree that barring injury, there is not a pressing need at QB as both Shoop and the 'Young Gun' should be sufficient for another year. Heard from some LC disgruntles that the Administration 'cutting down' on the Engineering Department and giving more emphasis to the 'arts'. Hopefully not a sign of trying to become a 'Swarthmore', cause you know how that's ended up.

Actually, there are 2 "young guns," one a sophomore in the upcoming season and the other will be a redshirt freshman. They should be sufficient for more than "another year." And, forget Swarthmore, we're shooting to be Bennington's South Campus.

[ngineer]

Actually, there are 2 "young guns," one a sophomore in the upcoming season and the other will be a redshirt freshman. They should be sufficient for more than "another year." And, forget Swarthmore, we're shooting to be Bennington's South Campus.

Huh? How can one be a 'redshirt freshman' in the PL? The only redshirting permited is through a medical exemption if one misses something like 75% of a prior season due to injury/health.

[Pard4Life]

Huh? How can one be a 'redshirt freshman' in the PL? The only redshirting permited is through a medical exemption if one misses something like 75% of a prior season due to injury/health.

You answered your own question.

[carney2]

Huh? How can one be a 'redshirt freshman' in the PL? The only redshirting permited is through a medical exemption if one misses something like 75% of a prior season due to injury/health.

Expanding: He was a freshman for the 2011 season, but missed the entire year due to injury. Actually, he will be an "experienced freshman" in the upcoming season because he enrolled early and participated in 2011 spring practice before getting injured, and will participate in 2012 spring practice as well. Both he and his fellow freshman in 2011 (a sophomore in 2012) are well thought of by the coaches and will battle to backup incumbent senior Andrew Shoop.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Yes, Kyle Ohradzansky from Canton McKinley H.S. in Avon, Ohio. He enrolled in the spring last year but then has to undergo surgery that kept him out all season. Three-year starting quarterback in H.S; threw for more than 4,000 career yards and 40 touchdowns. "33" game nominee. Also a top H.S. hockey player. Can't overlook the impact this kid could make.

[Pard4Life]

And then we have ZZ... can't wait to see what these guys can do as both will be on display this spring.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Paul Reinhard reports that The Surfer Dude might be transferring to Western Illinois becasue Frank wanted him to play Tight End. Perhaps he kept fumbling the clipboard, I dunno . . . .

So the backups will be ZZ and O from O.

[Pard4Life]

Well that means in Frank's opinion that Oz and ZZ are better QBs. Good sign because Surfer Dude seemed pretty good, though he screwed his chances this year.

[carney2]

Throw in the two freshmen and offensive coordinator Mickey Fein has the 5 that he considers some sort of a magic number. Actually there are 2 or 3 more QBs in this recruit class that are being recruited for other positions. I don't know if Lafayette has the best QB in the Patriot League, but I believe that they have the best corps of QBs, and in college football that's a big plus.

Tavani said it and I believe it - this is a turnaround group. The Pards have bottomed out and are heading up. I can't predict how far or how fast, but the direction (up) is obvious. There is no obvious Nate Eachus or Dominic Randolph or Andy Romans or Wii Rackley in this group, but there is talent and it is spread around. The rest of the League now needs to show their cards. Fordham or Lehigh should be next.

[Pard4Life]

The Patsy ratings seem pretty accurate. I don't think we should be penalized for the lack of RB. Sure it would have been great to grab that PSU kid, but we have six on the roster. Mputu can be the man if he straightens himself out and Schuerman can be more effective if he hits the hole hard and doesn't dance. If's, sure, but quite manageable if's. I'd still like to know the logic behind the rating values and point assignments.

[carney2]

Oops. Just like last year I missed it. Fordham has already announced. Is it just me or has that whole Fordham crowd mentally and emotionally resigned from the Patriot League? Communication from that group has reached an all time low.

BULLETIN: With scholarships, the Rams are, in all probability, still in the Patriot League for football.

[van]

Throw in the two freshmen and offensive coordinator Mickey Fein has the 5 that he considers some sort of a magic number. Actually there are 2 or 3 more QBs in this recruit class that are being recruited for other positions. I don't know if Lafayette has the best QB in the Patriot League, but I believe that they have the best corps of QBs, and in college football that's a big plus.

Tavani said it and I believe it - this is a turnaround group. The Pards have bottomed out and are heading up. I can't predict how far or how fast, but the direction (up) is obvious. There is no obvious Nate Eachus or Dominic Randolph or Andy Romans or Wii Rackley in this group, but there is talent and it is spread around. The rest of the League now needs to show their cards. Fordham or Lehigh should be next.

No doubt Pards are moving up with this class. I predict they get to 5 or even 6 wins in 2014 when this class are juniors.

[Pard4Life]

Did we really know what we had when we signed Bennett, Costanzo, Brown, Witherspoon, Stanford, and Padilla though?

[carney2]

I'd still like to know the logic behind the rating values and point assignments.

There are 4 basic "philosophies" at work:
1. In a very subjective area this is an attempt to bring some measurable objectivity.
2. Heavy reliance on the recruiting services (well, 3 anyway) under the theory "if no one else wanted the guy he is not obviously a catch," and the converse: "if lots of others were after him, we are assuming that he is worth something."
3. The old stand by "You won't know anything until you see them play" doesn't work. We want to "know" about this year's recruits NOW, not after they graduate.
4. This isn't science, it isn't a predictive tool, and it certainly isn't life and death. It's fun.

But, from your lips to (someone's) ears. One more time, here are the rules:

The Patsy Ratings
(Patriot League Football Recruiting)

METHODOLGY

QUALITY: The Committee wouldn’t know a “quality” high school recruit if they tripped over him while he was wearing a name tag. They therefore have chosen to consult the “experts.” Every recruit is run thru Rivals.com, Scout.com, and ESPN who maintain data bases for football recruits. None are perfect and there are “holes” in all of the data bases. The theory is that the recruiting services keep track of kids who have established a recruiting persona - in other words those recruits with multiple suitors. To put it another way, if (almost) no one else wanted this recruit, can he truly be labeled as “quality?”

Each of the data bases uses a “star” system to rate recruits. Beyond that, they separate the better recruits and rate them with a star system. Five stars is the highest rating and denotes recruits you will eventually find on the rosters at big time FBS schools. Patriot League schools will get many players with one star ratings and an occasional two star recruit, seldom more.

One Patsy Point is awarded for each recruit included in any of the data base, but who did not receive any stars. Two additional points are awarded for each star in a recruit’s rating. In other words, a Rivals one-star recruit earns 3 points (1 for being in the data base + 2 more for the star) for his chosen school. If there is a difference between the recruiting service ratings, the higher rating is used to assign Patsy Points. The term “Rated” refers to any recruit who was included in any of the data bases.

