Patriot League recruiting Ratings - Colgate

[carney2]

COLGATE = 50

EDITORIAL: 31 recruits; only 7 rated; none with more than a 1 star rating; only one recognized by Rivals. In any other year or even any other week, my conclusion would be that Dick Biddle screwed the pooch with this group. Coming on the same day that Holy Cross announced essentially the same results - 7 rated recruits; none more than a 1-star; completely ignored by Rivals – however, gave me pause. Is something else going on here? I went back and looked at the 5 teams that have announced so far:

Lafayette: 7 rated recruits; over ½ of their Quality points came from 3 players, all 2-star recruits
Fordham: 4 rated recruits, only 1 with a star rating
Lehigh: 10 rated recruits; almost 40% of their Quality points came from 2 players, both 2-star recruits
Holy Cross: 7 rated recruits; none more than a 1-star; no recognition of any kind for this group from Rivals.
Colgate: 7 rated recruits; none more than a 1-star; only one recognized by Rivals, and that at the lowest possible level with no stars

This is not a great performance by the schools in this league. At the very least some questions need to be asked: Are we looking at a league-wide meltdown? Is the combination of economic woes and unbelievably high Patriot League tuitions making it increasingly difficult to compete for athletes by offering need based aid? Is the Patriot League circling the bowl and becoming increasingly less competitive in the world of FCS football? Has Fordham done everyone a favor by moving the usually glacial paced Patriot League poohbahs to end-game?

One thing that I think we can say for sure: for the most part, the Patriot League’s 2009 recruits were not a hot commodity in the world of D-1 football recruiting this past year. There was not a well worn path to their door.

Thanks for listening. Back to the Colgate recruiting class of 2009:

QUALITY = 13: 7 rated recruits (23% of the class) vs. 10 (31%) in 2008 and 8 (28%) in 2007. If you can do it with sheer numbers (“there must be a diamond in there somewhere”), then maybe this group is better than it appears.

CLASS SIZE = 7: 31 recruits

DISTRIBUTION = 9: At least 1 recruit at each position.

SPEED = 6: The usual disclaimer: information in this area is scarce.

TRIGGER = 0: The lone QB recruit is not rated.

JUMBO = 7: 6 OLs, 5 @ 270+ and 3 DLs, 2 @ 250+

NEEDS = 8:

WR = 3 (of 5): 4 WR recruits; only one is rated. The most impressive thing about this group is that all are over 6 ft.
OL = 4 (of 4): 6 OL recruits, only 1 rated, but 5 are jumbos. Numbers could be an advantage with this group.
DL = 1 (of 3): 3 DL recruits; none rated. Decent size, even though only two were awarded Jumbo points.

THE COMMITTEE’S ADJUSTMENTS = 0

Here’s where we stand with 5 reported and 2 to go:
1. 70 - Lehigh
2. 60 - Lafayette (adjusted twice for verified new recruits)
3. 50 - Colgate
4. 45 - Holy Cross
5. 35 - Fordham

Here are the three year totals with Colgate included;

Lehigh: 212 Total Points (71 per year): 2007 = 68 (#2); 2008 = 74 (#2)
Lafayette: 195 Total Points (65 per year): 2007 = 77 (#1); 2008 = 58 (#6)
Colgate: 171 Total Points (57 per year): 2007 = 57 (#4); 2008 = 64 (#5)
Fordham: 166 Total Points (55 per year): 2007 = 60 (#3); 2008 = 71 (#3)
Holy Cross: 133 Total Points (44 per year): 2007 = 22 (#7); 2008 = 66 (#4)

[ngineer]

Your observations on the perceived mediocrity of the PL dovetails nicely into the problem we have seen growing and as discussed elsewhere regarding our uphill recruiting battles with scholarship conferences and the Ivy.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I am really shocked that HC and Colgate's points aren't "all that". I have a feeling that when I ultimately release my own (completely subjective) rankings that the Raiders and Crusaders will NOT be #3 and #4 respectively.

Since we're talking about Colgate here, I am deeply impressed that the Raiders basically seem to have hoovered up a significant proportion of every academically eligible recruit in Florida, for starters.

[carney2]

I am really shocked that HC and Colgate's points aren't "all that". I have a feeling that when I ultimately release my own (completely subjective) rankings that the Raiders and Crusaders will NOT be #3 and #4 respectively.

Since we're talking about Colgate here, I am deeply impressed that the Raiders basically seem to have hoovered up a significant proportion of every academically eligible recruit in Florida, for starters.

