PATSY Ratings - Lehigh Class of 2020

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-2016-patsy-ratings-no-1-lehigh.html

The Ratings:
LEHIGH - 57
COLGATE - 57 (http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-2016-patsy-ratings-no-5-colgate.html)
BUCKNELL - 53 (http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-2016-patsy-ratings-no-3-bucknell.html#uds-search-results)
LAFAYETTE - 50 (http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-2016-patsy-ratings-no-2-lafayette.html)
HOLY CROSS - 49 (http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-2016-patsy-ratings-no-5-holy-cross.html)
GEORGETOWN - 37 (http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-2016-patsy-ratings-no-6-georgetown.html)
FORDHAM - 34 (http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-2016-patsy-ratings-no-7-fordham.html)

"57 this year, you have to remember, would have been SEVENTH PLACE last year (http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-2015-patsy-ratings-ranking.html)!"

[RichH2]

A 5 way tie with Hoyas and Rams a close 2nd.. :) OOC will tell us whether we have improved. It may be that smaller classes require more emphasis on needs over stars.

[carney2]

Now that we see the numbers, the big question is: What has happened to Patriot League recruiting? Neither the Patsy rules nor methodology has changed, but the point totals have dropped drastically from prior years.

[DFW HOYA]

Now that we see the numbers, the big question is: What has happened to Patriot League recruiting? Neither the Patsy rules nor methodology has changed, but the point totals have dropped drastically from prior years.

Fewer recruits, fewer bonus points.

Still makes no sense to hold Georgetown to a scholarship-sized roster, but that's the collateral damage when you don't play in the sandbox.

[carney2]

Fewer recruits, fewer bonus points.

With scholarships we should be seeing (many) more Quality Points. These should be more than making up for small class size. Something is amiss - and it's League wide.

[RichH2]

With scholarships we should be seeing (many) more Quality Points. These should be more than making up for small class size. Something is amiss - and it's League wide.
Thought so also in the first couple of years. The recruit pool certainly much larger but perhaps not quite in ways we anticipated. The marked difference now is the teams we are competing against for recruits. The appearance of FBS teams,, uncommon pre schollie, is commonplace in the last 2 classes.. Our primary competitors now are the academies,MAC,,CAA and G5 . Ivies are still prevalent and still get more H2Hs than PL but we do win more often than pre schollie. While rare, we do see recruits with standing B10 offers( usually as PWOs) signing with a PL team.

[LeopardBall10]

While I agree that we all expect to see better quality talent with the addition of scholarships I would caution against the blanket statement that "we should be seeing (many) more Quality Points." The basis for quality points, for the sake of the Patsys, are the stars and recruiting sites. I know we have discussed many times that this is an inexact science, but it is the best (read only) measure we have to quantitatively gauge quality. However that statement is assuming that the CAA classes would all have scored much higher than the PL if measured the same way. Is that the case? has anyone compared a possible CAA of even MAC Patsy score? Until someone is willing to do that I don't know how you can say our recruiting classes aren't living up to scholarship standards.

[RichH2]

Great point LB. That comparison was done a few years back with the Ivies specifically. HYP. Needless to say all three topped PL based on star points. I will take a look over the weekend at Nova,UNH and W & M.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

While I agree that we all expect to see better quality talent with the addition of scholarships I would caution against the blanket statement that "we should be seeing (many) more Quality Points." The basis for quality points, for the sake of the Patsys, are the stars and recruiting sites. I know we have discussed many times that this is an inexact science, but it is the best (read only) measure we have to quantitatively gauge quality. However that statement is assuming that the CAA classes would all have scored much higher than the PL if measured the same way. Is that the case? has anyone compared a possible CAA of even MAC Patsy score? Until someone is willing to do that I don't know how you can say our recruiting classes aren't living up to scholarship standards.

Funny you should mention this. I should be posting something later today.