One additional Patsy Point is awarded to each recruit who is “confirmed.” It is rare that a recruit gets an equal (starred) rating by each of the recruiting services. When this happens, the Committee deems that the recruit has not gotten “lucky” or otherwise snuck by one of the recruiting service’s screening systems, but has been independently confirmed in his quality ranking. The point is awarded for “confirmation” by two of the three services.

(NOTE – There are other recruiting systems. The committee was either unable to find access, too lazy, and/or too cheap to pay for them.)

CLASS SIZE: Football is a physical game; a game of attrition. In addition, not all of these recruits are going to be up to the challenge of playing D-I football in a demanding academic environment. Some will get homesick, or will dislike their roommate or position coach, or their girlfriend back home will call to say that she’s pregnant. Males in this age group are among the most unpredictable and irrational creatures on the planet. In any event, quantity is, in many respects, almost as important as quality in the Patriot League recruiting process. Unlike many of the large state universities that have become FCS powerhouses, the Patriot League does not make a living off FBS transfers. The overwhelming majority of the League’s key performers are high school recruits that have never attended another college.

It is arbitrary we admit, but the Committee has determined that a bare subsistence recruiting class should number 18. If you multiply this number by 4 years you get 72, which gives you three deep plus some leftovers for kickers, kick returners, “athletes,” etc. Most Patriot League preseason rosters number in the 90+ range, so this should not be a problem. We award 2 Patsy Points for reaching a class size of 18 and award an additional point for every three recruits above that number. For example, a recruiting class of 23 would yield 4 Patsy Points for that school – 2 for reaching 18 + 1 more for numbers 19 thru 21 + 1 more for numbers 22 and 23. There is, therefore, no difference between 22 and 23 – the point is awarded either way.

DISTRIBUTION: You need to keep the pipeline filled at each position. We therefore award 1 Patsy Point for each of the following positions where the team has at least one recruit: QB, RB, WR, OL, DL, LB, DB, and K/P. That is a maximum of 8 points. You can argue that Team X doesn’t need a kicker because last year’s freshman was great, or that Team Y already has 4 quarterbacks and doesn’t need one this year. You can argue, but... You will note that The Committee finally recognizes that college football is changing and has removed TE from the position list. Some offenses just don't use a TE and it was thought unfair to award a point to a team that does and penalizing one that does not.

SPEED: This one is really difficult, but since “speed kills," it needs to be considered. Times for the 40 are not tattooed on a recruit’s forehead and are rarely included in the college’s press release. The rating services will frequently (but not always) include this information for players in their data base. Other than that it is a matter of getting lucky with online resources. Freely admitting that we will most certainly miss a “burner” or two, we award the Patsy Points for speed as follows: 4.8 – 4.701 = 1 point; 4.7 – 4.601 = 2 points; 4.6 – 4.501 = 3 points; etc.

TRIGGER: Quarterback is the most important position on any college football team. We have therefore determined that demonstrably superior quarterback recruits should earn additional Patsy Points for their schools. We have again used the recruiting services to determine “superior,” and, if you view this as merely a way to award additional Quality points, you are correct. We award one point for each star assigned by either rating service to a QB recruit. Again, we use the higher rating of the two systems in each case. For instance, a recruit that is 2-star rated by ESPN will earn 2 (Trigger) Patsy Points for his school. (Please note that a QB who is merely mentioned by Rivals, but earns no stars in any of the rating systems earns no additional Patsy “Trigger” Points.)

JUMBO: Size matters. Since Patriot League teams are not stealing skill position recruits from LSU or Ohio State (the kind of guys who could make a difference despite what is going on in the lines) our assumption is that, for the time being, line play – and the size of the people making that play – is critical. We therefore assign 1 Patsy point for each OL recruit of 270 pounds or more and 1 point for each DL recruit of 250 pounds or more.

NEEDS: The most subjective and controversial area in the Patsy Ratings is an attempt to answer the question “Did this program meet its recruiting needs?” Recently the usual list of suspects on the Any Given Saturday board was asked to state and prioritize the recruiting needs for their school. They were requested to distinguish between needs for the upcoming season where freshmen would normally not be expected to contribute vs. needs for future years when these recruits will be in the two deep. The responses have been massaged into a prioritized list of each team’s three (3) greatest recruiting needs.* Patsy Points are awarded as follows:

Meeting need no. 1: 5 points
Meeting need no. 2: 4 points
Meeting need no. 3: 3 points

That’s a total of 12 potential points, but they will not be doled out on an all or nothing basis. They will be subjectively (that word again) graded. For instance, a team whose number 1 need is offensive line lists 6 recruits at this position but none are rated, and only one weighs 270 or more will almost certainly not receive all of the 5 potential points for meeting their number 1 need.

*Excluding kickers. The Committee’s opinion is that if one of your school’s greatest needs is a kicker, you’re in fantastic shape.

(EVEN MORE) SUBJECTIVITY. The Committee reserves the right to add/subtract Patsy Points as the situation warrants to preserve fairness and avoid an injustice.

SMILE. It’s all about fun, bragging rights, and picking a (verbal) fight among friendly competitors. We all know that All-League teams of the future will be peppered with kids that were completely overlooked by the Patsy Committee, but who worked their tails off and were the recipients of good coaching and good training. Anyone who says that this is crap because “nobody really knows,” is taking this way too seriously.

[carney2]

Did we really know what we had when we signed Bennett, Costanzo, Brown, Witherspoon, Stanford, and Padilla though?

If you want "KNOW," you need to talk to someone else. That's way out of my pay grade.

[RichH2]

Never could understand why people just cant enjoy the Patsy process. Heck, I'd be shocked if LU finished in the top half of ranings. Still looking forward to it. In a way glad GU wont announce til May extends the games thru Spring practice

[van]

Never could understand why people just cant enjoy the Patsy process. Heck, I'd be shocked if LU finished in the top half of ranings. Still looking forward to it. In a way glad GU wont announce til May extends the games thru Spring practice

Agree with Rich, Committee does a great job with Patsy ratings. Hope there will be a Patsy for Rams this year, since we are all about to join the scholarship ranks too.

[RichH2]

, Carney, Van brings up a good point. I know you said no more Patsy ratings once we switch tomerit aid. Do you still plan to dicontinue after next season?

[carney2]

Carney, Van brings up a good point. I know you said no more Patsy ratings once we switch tomerit aid. Do you still plan to dicontinue after next season?

Despite the fact that some, including me, are considering it a done deal, scholarships are still just a rumor. Not thinking about it. I am, at this moment however, looking at the Fordham recruit list and it has struck me again that things will be more than a little bit different in a scholarship world. At a minimum, the Patsy Ratings would require a significant rethinking and overhaul.

