Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PSAC Recruiting - Offers and Commitments

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

    Well it wasn't eliminated to increase our competition level. It was eliminated to convince Gannon and Mercyhurst to join.
    It doesn't matter WHY it was eliminated. It was thought by many that when it was removed the PSAC would be more competitive in the national tournament. Bob Eblen, quoted in the article, wrote a year or two ago in his D2 column that he was surprised there hadn't been more PSAC contenders since the self-imposed restriction was lifted. Tepper was opposed to the private schools being admitted because he thought they'd dominate with their scholarship money. That hasn't happened, either. The PSAC is presently a league where multiple teams are competing for a diminishing in-state talent pool. They're going to have to cast a wider recruiting net, and some coaching staffs are starting to get it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ship69 View Post

      The article basically said now that the self-imposed scholarship limit had been lifted it was expected that the PSAC would start competing for the national championship on a more regular basis. That hasn't happened. The conference's problem at present is not the IUP Rule.
      Nope. They aren't spending enough. Our top teams can (generally) compete, roster-wise, players 1-22. The big fall-off is players 23-45. There's been a couple years in the past 15 years the top PSAC teams have proven they could compete -- but they've been few and far between. Obviously you can't count anything Shepherd had done, PSAC discussion, other than last year in this conversation. This past season was just yet another reminder how far behind SR1 is/was nationally. That game at SRU this year was just ugly.

      To actually win games in late November outside of SR1 you have to have a ton of quality depth. That's where we're really lacking -- for a variety of reasons. No team will be healthy at that stage of the season. Without high-quality depth you have no chance. If you carry 20 rides in the PSAC, you'll probably do real good -- in the PSAC. If you want to win the last game of the season ... you'll need maxed.

      Gannon and Mercyhurst ... with their Blue Light Special tuition ... they've just had suspect coaching and average recruiting. If the right coach lands in either place they could go off.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post

        Nope. They aren't spending enough. Our top teams can (generally) compete, roster-wise, players 1-22. The big fall-off is players 23-45. There's been a couple years in the past 15 years the top PSAC teams have proven they could compete -- but they've been few and far between. Obviously you can't count anything Shepherd had done, PSAC discussion, other than last year in this conversation. This past season was just yet another reminder how far behind SR1 is/was nationally. That game at SRU this year was just ugly.

        To actually win games in late November outside of SR1 you have to have a ton of quality depth. That's where we're really lacking -- for a variety of reasons. No team will be healthy at that stage of the season. Without high-quality depth you have no chance. If you carry 20 rides in the PSAC, you'll probably do real good -- in the PSAC. If you want to win the last game of the season ... you'll need maxed.

        Gannon and Mercyhurst ... with their Blue Light Special tuition ... they've just had suspect coaching and average recruiting. If the right coach lands in either place they could go off.
        And I blame the lack of depth on the oversaturation of opportunity. I'm not advocating for any program elimination or campus closings. But if we had even 25% fewer programs and campuses over time, theoretically the people who care about football would have been supporting those schools better and we'd see deeper rosters.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by IUPbigINDIANS View Post

          Nope. They aren't spending enough. Our top teams can (generally) compete, roster-wise, players 1-22. The big fall-off is players 23-45. There's been a couple years in the past 15 years the top PSAC teams have proven they could compete -- but they've been few and far between. Obviously you can't count anything Shepherd had done, PSAC discussion, other than last year in this conversation. This past season was just yet another reminder how far behind SR1 is/was nationally. That game at SRU this year was just ugly.

          To actually win games in late November outside of SR1 you have to have a ton of quality depth. That's where we're really lacking -- for a variety of reasons. No team will be healthy at that stage of the season. Without high-quality depth you have no chance. If you carry 20 rides in the PSAC, you'll probably do real good -- in the PSAC. If you want to win the last game of the season ... you'll need maxed.

