FB: Presidents' Athletic Conference

[the_burghboy]

I guess I'm the one that will wear the 'X' in this matter.  I do believe the program is not what it was under the last two head coaches in terms of talent they have, the size, etc.

That doesn't mean that I have a problem with that entirely either.  The thing I value much more than four years playing was the degree I earned and hangs on my wall.  If that means the program takes a step back and remains strong as an institution, then so be it.

I think there are more options for a high school senior also, especially if you are in the WPIAL schools.  Robert Morris is now an option, Duquesne is now more viable in the area (and know kids personally that passed W&J for going there).  Others may not buy this, but I also think the PSAC in Division II has also been a bigger influence in recent years, around the area.

At the end of the day, it still leads to excuses...if you let them be.  The reality is they no longer are the power of their conference, have lost it to other teams more than they won it under the current staff, and with their play last Saturday would only be a playoff team in name only.  

[SaintsFAN]

I guess I'm the one that will wear the 'X' in this matter.  I do believe the program is not what it was under the last two head coaches in terms of talent they have, the size, etc.

That doesn't mean that I have a problem with that entirely either.  The thing I value much more than four years playing was the degree I earned and hangs on my wall.  If that means the program takes a step back and remains strong as an institution, then so be it.

I think there are more options for a high school senior also, especially if you are in the WPIAL schools.  Robert Morris is now an option, Duquesne is now more viable in the area (and know kids personally that passed W&J for going there).  Others may not buy this, but I also think the PSAC in Division II has also been a bigger influence in recent years, around the area.

At the end of the day, it still leads to excuses...if you let them be.  The reality is they no longer are the power of their conference, have lost it to other teams more than they won it under the current staff, and with their play last Saturday would only be a playoff team in name only.  

Good comments on recruiting.  Pat Coleman and Keith McMillian touched on the PSAC in today's Around the Nation Podcast:  

http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2009/11/02/atn-qb-changes-changing-guard/

[the_burghboy]

Good comments on recruiting.  Pat Coleman and Keith McMillian touched on the PSAC in today's Around the Nation Podcast:  

http://www.d3football.com/dailydose/2009/11/02/atn-qb-changes-changing-guard/

Thank you.  I just fast forwarded to the W&J part, and glad others see it that way.

I also agree with Bob Gregg on how things were a bit different "INSTITUTIONALLY".  My acceptance letter came from the admissions office.  I know of some that I played with that probably didn't get that same letter.  

That said, those guys never really made an impact.  At least the ones in the four year window that I attended and recall.  Obviously nobody is going to name names, but you couldn't really 'hide' there when it came to classes.  Maybe it was different years after I left, but those kids usually had an empty locker the next year.  

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks for the comments on the PSAC increasing the number of football scholarships.

[Cleveland Cartel]

Touchdown,

I am with Burgh boy on this matter. I do believe the PAC is a more competitive conference as we have all agreed to. I believe WJ is not attracting the same talent in Pittsburgh like they used to. Institutionally or not.
_{Your Comments from your original post:
^{I do not remember a W&J team that would rather win the PAC than win a couple of playoff games.
I guess the W&J program even carries an X on its back on this board as well. Maybe you are right Bob, maybe there needs to be more emphasis put on winning the PAC. But, until W&J stops making the playoffs and stops winning playoff games than I think they are just fine.}} 

Any coach will tell their kids, its a one week season. I don't think Banny or Siranni would ever be coaching their guys to be ready for the playoffs vs. winning the PAC. You win the PAC to make the playoffs. I just sounded like Herm Edwards, "YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!" If WJ didnt care about winning the PAC over the last 5 years I would say thats not acceptable from a coaching standpoint. Definetly not the case at WJ. WJ has had that X on their back for over 20 years in the PAC. Every PAC team aims to use the WJ game as a measuring stick. WJ is not winning all its PAC games not because of coaching, or just to make the playoffs, or coaching schemes, but the talent of the player is different. WJ's 11 men on offense were better than the 11 on defense. WJ's 11 men on defense across the board were better than the 11 men on offense. WJ's special teams were better than the other teams special teams.

I firmly believe that is a fair statement.

Welcome to the Board TD2010

[touchdownman2010]

Burgh,

Not really agreeing with you on the Banny days vs. today. I will agree that Lucky had things going with two national runner ups, no one in the program has matched that yet.

But, when you look at the Banny days, he finished 10-0 once. Never made it past the second round of the playoffs. And his teams were never ranked in the top 10 at the end of the season.

Today's Program, they have been undefeated multiple times. They have made it to the quarterfinals on two different occassions and they have been ranked as a Top 10 program twice as well.

So, if you can explain to me how it was better back then, I am willing to listen...

Also, any thoughts on the Geneva/Thomas More game?

[PAC Homer]

TMC has just as good/better athletes than W/J.
That is a fact....they were even last year.

This year, TMC had better players.
The defense was unreal.