[RichH2]

Being a bit selfish here, but I would miss the Patsy. There s/b some mode that could in a semi seious way rate our recruits. If we have schollies comeJune, perhapsthat can be a summer project for all of us to ponder

[carney2]

Being a bit selfish here, but I would miss the Patsy. There s/b some mode that could in a semi seious way rate our recruits. If we have schollies comeJune, perhapsthat can be a summer project for all of us to ponder

No real thought involved at this point, but here are the problems that leap out:

TRANSFERS - No easy way to "grade" transfers. Will they happen? You can take it to the bank. UMass made a living out of it. Fordham went that direction in their first scholarship year and are almost certainly going to have to do some of it this year to salvage their recruiting class.

JUCO - The same as transfers, only different. By the way, if you don't think that transfers and junior college recruiting is going to happen in the Patriot League because of the AI and the supposedly higher academic hurdles that have to be cleared, think again. The approval of scholarships will be a big step in the direction of "winning matters." Coaches will do what it takes.

CLASS SIZE - There are a lot of reasons why class sizes would be smaller under scholarships. This area of awarding Patsy Points would have to be reexamined. I'm not sure, for instance, that a recruiting class of 30 such as Lafayette is admitting this year would necessarily be a good thing in a scholarship world. Also, defections, transfers out, whatever would be less likely in a world where the kid loses everything if he doesn't suit up.

JUMBO - Raw size may be less important in a world where you can theoretically recruit a little higher up the food chain.

Some of this can be solved by a tweak. Some, in my opinion, just may not be solvable. If we can't plug the holes I fear that what little predictive value we have here* would be lost. The Patsy Ratings would be marginalized even more.

*It has been stated many times that the Patsy Ratings are not a predictor of anything. On the other hand, they are - in a very broad brush sort of way. If you'd followed the Ratings over the years you would not, for instance, have been terribly surprised by Lehigh's rise to the top of the Patriot League. Top 10 in the country may have surprised you, but number one in the Patriot League should not. Also, Lafayette's fall from grace could have been read in the Patsy tea leaves - perhaps not a fall to a 2-9 doormat, but being more or less noncompetitive would have been a reasonable interpretation. Transfers, junior college recruiting and some other things make all of this much more difficult and hazy.

[RichH2]

Rather doubt Pl will become a haven for JUCOs and transfers. Also, moving up the food chain should result in more recruits being on one of the recruiting sites. Agree number in class and size may become much less relevant but the needs factor will become more important and I think more self evident

[van]

Not sure the best way for Patsy to interpret transfers. IL gets transfers with AI, Fordham has attracted transfers, so safe to assume any PL school could attract transfer with schollies.

Agree that class size points would need to be a little less important.

[DFW HOYA]

Agree with Rich, Committee does a great job with Patsy ratings. Hope there will be a Patsy for Rams this year, since we are all about to join the scholarship ranks too.

All? Always an optimist... xlolx

[van]

All? Always an optimist... xlolx

And always a pessimist. xtroublex

[ngineer]

No real thought involved at this point, but here are the problems that leap out:

TRANSFERS - No easy way to "grade" transfers. Will they happen? You can take it to the bank. UMass made a living out of it. Fordham went that direction in their first scholarship year and are almost certainly going to have to do some of it this year to salvage their recruiting class.

JUCO - The same as transfers, only different. By the way, if you don't think that transfers and junior college recruiting is going to happen in the Patriot League because of the AI and the supposedly higher academic hurdles that have to be cleared, think again. The approval of scholarships will be a big step in the direction of "winning matters." Coaches will do what it takes.

CLASS SIZE - There are a lot of reasons why class sizes would be smaller under scholarships. This area of awarding Patsy Points would have to be reexamined. I'm not sure, for instance, that a recruiting class of 30 such as Lafayette is admitting this year would necessarily be a good thing in a scholarship world. Also, defections, transfers out, whatever would be less likely in a world where the kid loses everything if he doesn't suit up.

JUMBO - Raw size may be less important in a world where you can theoretically recruit a little higher up the food chain.

Some of this can be solved by a tweak. Some, in my opinion, just may not be solvable. If we can't plug the holes I fear that what little predictive value we have here* would be lost. The Patsy Ratings would be marginalized even more.

*It has been stated many times that the Patsy Ratings are not a predictor of anything. On the other hand, they are - in a very broad brush sort of way. If you'd followed the Ratings over the years you would not, for instance, have been terribly surprised by Lehigh's rise to the top of the Patriot League. Top 10 in the country may have surprised you, but number one in the Patriot League should not. Also, Lafayette's fall from grace could have been read in the Patsy tea leaves - perhaps not a fall to a 2-9 doormat, but being more or less noncompetitive would have been a reasonable interpretation. Transfers, junior college recruiting and some other things make all of this much more difficult and hazy.

Seems to me that despite what the coaches want, the final decision is whether Admissions will admit. We've run into that in the past. Indeed, losing a couple to Penn after Lehigh's admissions wouldn't admit. So I don't know why that should change.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Indeed, losing a couple to Penn after Lehigh's admissions wouldn't admit.

One of these days those Quackers down there are going to get payback for every time their idiotic band played that "safety school" song in a Lehigh Valley stadium. We play the ninety-first edition against them this year, and we're on a nice little winning streak over Penn. It would be nice to flatten those Broad Street Bagnolis one again.

[RichH2]

One of these days those Quackers down there are going to get payback for every time their idiotic band played that "safety school" song in a Lehigh Valley stadium. We play the ninety-first edition against them this year, and we're on a nice little winning streak over Penn. It would be nice to flatten those Broad Street Bagnolis one again.

Go for it. Loved the Penn series but am no fan of their superiority complex. Please do me a solid and crush them

[Bogus Megapardus]

Go for it. Loved the Penn series but am no fan of their superiority complex. Please do me a solid and crush them

It's trickle-down superiority. They take a lot of crap from Harvard. It pleases me to no end the years we are able to beat both of them.

[ngineer]

One of these days those Quackers down there are going to get payback for every time their idiotic band played that "safety school" song in a Lehigh Valley stadium. We play the ninety-first edition against them this year, and we're on a nice little winning streak over Penn. It would be nice to flatten those Broad Street Bagnolis one again.

Absolutely. Supposedly, we're to start a renewal of a series with them in a couple years. Can't wait. Beating Penn is almost as good as beating La...well, not really. But a very distant second.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Never really forgave the Quack Attack for ending Lehigh's regular-season unbeaten run at something like 20 games or so.

My now-wife and I went to that game at Franklin field.