Shocked? You shouldn't be. I should point out that although there is a certain amount of subjectivity in the Patsy Ratings, it is as close to a truly objective standard as we can get. Intentionally so. It is what it is, as they say. The Committee recognizes the chink in its armor - its strong reliance on the rating services - but counters with the argument that, although this kind of information is frequently incorrect in individual cases, particularly at the bottom levels of the recruiting process, it has much more validity when spread over large numbers such as the totality of these recruiting classes. Anyway, The Committee eagerly awaits your usually thoughtful and well reasoned analysis. In fact, we hope to be challenged by a number of objective - translation: non-homers - observers on this board.

But,

The Committee continues unshaken in its belief that the Patriot League recruiting classes of 2009 are mediocrity on parade, and make yet another case that the league cannot compete in the world of FCS football without scholarships. With 5 schools currently reported with Patsy Ratings, and another in the numbers crunching stage, Lehigh and Lafayette are so far the best chunks circling in this bowl. Neither should be rejoicing all that loudly, as they have created their leads on the backs of a very few superior recruits. If either of these teams gets to the playoffs down the road they will find, as Colgate did only a few months ago, that a few good players just doesn't get it done once you emerge from the football challenged Patriot League cocoon. These recruiting classes, both individually and in total, are yet another step backwards for the Patriot League. If the school is truly committed to D-1, if the institution sees football as an integral part of this commitment, if the institution believes that acceptance of mediocrity in anything is the acceptance of mediocrity in everything, then Fordham has taken the only reasonable course available.

[colorless raider]

Shocked? You shouldn't be. I should point out that although there is a certain amount of subjectivity in the Patsy Ratings, it is as close to a truly objective standard as we can get. Intentionally so. It is what it is, as they say. The Committee recognizes the chink in its armor - its strong reliance on the rating services - but counters with the argument that, although this kind of information is frequently incorrect in individual cases, particularly at the bottom levels of the recruiting process, it has much more validity when spread over large numbers such as the totality of these recruiting classes. Anyway, The Committee eagerly awaits your usually thoughtful and well reasoned analysis. In fact, we hope to be challenged by a number of objective - translation: non-homers - observers on this board.

But,

The Committee continues unshaken in its belief that the Patriot League recruiting classes of 2009 are mediocrity on parade, and make yet another case that the league cannot compete in the world of FCS football without scholarships. With 5 schools currently reported with Patsy Ratings, and another in the numbers crunching stage, Lehigh and Lafayette are so far the best chunks circling in this bowl. Neither should be rejoicing all that loudly, as they have created their leads on the backs of a very few superior recruits. If either of these teams gets to the playoffs down the road they will find, as Colgate did only a few months ago, that a few good players just doesn't get it done once you emerge from the football challenged Patriot League cocoon. These recruiting classes, both individually and in total, are yet another step backwards for the Patriot League. If the school is truly committed to D-1, if the institution sees football as an integral part of this commitment, if the institution believes that acceptance of mediocrity in anything is the acceptance of mediocrity in everything, then Fordham has taken the only reasonable course available.

We all should fire off this thread to our respective presidents.

[RichH2]

While I do not have the depth of info that Carney gives us, before signing day I was concerned with PL recruiting as it did not appear to be as competitive as the last couple of years. there has been a gradual slide across the board over the last 3 yrs for the entire league.

LU a it above only because of 3 top recruits. Bianchi, Colvin and Flynn.

The PL is fading slowly but consistently. In a few yrs we wont be looking for RPI or Union to join us we may be looking to join them

[breezy]

I do hope that I do not fall into Carney's category of "homer" since I feel that I can be as objective as anyone. I acknowledge that I am a strong advocate of Holy Cross but I admire and respect all of the institutions in the PL. I am awaiting Carney's response to some of the questions I posed under the Holy Cross ratings thread, but I understand he has to give first attention to the ratings for the other schools that have recently announced their recruiting classes.

I have a somewhat different take on what I consider to be the overly-pessimistic sentiments expressed earlier in this thread. Let me start by saying that I hope a way can be found so that the Patriot League will permit scholarships for football. I have been told that Title IX is a big consideration that will make that a costly move. I also acknowledge that Holy Cross is probably one of the principal voices against the move. However, I think it is a fair assumption that as more schools move to scholarship programs, recruiting will become more difficult and we will lose players to teams in scholarship leagues. I don't want to see that happen -- or perhaps I should say that I don't want to see that continue.