TMC has a better team due largely in part to having better players.

[PAC Homer]

Burgh,

Not really agreeing with you on the Banny days vs. today. I will agree that Lucky had things going with two national runner ups, no one in the program has matched that yet.

But, when you look at the Banny days, he finished 10-0 once. Never made it past the second round of the playoffs. And his teams were never ranked in the top 10 at the end of the season.

Today's Program, they have been undefeated multiple times. They have made it to the quarterfinals on two different occassions and they have been ranked as a Top 10 program twice as well.

So, if you can explain to me how it was better back then, I am willing to listen...

Also, any thoughts on the Geneva/Thomas More game?

TMC 31
Geneva 0

[SaintsFAN]

Also, any thoughts on the Geneva/Thomas More game?

Yep.  Its payback time for the last two years.  Last year the Saints were prime for a big upset after the W&J win (this game was the following week --- a trip TO Beaver Falls).  I was worried about this game because of the celebration I witnessed following the W&J win.   This year, Geneva will get TMC's full focus and effort.  

Admittedly, I don't know much about GC this season, but I can tell you their defense has been giving up yards and points and they are 7-1 playing the PAC schedule + another game with St Vincent and Frostburg St as their OOC games.  TMC's offense is going to be wide open and the defense is going to play their best---- its Stellman, Collier, Steinmetz, Kohr's last regular season games at Bank of Kentucky Stadium.

If Thomas More treats their Senior Day in the same manner as we did while I played there ----- they are going to play their most inspired game of the year.   Senior Day always brought the best out emotionally in us as we wanted to send the guys out of there with a huge win.  I remember in 1999 Carnegie Mellon swore we were running up the score on them ---- it wasn't that, even our back ups were inspired and frankly, CMU wasn't as good as they felt they were.  I look for a repeat of that game, 10 years ago----  31-7

[the_burghboy]

Burgh,

Not really agreeing with you on the Banny days vs. today. I will agree that Lucky had things going with two national runner ups, no one in the program has matched that yet.

But, when you look at the Banny days, he finished 10-0 once. Never made it past the second round of the playoffs. And his teams were never ranked in the top 10 at the end of the season.

Today's Program, they have been undefeated multiple times. They have made it to the quarterfinals on two different occassions and they have been ranked as a Top 10 program twice as well.

So, if you can explain to me how it was better back then, I am willing to listen...

Also, any thoughts on the Geneva/Thomas More game?

I'm not really trying to convince anyone of my opinion.  I never watched a team under the last two staffs play as flat with as much on the line Saturday, but the players need to be held accountable as well.

I think the playoff format has also changed in that span, so the advancement of rounds could be debated, and Banaszak only coached four years I believe.  What can't be debated is that he won the PAC every season he coached there.

Hey, agree to disagree.  I watched the last 'undefeated' team you mention blow a #1 seed at home to NC Wesleyan in '07.  That seems to be left out of your argument, but we all have our opinions. 

I would love to be wrong, see W&J get a bid and run through the playoffs.   I'm an alum, donor, and fan of the college and it's program and will continue to be.  That said, to take a page from Bob Gregg, I also "call em like I see em", and that is what I see. 

[the_burghboy]

I remember in 1999 Carnegie Mellon swore we were running up the score on them ---- it wasn't that, even our back ups were inspired and frankly, CMU wasn't as good as they felt they were. 

Running up the score on those guys is a good thing. 

[Bob.Gregg]

I would love to be wrong, see W&J get a bid and run through the playoffs.   I'm an alum, donor, and fan of the college and it's program and will continue to be. 

+1 for the_burghboy....I'd give you another for quoting me, but the system won't let me padded your karma for another 24 hours!

[the_burghboy]

You are a kind man Mr. Gregg.  No matter what those trick-or-treaters knocking on your door think.  

[mikefln]

I am a casual D1AA, D2, & D3 football fan.  I like to see the teams close to Pittsburgh do good so I basically just follow the trib on sundays to see who won.  My question is: compared to the rest of D3 how does the PAC compare?  Are they one of the better D3 football conference, are they average, or below average?

Also does anybody know why Carnegie Mellon and Allegheny not in the PAC?

[Cleveland Cartel]

Mike,

Great Questions I dont know about CMU, but I can tell you Allegheny and the PAC has several of these discussions through the years. They have been a long standing member in the NCAC which is primarily all Ohio Schools. You have to consider Athletics, Academics, Cost of the institution, different degrees, and etc. From conversations that I had with former Allegheny football coaches I understand their tuition is higher than most PAC schools except for maybe WJ, GCC, and Westminster. Their long standing relationship to the NCAC is another key to the deal. From what I undertand Allegheny is very satisfied even though the travel could be less expensive and less time on the athletes. Many Moons ago Allegheny and JCU (John Carroll) were in the PAC. I do know that Allegheny was an idea thrown around to add to the conference when the PAC went through several expansions over the last 4 years.