          Gannon and Mercyhurst ... with their Blue Light Special tuition ... they've just had suspect coaching and average recruiting. If the right coach lands in either place they could go off.
          Well, your Gannon and Mercyhurst statement kind of proves the point. More scholarships and spending is a key factor, but it isn't the whole answer. You still need good coaching and recruiting. With 16 Division II schools in the state, the PSAC is going to have to mine some new recruiting grounds. The Minnesota team that routed Slippery Rock in the playoffs this year takes advantage of the fact that there are only two Division II programs in all of neighboring Wisconsin and Iowa. Shepherd, once again, did not recruit a single Pa. player this year and they seem to do pretty well. Coach Mac at Ship hit Jersey more heavily than usual this year, and I have a feeling he'll be looking south of our border in the future. As far as money goes, I'll be donating something to athletics this year, but most will go to our foundation. If there's no university around to field a football team, the amount of scholarships we have or don't have isn't going to matter much.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fightingscot82 View Post

            Well it wasn't eliminated to increase our competition level. It was eliminated to convince Gannon and Mercyhurst to join.
            That could have been a "de jure" rationale (even though I've never heard it before) but the de facto rationale was a result of many years of pressure from the schools who wanted to be more competitive nationally.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ship69 View Post

              Well, your Gannon and Mercyhurst statement kind of proves the point. More scholarships and spending is a key factor, but it isn't the whole answer. You still need good coaching and recruiting. With 16 Division II schools in the state, the PSAC is going to have to mine some new recruiting grounds. The Minnesota team that routed Slippery Rock in the playoffs this year takes advantage of the fact that there are only two Division II programs in all of neighboring Wisconsin and Iowa. Shepherd, once again, did not recruit a single Pa. player this year and they seem to do pretty well. Coach Mac at Ship hit Jersey more heavily than usual this year, and I have a feeling he'll be looking south of our border in the future. As far as money goes, I'll be donating something to athletics this year, but most will go to our foundation. If there's no university around to field a football team, the amount of scholarships we have or don't have isn't going to matter much.
              DII has mostly been a regional state school classification and oddly enough most of the schools who have both moved up and down from DII have been private and most national champions have been public. I think part of this is that the discounting off of the artificially inflated sticker price is like shopping at Costco: you're getting a good deal but you're probably still spending more than you need to.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ship69 View Post

                Well, your Gannon and Mercyhurst statement kind of proves the point. More scholarships and spending is a key factor, but it isn't the whole answer. You still need good coaching and recruiting. With 16 Division II schools in the state, the PSAC is going to have to mine some new recruiting grounds. The Minnesota team that routed Slippery Rock in the playoffs this year takes advantage of the fact that there are only two Division II programs in all of neighboring Wisconsin and Iowa. Shepherd, once again, did not recruit a single Pa. player this year and they seem to do pretty well. Coach Mac at Ship hit Jersey more heavily than usual this year, and I have a feeling he'll be looking south of our border in the future. As far as money goes, I'll be donating something to athletics this year, but most will go to our foundation. If there's no university around to field a football team, the amount of scholarships we have or don't have isn't going to matter much.
                CAL CLASS OF 2020 cut back on OOS but slightly increased PREP/PAROCHIAL players. Unless things fall apart for no good reason, this will look like a successful year in the PSAC because of a cyclical weak schedule. I don't see any VULCANS making a splash nationally.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ship69 View Post

                  But it's been 10 years since this article and they haven't really gotten more competitive at the national level.
                  Look at it from the other angle. Where would the PSAC be if it still imposed the 25 schollie limit?

                  The top schools e.g. SRU/IUP would be even less competitive outside of the conference. Plus, for the majority of the schools that are still below 25 they are doing more just to keep up and remain competitive within the PSAC.

                  Since the limit was lifted the other conferences in the region have improved. Lifting the self-imposed rule has enabled the PSAC to maintain it's competitive level compared to the rest of the region. It was imperative to lift the restriction.

                  Finally, I think the conference is actually more competitive nationally. In the past few years prior to 2019, although we didn't make it to the semis, the PSAC playoff teams were more competitive in the championship tournament (which includes regional playoffs). Even this past year the PSAC dominated the regional tournament. People tend to focus on SRU getting blown out in the snow. A lot of people thought that was a bad matchup. Not to mention that the Rock was overhyped. I don't think that game is an all-encompassing indicator that the PSAC is so inferior on a national level.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by iupgroundhog View Post

                    Look at it from the other angle. Where would the PSAC be if it still imposed the 25 schollie limit?