[carney2]

No real thought involved at this point, but here are the problems that leap out:

TRANSFERS - No easy way to "grade" transfers. Will they happen? You can take it to the bank. UMass made a living out of it. Fordham went that direction in their first scholarship year and are almost certainly going to have to do some of it this year to salvage their recruiting class.

JUCO - The same as transfers, only different. By the way, if you don't think that transfers and junior college recruiting is going to happen in the Patriot League because of the AI and the supposedly higher academic hurdles that have to be cleared, think again. The approval of scholarships will be a big step in the direction of "winning matters." Coaches will do what it takes.

CLASS SIZE - There are a lot of reasons why class sizes would be smaller under scholarships. This area of awarding Patsy Points would have to be reexamined. I'm not sure, for instance, that a recruiting class of 30 such as Lafayette is admitting this year would necessarily be a good thing in a scholarship world. Also, defections, transfers out, whatever would be less likely in a world where the kid loses everything if he doesn't suit up.

JUMBO - Raw size may be less important in a world where you can theoretically recruit a little higher up the food chain.

Some of this can be solved by a tweak. Some, in my opinion, just may not be solvable. If we can't plug the holes I fear that what little predictive value we have here* would be lost. The Patsy Ratings would be marginalized even more.

*It has been stated many times that the Patsy Ratings are not a predictor of anything. On the other hand, they are - in a very broad brush sort of way. If you'd followed the Ratings over the years you would not, for instance, have been terribly surprised by Lehigh's rise to the top of the Patriot League. Top 10 in the country may have surprised you, but number one in the Patriot League should not. Also, Lafayette's fall from grace could have been read in the Patsy tea leaves - perhaps not a fall to a 2-9 doormat, but being more or less noncompetitive would have been a reasonable interpretation. Transfers, junior college recruiting and some other things make all of this much more difficult and hazy.

A William & Mary poster has added Preferred Walk-Ons to this list.

[ngineer]

In effect, we already have "preferred walk-ons"....i.e., those who are recruited for football, but do not either qualify or can be given any aid due to it being spent that year on others. So, they or their parents pay or borrow to attend like other non-aid students, but with promise if they make the team they could get aid sophomore year if eligible.

[carney2]

In effect, we already have "preferred walk-ons"....i.e., those who are recruited for football, but do not either qualify or can be given any aid due to it being spent that year on others. So, they or their parents pay or borrow to attend like other non-aid students, but with promise if they make the team they could get aid sophomore year if eligible.

Perhaps, but in the current world of Patriot League football every recruit - even the ones who have not been invited, or because of the parents' income, do not qualify, to ride on the equivalencies gravy train - are included in the recruiting press release. It is traditional - at least in the world of FBS football - that walk-ons, preferred or not, are ignored. How then could they be included in the Patsy Ratings if they are no more than a rumor?

[Tribe4SF]

Perhaps, but in the current world of Patriot League football every recruit - even the ones who have not been invited, or because of the parents' income, do not qualify, to ride on the equivalencies gravy train - are included in the recruiting press release. It is traditional - at least in the world of FBS football - that walk-ons, preferred or not, are ignored. How then could they be included in the Patsy Ratings if they are no more than a rumor?

You can only include what you know about, but since the Patsy Ratings are an entertainment exercise, does it really matter? The criteria you'll probably have to do away with is class size. Richmond is probably a good school for you to analyze in preparing, because they're private, and don't get as many walk-ons because of cost factors. They usually carry a roster of about 85, compared to W&M which typically has about 100. I have no idea how partial scholarships may be used by Patriot schools, but that is a factor in class size for many schools. W&M usually has about 65-70 guys receiving full, or partial scholarships, while JMU is usually about 75. At Richmond, the number is likely 63 or less. FCS schools can have as many as 85 receiving scholarship money, as long as they equate to 63 full scholarships.

[RichH2]

Lehigh usually has 3-4 walk-ons each year, whom we learn about the next yr if they stay and make roster. Lu does not publish a JV roster. Transfers are a once in the blue moon event, will only see on Fall roster

[carney2]

Lehigh usually has 3-4 walk-ons each year, whom we learn about the next yr if they stay and make roster. Lu does not publish a JV roster. Transfers are a once in the blue moon event, will only see on Fall roster

All I'm saying, Rich, is that things will be different and the old rules may not be relevant. There will be transfers. Significant? I don't know, but other FCS schools have demonstrated that it could be. Also, sooner or later, some coach will have enough clout at his institution to slip some junior college kids through the vaunted Patriot League admission process. Finally, and as I stated earlier, most current Patriot League walk-ons are included in the recruiting press release. With class sizes in the high 20s and above, those few who were not recruited even by Patriot League, NEC or Pioneer League teams - the ones that you and ngineer are referring to - are pretty much irrelevant. With scholarship classes much smaller and, perhaps a few kids with measurable talent being "invited" to walk-on, we have a different scenario, and one that escapes easy reporting in the Patsy Ratings.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There are a whole lot of thorny questions in regards to this stuff. For example, do NLI schools announce kids on partial scholarships? Can a kid be a "preferred walk-on" if he has a partial scholarship? Every FCS school splits scholarships somewhere along the way, but for Patriot League schools, the aid is limited by need, so PL schools announce kids all the time that are getting almost all, almost none, or in between aid, so there's no choices. But NLI schools theoretically can do either.

Let's take Fordham as an example. Let's say they have a class of 48 kids on "full scholarship", and they give out 30 "half scholarships" (15 scholarships divided in half) to a significant number of other kids. If a kid gets a half schollie, is he "announced"? Is he a "preferred walk-on", given the opportunity to get a full scholarship?

The idea of a "preferred walk-on", to my knowledge, is only applicable to a headcount sport like FBS football where there are 85 kids on full scholarship - either you're 100% scholarship, or you're a "walk on" who is paying tuition like everyone else. You could do "preferred walk-on" in FCS, too, but it's definitely not as cut and dry as it is in FBS.

[RichH2]

That PWOs exist is evident at FBS level and mentioned at ours. Since we can divide our aid up to a max of 85, a large grey area exists at least in my uninformed brain of kids who do receive academic aid , as any other student, and go out for football. How are they counted? More importantly , how will they be counted if merit aid implemented?

[breezy]

I was also wondering about how scholarships would be implemented. I understand that there is a limit of 63 scholarships and a limit of 85 players receiving merit aid. Presumably, there will be some kids on full scholarship while others will get only partial scholarships. Are the kids who get partial merit aid also entitled to get need-based aid? Or does the need-based aid in that case count against the 63-scholarship limit? Can a team recruit a full-need kid who gets a full ride through need-based aid (and no merit aid) without having that kid included in the 85-player limit? I really have no understanding of how PL teams might use merit aid and need-based aid in conjunction with each other, and what the ramifications would be with respect to NCAA limits.