However, I believe that you cannot judge the quality of a recruiting class by the number of "rated" players in the class. (This is not a knock on the Patsy ratings, since there is no other legitimate objective basis on which judgments can be made.) I feel certain that coaches do not recruit on the basis of Scout or Rivals ratings. I think it often happens that a school will choose to make an offer to a non-rated player and decline an offer to a rated player at the same position based on the staff's judgment of which one will be a better fit for the program.

Let me offer two examples. These are only anecdotal in nature and certainly not sufficient to form the basis of a definitive judgment, but I think they offer something that should give pause to the pessimism expressed earlier in this thread.

1. On the Holy Cross message board, a poster (currently a HS coach) bemoaned the fact that HC did not offer a scholarship to a wide receiver at that poster's school. The wide receiver was rated one-star by Scout. The poster described the wide receiver as having great hands and great anticipation. It sounded like the poster knew that if an offer had been made, it would have been accepted. The poster pointed out that HC did make an offer to a wide receiver in a nearby town. In his view, that receiver (who is not rated and showed up on the HC recruit list as a DB) was not at the level of the one-star. Apparently, the HC coaching staff thought otherwise. (I understand that other considerations such as the AI may have played a role in this decision.) End result -- one less rated player in the HC recruit list.

2. The second example may be somewhat premature but it seems in my mind to have some significance. Last year's HC recruiting class had 10 rated players. During the past season, four HC freshmen made the two-deep -- a running back (after the starter suffered an injury that ended his season), an offensive lineman, and two linebackers. Only one of these four was a "rated" recruit (one of the linebackers). The other three freshmen who performed well enough to make the two-deep were not "rated" recruits.

In sum, there are lots of good players out there who are not rated. We probably won't know who they are until they demonstrate on the field how good they are. We have very good coaches in this league -- let's give them the benefit of the doubt in the choices they make on which high school players should be recruited. Let's not get overly pessimistic about the quality of recruiting classes until these recruits have the opportunity to show what they can do.

[ngineer]

I think most people take (or should) the ratings on scout and rivals with a grain of salt. Much of the information is second and third hand hearsay and from people with various agendas. You are correct that offering a grant or to even recruit someone as a walk-on is based alot on how the coaching staff sees the student fitting in to their program and needs. Some very excellent athletes may not be recruited by one school as opposed to another due to the fact that only so many positions can be offered and you don't want to waste an offer on someone you don't believe will pan out in your system, school, etc. The reason some recruits viewed as "FBS quality" end up in FCS is some questions about injury history, strength of opposition in high school, ability to actually see, etc. Schools are limited to the number of scholarships they can use and they seriiously consider the risk of offering one to someone with a lot of queston marks.
Lehigh has a super soph.WR who was recruited strongly by Penn State, but to be a 'preferred walk on' with a chance for a scholarship as a soph., because they could only offer so many scholarships. He chose Lehigh who gave him a good sized grant that made Lehigh cheaper than full tuition at Penn State.
It is a tough game being played--on the field---and on the road.xrotatehx

[bison137]

However, I believe that you cannot judge the quality of a recruiting class by the number of "rated" players in the class. (This is not a knock on the Patsy ratings, since there is no other legitimate objective basis on which judgments can be made.) I feel certain that coaches do not recruit on the basis of Scout or Rivals ratings. I think it often happens that a school will choose to make an offer to a non-rated player and decline an offer to a rated player at the same position based on the staff's judgment of which one will be a better fit for the program.




Following up on that thought. Of Bucknell's last 15 All-PL players, only one had a ranking from Scout or Rivals. And of their last 15 who did have a ranking, very few did anything at all in the PL.


Here was the writeup of a Bison recruit seven years ago:

"_____________, TE/6-5/230/Whitman, Mass./Whitman-Hanson H.S.)
... earned three varsity letters each in football and basketball, and one in baseball ... football team captured league championships in 2000 and 2001 ... Division 3 state champs in 2001 and runner-up in 2000 ... all-league selection ... Brockton Enterprise and Patriot-Ledger all-scholastic team ... WATD Distinguished Player of the Year ... Shriner's All-Star selection ... two-time all-league performer and team captain in basketball."


Not much to write home about. No all-state recognition, even in a fairly weak football state. He had no stars from Rivals and one star from Scout.

The player was Sean Conover, who went on to make first team All-PL twice and was the league's defensive POY as a DE. Also did well at TE when asked to go both ways. Sean has been on NFL rosters the past three years and started some games for the Tennessee Titans a couple of years ago.