                    The top schools e.g. SRU/IUP would be even less competitive outside of the conference. Plus, for the majority of the schools that are still below 25 they are doing more just to keep up and remain competitive within the PSAC.

                    Since the limit was lifted the other conferences in the region have improved. Lifting the self-imposed rule has enabled the PSAC to maintain it's competitive level compared to the rest of the region. It was imperative to lift the restriction.

                    Finally, I think the conference is actually more competitive nationally. In the past few years prior to 2019, although we didn't make it to the semis, the PSAC playoff teams were more competitive in the championship tournament (which includes regional playoffs). Even this past year the PSAC dominated the regional tournament. People tend to focus on SRU getting blown out in the snow. A lot of people thought that was a bad matchup. Not to mention that the Rock was overhyped. I don't think that game is an all-encompassing indicator that the PSAC is so inferior on a national level.
                    Well, we'll see. Obviously as a PSAC follower I hope you're right.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by iupgroundhog View Post
                      That could have been a "de jure" rationale (even though I've never heard it before) but the de facto rationale was a result of many years of pressure from the schools who wanted to be more competitive nationally.
                      Eh, not really. It wasn't long before Gannon and Mercyhurst joined the league that the PSAC was teaming up with the RMAC to propose legislation that all D2 schools get capped at 25. It obviously failed.

                      Originally posted by iupgroundhog View Post
                      Look at it from the other angle. Where would the PSAC be if it still imposed the 25 schollie limit?
                      Seeing how in 2017-18, only Gannon, Mercyhurst and Shepherd were above 25, would it look any different than it does now?
                      http://www.indianagazette.com
                      www.twitter.com/MattBurglund

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Matt Burglund View Post

                        Eh, not really. It wasn't long before Gannon and Mercyhurst joined the league that the PSAC was teaming up with the RMAC to propose legislation that all D2 schools get capped at 25. It obviously failed.



                        Seeing how in 2017-18, only Gannon, Mercyhurst and Shepherd were above 25, would it look any different than it does now?

                        Hasn't the long excuse out of Erie been that they have to recruit to higher academic standards than us lowly 'state schools' ? (true or not ...)


                        Mercyhurst may be the case, too, where being around .500 seems fine and dandy. They put a lot of emphasis on other wrestling, hockey and men's basketball.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Matt Burglund View Post


                          Eh, not really. It wasn't long before Gannon and Mercyhurst joined the league that the PSAC was teaming up with the RMAC to propose legislation that all D2 schools get capped at 25. It obviously failed.

                          Is that speculation or do you know it was a result of adding the private schools?


                          Originally posted by Matt Burglund View Post
                          Seeing how in 2017-18, only Gannon, Mercyhurst and Shepherd were above 25, would it look any different than it does now?
                          Maybe not too much but I think it increases upside for the league. You're citing 4 years ago. This is 2020-21. Do a few more schollies help? Well, if you do the east vs. west comparison it's hard to justify but I think more is better.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by iupgroundhog View Post

                            Is that speculation or do you know it was a result of adding the private schools?



                            Maybe not too much but I think it increases upside for the league. You're citing 4 years ago. This is 2020-21. Do a few more schollies help? Well, if you do the east vs. west comparison it's hard to justify but I think more is better.
                            You are right about this: It's hard to justify if you look at the East vs. the West.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Matt Burglund View Post

                              Eh, not really. It wasn't long before Gannon and Mercyhurst joined the league that the PSAC was teaming up with the RMAC to propose legislation that all D2 schools get capped at 25. It obviously failed.



                              Seeing how in 2017-18, only Gannon, Mercyhurst and Shepherd were above 25, would it look any different than it does now?
                              One piece of it was an across the board scholarship limit too. I don't recall what that number was.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jrshooter View Post

                                You are right about this: It's hard to justify if you look at the East vs. the West.
                                Is this the poor little West Chester argument again? Until you see ALL the funds these teams are putting in to football then the scholarship posted number is irrelevant. It tells a portion of the story.

                                SRU's starting RB this year (SH transfer) was put on a full academic ride. That stuff doesn't show up in this yearly discussion. It's not a loophole as it's legal. Find really good, smart players and you can get real creative with how much they get.

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X