[RichH2]

My issue exactly specifically as to kids only getting academic aid available to all other admitted students. I guess they wouldn't count towards the 85. Kid who receive a combination of both, I THINKonly that portion of athletic schollie is includable.???

[carney2]

I was also wondering about how scholarships would be implemented. I understand that there is a limit of 63 scholarships and a limit of 85 players receiving merit aid. Presumably, there will be some kids on full scholarship while others will get only partial scholarships. Are the kids who get partial merit aid also entitled to get need-based aid? Or does the need-based aid in that case count against the 63-scholarship limit? Can a team recruit a full-need kid who gets a full ride through need-based aid (and no merit aid) without having that kid included in the 85-player limit? I really have no understanding of how PL teams might use merit aid and need-based aid in conjunction with each other, and what the ramifications would be with respect to NCAA limits.

No one "knows." Indeed, no one even knows that scholarships are coming (in June) as many of us assume. It is all just a rumor. So, one opinion of many:

Will there be partial scholarships? 4 X 15 = 60. Not enough. There have to be partials to make this work.

Will the partials be augmented by traditional financial aid? Why not?

Does the need based aid count against the 63 scholarship limit? A technical and legal point I am not equipped to answer. Still, you can't escape the basic 4 X 15 = 60 arithmetic mentioned above. You then must ask how the FCS big kids like Appalachian State, Montana and Delaware are filling out their rosters without offering something in addition to their official scholarships that does not count as football scholarship money. When Delaware, for instance, trots 85 or so out of the locker room for a home game, how many do you think are paying the school for the privilege of wearing that uniform?

Will other forms of financial aid be used instead of scholarships? Again, why not? If you can award some sort of academic stipend that is every bit as prestigious as a football scholarship - and the kid and his family buy into it - you will have "stolen" an extra recruit.

Somehow, I think (opinion) that the roster limit will be sacred, and we won't be seeing numbers above 85 or whatever that is reached by the manipulation of need based aid and/or other school awards.

[RichH2]

Not sure but would expect rosters to be somewhat smaller. Over 4 yrs now we recruit anywhere from 110 to 125 kids on average. At 85 max, balance will be kids receiving no football aid just academic packages. Guess there will be some ,maybe 5 or 6 a yr. Rosters low 90s would be by estimate.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Does the need based aid count against the 63 scholarship limit? A technical and legal point I am not equipped to answer. Still, you can't escape the basic 4 X 15 = 60 arithmetic mentioned above. You then must ask how the FCS big kids like Appalachian State, Montana and Delaware are filling out their rosters without offering something in addition to their official scholarships that does not count as football scholarship money. When Delaware, for instance, trots 85 or so out of the locker room for a home game, how many do you think are paying the school for the privilege of wearing that uniform?

Part of this answer is traditional non-athletic-related aid, part of this answer is partial scholarships, and yet another is a combination of both. And, very interestingly, Title IX comes into this discussion, as it always seems to. Even if you give a football kid a partial scholarship, for the purposes of Title IX they count as a "scholarship kid" that has to be offset by headcount in another sport. But if they only have aid that's offered to all the other students, it doesn't.

So the short answer is that the need-based aid doesn't ever "count" against scholarship numbers, but a partial scholarship does in a multitude of ways, and if a kid is getting a combination of both, he is. And every FCS school that offers scholarships offer partials as well. Otherwise, as you point out, there simply aren't enough kids.


Will other forms of financial aid be used instead of scholarships? Again, why not? If you can award some sort of academic stipend that is every bit as prestigious as a football scholarship - and the kid and his family buy into it - you will have "stolen" an extra recruit.that is reached by the manipulation of need based aid and/or other school awards.

Worthy of mention is that H-Y-P, in effect, scholarship the entire student body under some ridiculous sum of yearly income. That means their entire roster - including the walk-ons - are "scholarship players", limited only by their Academic Index and the athlete's desire to get into the game. So in essence, the IL "manipulates" the system as well.

What scholarships basically do (opinion) is make things more cut-and-dry and out in the open. When the IL admits a football player, he's subject to the same (basically generous) aid everyone else gets, but then the accusations fly (Was he really academically qualified? Did he really qualify for an aid package? Was the way greased by an out-of-control athletic department?). But when Delaware admits someone for football, he gets a scholarship, and then it's settled, there's no secrecy.

But there's a tradeoff - with scholarships comes Title IX accounting, which is a major challenge for every FCS school.

[RichH2]

I'll leave the math to others. Has LC resolved its Title IX issues? I'm guessing they have hopefully.

[ngineer]

Part of this answer is traditional non-athletic-related aid, part of this answer is partial scholarships, and yet another is a combination of both. And, very interestingly, Title IX comes into this discussion, as it always seems to. Even if you give a football kid a partial scholarship, for the purposes of Title IX they count as a "scholarship kid" that has to be offset by headcount in another sport. But if they only have aid that's offered to all the other students, it doesn't.

So the short answer is that the need-based aid doesn't ever "count" against scholarship numbers, but a partial scholarship does in a multitude of ways, and if a kid is getting a combination of both, he is. And every FCS school that offers scholarships offer partials as well. Otherwise, as you point out, there simply aren't enough kids.



Worthy of mention is that H-Y-P, in effect, scholarship the entire student body under some ridiculous sum of yearly income. That means their entire roster - including the walk-ons - are "scholarship players", limited only by their Academic Index and the athlete's desire to get into the game. So in essence, the IL "manipulates" the system as well.

What scholarships basically do (opinion) is make things more cut-and-dry and out in the open. When the IL admits a football player, he's subject to the same (basically generous) aid everyone else gets, but then the accusations fly (Was he really academically qualified? Did he really qualify for an aid package? Was the way greased by an out-of-control athletic department?). But when Delaware admits someone for football, he gets a scholarship, and then it's settled, there's no secrecy.

But there's a tradeoff - with scholarships comes Title IX accounting, which is a major challenge for every FCS school.

And even more so with small private schools like the PL, since such a large percentage of the student body is involved in intercollegiate athletics. Wofford must be a real trip with a total enrollment of only 1,500!

[carney2]

Not sure but would expect rosters to be somewhat smaller. Over 4 yrs now we recruit anywhere from 110 to 125 kids on average. At 85 max, balance will be kids receiving no football aid just academic packages. Guess there will be some ,maybe 5 or 6 a yr. Rosters low 90s would be by estimate.

The unconfirmed and unconfirmable word is that Lafayette is on board and going with 60 scholarships. That would seem to indicate that they have their Title IX issues under control. On the other hand, there has been absolutely no movement in the athletic department to indicate that steps (whatever they might be) have been taken. On the other hand, a June announcement of football scholarships might very well be accompanied by a Lafayette announcement that they are abolishing all men's sports except football, basketball, soccer and lacrosse, while adding a women's intercollegiate badminton program.

[carney2]

Not sure but would expect rosters to be somewhat smaller. Over 4 yrs now we recruit anywhere from 110 to 125 kids on average. At 85 max, balance will be kids receiving no football aid just academic packages. Guess there will be some ,maybe 5 or 6 a yr. Rosters low 90s would be by estimate.

C'mon, Rich, think. In the first place D-I football rosters cannot dip much below the 80-85 range. It just ain't happening. Also, you don't seem to be grasping the concept of "partial." !0 full scholarships + 10 half scholarships still adds up to 15 football scholarships, but yields 20 recruits. 10 full + 4 half + 12 quarters gives you a total of 26 kids out of your 15 scholarships. In some NCAA sports you are not allowed to do partials. Not so in football.

[RichH2]

Not disagreeing carney just estimating. Expect us all to use partials with academic aid to stretch $$$ but impact players that will raise overall skill level of PL schools will in all liklihood be full ride kids that we now see going to NEC and CAA ,plus some we can steal from IL. Perhaps , the last 5-6 kids in our present classes will still come here. Maybe so, in which case rosters will remain about the same. I just dont think so.

[carney2]

Not disagreeing carney just estimating. Expect us all to use partials with academic aid to stretch $$$ but impact players that will raise overall skill level of PL schools will in all liklihood be full ride kids that we now see going to NEC and CAA ,plus some we can steal from IL. Perhaps , the last 5-6 kids in our present classes will still come here. Maybe so, in which case rosters will remain about the same. I just dont think so.

I'm betting - based on some Tavani quotes over the past few years - that rosters will be capped as some sort of a cost containment measure.

[breezy]

I think I am correct on this but am certainly open to correction.

Even if you do partials, I believe there is still an NCAA limit of not more than 85 football players receiving athletic aid. If you want to have a roster of 90 players, you will have to have at least 5 student-athletes who are getting no merit aid.

[van]

I must be missing something, seems rather simple to me.

If the # is 60 and no one has more than 60 equivalencies, then where is the problem? If we can have a roster of 95 with less than 60 equivalencies, then we can have a roster of 90 with 60 athletic scholarships.

[Doc QB]

Not disagreeing carney just estimating. Expect us all to use partials with academic aid to stretch $$$ but impact players that will raise overall skill level of PL schools will in all liklihood be full ride kids that we now see going to NEC and CAA ,plus some we can steal from IL. Perhaps , the last 5-6 kids in our present classes will still come here. Maybe so, in which case rosters will remain about the same. I just dont think so.

Rich, if an athlete still qualifies for more "academic-non-athletic department" aid outside of that partial football offer, why would a coach give that guy anything at all? If there is need demonstrated beyond partial scholarship, that is a guy who can get a significant amount of general population student financial aid, so it may in fact be a wasted scholarship. And remember, for others, that partial scholarship may make up that demonstrated need, and no more would be forthcoming...their individual need was met. So a split of athletic department scholarship and general institution based aid qualifiers will be a small pool of athletes/families indeed.

There will always be walk-ons, always be a few kids whose parents have means to afford school, and a few kids whose demonstrated need is for the full boat from the school's general fund out there to fill the rosters above 60 guys.

[RichH2]

Doc,

True enuf but we must remember that any partial schollie counts against our max #. So,ofcourse, makes sense for staff to try and sell a family on an academic aid package which covers some amount in grants and balance in loans. Competitive world. Just 4or5yrs ago we lost an Ol kid to HC, the sole reason being they offered a few $$$more in aid. Top recruits can get full rides at CAA,MAC,SoCON et al. ILhas a bit more prestige and a much better academic aid package at least at H-Y-P. To competefor those kids full rides necessary. Not to say that cant be a combo of Schollie and academic aid. Roster spots 86 and up all academic but weshould be able to get at least some of the same kids we get now, just not as many

[carney2]

Rich, if an athlete still qualifies for more "academic-non-athletic department" aid outside of that partial football offer, why would a coach give that guy anything at all?

Some kids - and more importantly, some kids' families - just want a football scholarship. It's as simple as that, and there will be times that the coaches will have to dip into the scholarship pile to make the sale, even when they don't have to.

[bison137]

Part of this answer is traditional non-athletic-related aid, part of this answer is partial scholarships, and yet another is a combination of both. And, very interestingly, Title IX comes into this discussion, as it always seems to. Even if you give a football kid a partial scholarship, for the purposes of Title IX they count as a "scholarship kid" that has to be offset by headcount in another sport. But if they only have aid that's offered to all the other students, it doesn't.

So the short answer is that the need-based aid doesn't ever "count" against scholarship numbers, but a partial scholarship does in a multitude of ways, and if a kid is getting a combination of both, he is. And every FCS school that offers scholarships offer partials as well. Otherwise, as you point out, there simply aren't enough kids.



Worthy of mention is that H-Y-P, in effect, scholarship the entire student body under some ridiculous sum of yearly income. That means their entire roster - including the walk-ons - are "scholarship players", limited only by their Academic Index and the athlete's desire to get into the game. So in essence, the IL "manipulates" the system as well.

What scholarships basically do (opinion) is make things more cut-and-dry and out in the open. When the IL admits a football player, he's subject to the same (basically generous) aid everyone else gets, but then the accusations fly (Was he really academically qualified? Did he really qualify for an aid package? Was the way greased by an out-of-control athletic department?). But when Delaware admits someone for football, he gets a scholarship, and then it's settled, there's no secrecy.

But there's a tradeoff - with scholarships comes Title IX accounting, which is a major challenge for every FCS school.


IF a player was recruited, then receiving need-based aid makes the player a counter and any grants will count against the overall limit.

Also in a number of cases, academic awards that are issued directly by the school will also count. Relevant paragraphs from the NCAA bylaws:


15.5.1.2 Football or Basketball, Varsity Competition. In football or basketball, a student-athlete who was recruited by the awarding institution and who receives institutional financial aid granted without regard in any degree to athletics ability does not have to be counted until the student-athlete engages in varsity intercollegiate competition (as opposed to freshman, B-team, subvarsity, intramural or club competition) in those sports. For this provision to be applicable, there shall be on file in the office of the athletics director certification by the faculty athletics representative, the admissions officer and the chair of the financial aid committee that the student’s admission and financial aid were granted without regard in any degree to athletics ability.

15.5.1.2.1 Exception—Receipt of Institutional Academic Aid Only. In football or basketball, a student-athlete who was recruited by the awarding institution and whose only source of institutional financial aid is academic aid based solely on the recipient’s academic record at the certifying institution, awarded independently of athletics interests and in amounts consistent with the pattern of all such awards made by the institution, may compete without counting in the institution’s financial aid team limits, provided he or she has completed at least one academic year of full-time enrollment at the certifying institution and has achieved a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.000 (on a 4.000 scale) at the certifying institution.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

IF a player was recruited, then receiving need-based aid makes the player a counter and any grants will count against the overall limit.

Unless you're in the Ivy League. The only Division I football conference where you can be recruited for football, but don't "count".

Here's the key clause:


and whose only source of institutional financial aid is academic aid based solely on the recipient’s academic record at the certifying institution, awarded independently of athletics interests and in amounts consistent with the pattern of all such awards made by the institution

You'll notice similar legal language all over this bylaw twisting itself into knots to attempt to make it inapplicable to the Ivy League.

[RichH2]

Interesting thread on Ivy Board bemoaning the possible death of IL football if PL goes schollie.


Just went back to Ivy Board thread has disappeared. Chivalry may be dead but it seems censorship is not.

[The Historian]

So IL football is alive? Good athletes are still going to go IL schools, especially give the level of financial aid available. IL schools are competitive at the national level in wrestling, lacrosse and ice hockey.

[RichH2]

So IL football is alive? Good athletes are still going to go IL schools, especially give the level of financial aid available. IL schools are competitive at the national level in wrestling, lacrosse and ice hockey.

Yup.Now Ivy Board defending itself for deletion of thread. Whole concept rather ridiculous.IL does very well recruiting in football. That few improve more a symptom of their own limitations on competition. Just reminds me how much I enjoy kicking their butts. I guess IL figured that PL would always continue as their not so tough OOC opponents

[Bogus Megapardus]

Just went back to Ivy Board thread has disappeared. Chivalry may be dead but it seems censorship is not.

The guy who moderates that board runs quite a fiefdom. He takes down anything that that isn't directly Ivy-related such as mentions of the PL unless it's directly related to a game review. He also takes down most posts that do not originate from an Ivy poster, using grammar and his assessed Ivy familiarity as a guide. He leaves some posts by PL posters. He also takes down post that he simply doesn't like for whatever reason. Anything more than the gentlest white-glove smack is a no-no.

Most important here is that any mention whatsoever of Any Given Saturday is edited or removed, almost immediately. They don't like outsiders.


NB - whoever whet on there calling it "censorship," please stop. Only governments censor. Private individuals, such as those running an Ivy board, still may do as they see fit. If they want to think that the Patriot League is populated by ignorant stooges, they have a right to do so, and to delete whatever posts they like. We, on the other have, have the right to call them self-righteous pucks and to kick their arses on Saturdays, all while maintaining, in several cases, more difficult admissions standards for players.

[DFW HOYA]

Interesting thread on Ivy Board bemoaning the possible death of IL football if PL goes schollie.
Just went back to Ivy Board thread has disappeared. Chivalry may be dead but it seems censorship is not.

How?

The Ivies have 24 non-confernece games each year among eight schools. As noted in an earlier thread, PL schools used to account for over 80% of Ivy non-conf. games but this has begun to decline and will accelerate as six of seven PL schools potentially aspire for CAA-level scholarship numbers.

Filling the 24 remains eminently possible, and still within a competitive position.

8-10 games annually across six scholarship PL schools
4 games with non-scholarship PL (Georgetown)
2-4 games with lower tier NEC teams
2-4 games with eastern Pioneer teams (Marist, Davidson)
2-4 games with CAA teams
2 wild card games (MEAC, Big South, etc.)

[RichH2]

The guy who moderates that board runs quite a fiefdom. He takes down anything that that isn't directly Ivy-related such as mentions of the PL unless it's directly related to a game review. He also takes down most posts that do not originate from an Ivy poster, using grammar and his assessed Ivy familiarity as a guide. He leaves some posts by PL posters. He also takes down post that he simply doesn't like for whatever reason. Anything more than the gentlest white-glove smack is a no-no.

Most important here is that any mention whatsoever of Any Given Saturday is edited or removed, almost immediately. They don't like outsiders.


NB - whoever whet on there calling it "censorship," please stop. Only governments censor. Private individuals, such as those running an Ivy board, still may do as they see fit. If they want to think that the Patriot League is populated by ignorant stooges, they have a right to do so, and to delete whatever posts they like. We, on the other have, have the right to call them self-righteous pucks and to kick their arses on Saturdays, all while maintaining, in several cases, more difficult admissions standards for players.

You are absolutely correct. I just couldn't resist. Sanctimonious elitism just P*sses me off.

[DFW HOYA]

Censorship is suppression of speech. Deleting posts from a message board is subjective editing. Let's never confuse the two.

[RichH2]

Censorship is suppression of speech. Deleting posts from a message board is subjective editing. Let's never confuse the two.

True enough, but sophistry aside, does speak volumes about the editor

[Andy]

The moderator has responded that the thread was removed due to the thread starter not following the no muliple screen names rule. Valid reason IMO.

[bison137]

LAFAYETTE - 67


QUALITY = 31: 21 of the 30 (70%) are Rated; two 2-stars and one 1-star, none confirmed. The usual numbers, but The Committee found it unsatisfying to say the least. The 70% number is indeed impressive, but to have only 3 of those 21 Rated recruits receive any kind of a star rating (and one of those a kicker) is puzzling.



Curious if you or anyone has ever done an analysis of whether rated players do any better than non-rated ones in the PL. I have looked at this for years for Bucknell and found no correlation at all - unless it is a negative correlation. Almost every All-PL player Bucknell has had was unrated - including (a) a future All-American, (b) a three-time 1st team All-PL player, (c) a PL ROY, (d) a 3-time All-PL RB/KR, (e) a RB who made Big 33 followed by All-PL as a frosh and as a soph, (f) etc.

In recent years, BU had a total of 30 All-PL players and only four of them had any listing at all from either Scout or Rivals. Of those four, one got 1 star from Scout (nothing from Rivals) - and that player (Sean Conover) ended up in the NFL at a different position. The other three were listed, but all had no stars. Of those three, two were QB's who ended up 2nd team All-PL at WR and LB respectively.

On the other hand, of the players who did get a listing from Scout or Rivals, most have ended up being non-contributors, with a few becoming average starters and only four ever making an All-PL squad (see above) - three at different positions. None of the two-star players turned out well.

Based on all of the above, I'm never disappointed if BU has few Scout/Rivals players.

[RichH2]

Not much correlation,as yet. Did a work up last summer could not establish any significant relationship. But Patsy's are not really about that as much as having some fun with a rather silly competition each year. Lum wasn't even mentioned in any of the recruiting services.

[carney2]

Curious if you or anyone has ever done an analysis of whether rated players do any better than non-rated ones in the PL. I have looked at this for years for Bucknell and found no correlation at all - unless it is a negative correlation. Almost every All-PL player Bucknell has had was unrated - including (a) a future All-American, (b) a three-time 1st team All-PL player, (c) a PL ROY, (d) a 3-time All-PL RB/KR, (e) a RB who made Big 33 followed by All-PL as a frosh and as a soph, (f) etc.

In recent years, BU had a total of 30 All-PL players and only four of them had any listing at all from either Scout or Rivals. Of those four, one got 1 star from Scout (nothing from Rivals) - and that player (Sean Conover) ended up in the NFL at a different position. The other three were listed, but all had no stars. Of those three, two were QB's who ended up 2nd team All-PL at WR and LB respectively.

On the other hand, of the players who did get a listing from Scout or Rivals, most have ended up being non-contributors, with a few becoming average starters and only four ever making an All-PL squad (see above) - three at different positions. None of the two-star players turned out well.

Based on all of the above, I'm never disappointed if BU has few Scout/Rivals players.

You are not the first to make this observation. No, there has never been any attempt to correlate the ratings with subsequent performance. Why? For one, try time, manpower, etc. I need to shovel the snow and, later in the year, mow my lawn. Another reason might be some sort of lack of interest. Everyone is interested in instant feedback on "how did we do?" No many interested in checking it out a few years later. In any event, no one has ever claimed that this is even a good system. It is, however, the best we have until someone dreams up a substitute. Some good. Some bad. As I pointed out in the Lehigh thread, the ratings did not recognize that Will Rackley even existed as he entered school. On the other hand, Chris Lum gave the Squawks beaucoup Patsy Points when he committed to wear a brown football suit.

Look on the bright side: more and more this is looking like this is the last year for the Patsies.

[carney2]

Not much correlation,as yet. Did a work up last summer could not establish any significant relationship. But Patsy's are not really about that as much as having some fun with a rather silly competition each year. Lum wasn't even mentioned in any of the recruiting services.

Lum was rated by both services and was a 1-star by Scout.

[van]

Look on the bright side: more and more this is looking like this is the last year for the Patsies.

Say it ain't so. Would hate to see this end. Makes for good discussion at a slow time of the year. Maybe a tweak would be in order if the scholarship landscape changes, but don't give up on it.

[breezy]

I agree. I look forward to the Patsies at this time each year.

[ngineer]

Agreed. All in good fun, and as Mr. Natural used to say, "Don't mean sheeeeeeeeeeeet!":D

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Almost as much fun as reading the Patsy ratings - now a Patriot League tradition - is *****ing about them when they're bad. :D

[van]

Almost as much fun as reading the Patsy ratings - now a Patriot League tradition - is *****ing about them when they're bad. :D

That's a discussion in itself, what really is a bad Patsy rating? If one team has a class size of 30 because they have a lot of spots to fill and another has a class size of 20 because they have fewer spots to fill, does that qualify as a bad recruiting class? Needs? Coach Coen identified LBs as primary need for this class, fans saw it differently and Patsy scored according to fans. The ratings spur fan interest and generate good discussion (Heath excluded). Gotta keep em around.

[van]

Anyone know when the Buffs and Snowshoes announce their class? Looking forward to their Patsy too. Understand Hoyas on tape delay in May.

[carney2]

Anyone know when the Buffs and Snowshoes announce their class? Looking forward to their Patsy too. Understand Hoyas on tape delay in May.

Neither is predictable and neither is near term. Last year:

Bucknell - 4/19
Colgate - 3/29

I would expect Holy Cross to be next.

[DFW HOYA]

Anyone know when the Buffs and Snowshoes announce their class? Looking forward to their Patsy too. Understand Hoyas on tape delay in May.

NCAA rules. Can't announce if they're not admitted.

[carney2]

NCAA rules. Can't announce if they're not admitted.

But 3 are already announced. Call the NCAA enforcement division?

[RichH2]

Dont know about others but LU kids are admitted prior to announcement. Think DFW correct about NCAA rule. I do wonder how GU do it with their Bball players.

[DFW HOYA]

Dont know about others but LU kids are admitted prior to announcement. Think DFW correct about NCAA rule. I do wonder how GU do it with their Bball players.

Georgetown no longer announces basketball recruits.

The short answer to all this is that athletes are not admitted in the early action phase of the Georgetown admissions calendar, but are at other PL schools.

[RichH2]

Ah, the joys of ethical consistency.xchinscratchx

[ngineer]

Dont know about others but LU kids are admitted prior to announcement. Think DFW correct about NCAA rule. I do wonder how GU do it with their Bball players.

Don't think that's 100% correct. A student is still free to change his mind. Lehigh lost a wrestler to Cornell a few years back after 'committing' and the defector didn't change his mind until August! I think we're looking at "letters of intent", with "intent" being the operative word. I was told I could not contact a recruit last year in the Spring, as he was the first kid my high school since me, to come to Lehigh and I wanted to send him a note. Andy cautioned me against doing that as until the kid is "enrolled" it could still be seen as a violation for such alumni contact.

[RichH2]

Don't think that's 100% correct. A student is still free to change his mind. Lehigh lost a wrestler to Cornell a few years back after 'committing' and the defector didn't change his mind until August! I think we're looking at "letters of intent", with "intent" being the operative word. I was told I could not contact a recruit last year in the Spring, as he was the first kid my high school since me, to come to Lehigh and I wanted to send him a note. Andy cautioned me against doing that as until the kid is "enrolled" it could still be seen as a violation for such alumni contact.

Admitted and enrolled are not same for NCAA purposes. Our kids are "admitted" by Admissions. Can then announce. No obligation on either side. Kid can go anywhere else he wants.Look how many we have lost in spring to Ivies.
Until enrolled by registrar however contact rules still apply. And we all know how persuasiveyou can be ngineer

[ngineer]

Admitted and enrolled are not same for NCAA purposes. Our kids are "admitted" by Admissions. Can then announce. No obligation on either side. Kid can go anywhere else he wants.Look how many we have lost in spring to Ivies.
Until enrolled by registrar however contact rules still apply. And we all know how persuasiveyou can be ngineer

Gotcha...always splitting hairs...A person without a Will ends up splitting heirs...

[RichH2]

Gotcha...always splitting hairs...A person without a Will ends up splitting heirs...

A well deserved Pun groanxsmileyclapxxawesomex