Game #6 - @ Campbell

[JD24]

Sounded like Dave wanted to talk more about the Stetson win than the upcoming Campbell game.

I'm hoping whatever mojo the boys had earlier in the season returns and it is a competitive game. I'll be optimistic for once and go with a 33-27 Campbell win.

[usc4valpo]

It is game day in Mayberry baby! Hope the gents enjoy some decent barbecue while they are down there.

[Dojan123]

Pregame pictures.

[valpofb16]

Whelp, after watching all three scholarship teams , this was by far the most athletic team. They've been giving scholarships since Minter got there if I had to guess (just look at all the d1 transfers in 13,14)  , I mean how many kids would slip all fcs and d2 Schools to go to a then pfl bottom feeder

[hailcrusaders]

49-7 Campbell at half, in case anyone is wondering.

[JD24]

Seewald not in pads in 2nd half.

[valpofb16]

Game 6 and we don't have a sack, there is no pass rushers on this team, if I were coaches I'd recruit transfer defensive linemen and tell them job is there's to lose

Dbs we still can't stop screens, which set up slants which set up the deep ball which we can't stop

Lb play is solid but we can't blitz them because we need them in coverage due to extreme lack of a 4 man rush

Also against quality opponents
45
45
38
49

Against worst offense in d1
27

[vu72]

Valpo WINS 3-0!!!  (second half) 

[JD24]

Seewald hurt his quad. No forecast for availability next week.

[VULB#62]

Whelp, after watching all three scholarship teams , this was by far the most athletic team. They've been giving [FB] scholarships since Minter got there if I had to guess (just look at all the d1 transfers in 13,14)  , I mean how many kids would slip all fcs and d2 Schools to go to a then pfl bottom feeder

I must disagree.    Campbell would never do what Mercer did.  They promised that only players who were not on FB scholarships would complete their last year in the PFL.  I am am fully confident that is what we witnessed today. 

But then.......

Who actually determines what need-based financial aide is vs. a full NCAA FB scholarship?  I believe that is left up to the school, isn't it?  And what's to say whether that "need" is the players financial situation or that the school needs the player?  My snarky point above is that a full ride is a full ride whether you call it need based financial aid or an athletic scholarship.  FB16's observation that FBS/FCS scholarship transfers who had to sit a year would not be there had it not been for the need-based equivalent of an NCAA full-ride is spot-on.  It's just semantics and what Campbell chose to call this condition.  If it walks like a duck... etc.

This probably sounds like sour grapes because we got killed (But, I mean, their running backs were averaging 6-9 yards every carry it seems), yet there is something smelly about a school and an athletic department that throws millions at a stadium and new support facilities for a "non-scholarship" team, and then just announces they will now go from no FCS scholarships to FCS scholarship in one year with a final swan song in the PFL on the way out (but won't play those scholarship players).  Here's yet another point:  Last year Campbell was 3-4 in PFL play.  They barely beat  2-6 Butler (33-27), 0-8 Davidson (28-0), and 3-5 MSU (27-21). This year they have killed, Stetson, MSU and Valpo scoring and average of 45 points in those three games.  C'mon man!

Here is the 2017 string referring to this issue:

VULB#62
Re: Game #6 - @ Campbell
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2017, 09:06:41 PM »

Yeah, this was years in the making. You can't tell me that their decision came out of the blue and suddenly they were changing direction. And if you know you are moving in a certain direction, wouldn't you clue your recruited players into this to attract them? And then you would spike their financial aid package to approximate what a full sholarship might be.  It is beginning to smell a lot like Mercer all over again.

JD24
Re: Game #6 - @ Campbell
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2017, 07:42:33 PM »

My expectation was that had all happened (ineligible for league title and all games count as OOC games) but then when I looked for anything on it before the season started I couldn't find that it did. So I assume it didn't which is nonsense.

VULB#62
Re: Game #6 - @ Campbell
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2017, 07:17:33 PM »

So the $64,000 question is (and I know this might be interpreted as cynical):  Is Campbell really being true to their promise to the PFL to only play non-scholarship players?  Consider that there are sophomores, juniors and seniors who preceded the move to the Big South. Are the best of these still on "need."  And will they miraculously get a scholarship next year?  And were they unaware of the Big South decision when they originally signed?  Sorry, I am a sceptic.

Mercer joined the PFL for one year, sandbagged the league about scholarships and walked away with only bad feelings left behind. If they were cheating, who suffered a penalty?  Mercer?  Ah, lesson learned for  Campbell.

From now on, any PFL team who goes scholarship should immediately be removed from the PFL as a league member and their games in the transition year should be OOC (against a scholarship program) and not count in the PFL league standings.  The Mercers and Campbells get a "practice season" under  their belt but the PFL teams are unaffected league-wise.

IN 2016, I posted the following and what we suspected at the time has come to pass (IMO) :

Re: Pioneer is losing Campbell
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2016, 10:51:41 AM »
I Quote from: VU2624 on November 15, 2016, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on November 15, 2016, 03:23:57 PMfervently hope that Campbell will NOT play PFL football in 2017.  And I sincerely hope the PFL draws a line and doesn't allow Campbell to qualify for the league standings and championship.  It would be OK to keep them on the schedule but as an OOC game for all PFL teams.  In  the event a team currently has Campbell on their 2017 schedule, they should be allowed to add another PFL team and go to a 12 game schedule.  The reason I say this is that Minter's next recruiting class will be recruited as football scholarship players (as stated in the article) and I assume that a number of current players will also be converted to full scholarship players. That does not include any transfers who now might see Campbell as attractive where before they didn't.  That would certainly be an unfair advantage in PFL play.  It would basically be the same as when Mercer sandbagged the PFL in their only season by playing with essentially a scholarship team.

Quote from: VU2624
Agreed but the PFL leadership has not shown much of a backbone when it comes to standing up to institutions.

I got some more info on the Campbell departure.  They will play their 2017 PFL schedule, count in the standings and they will be eligible for the PFL championship.  BUT..... before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, here is the twist:  They have committed to do so under the following condition -- no scholarship athletes may participate (including freshmen and transfers).  So they remain a true PFL team through the 2017 season.

Quote from: VU2624
This seems like a fair solution for both the PFL and for Campbell.  It also lessens the scheduling hassle for everyone.  Kudos to the PFL for arriving at this solution.

Quote from: VULB#62
Essentially Minter is recruiting an entire class of red shirt freshmen.  That, along with his 2018 freshmen class means he'll have a ton of youth on scholarship going into the 2018 season, but maybe ½ will already have had a year in his system and perhaps some experienced upper class players will be converted to scholarships as well.

[VULB#62]

Seewald hurt his quad. No forecast for availability next week.

Thank goodness, not the shoulder!

[usc4valpo]

Barker Lane Stadium looks nice, but the Carlie C's IGA advertisement on the press box looks tacky.

Then again, Valpo could certainly use a nicer scoreboard.

[JD24]

Game 6 and we don't have a sack, there is no pass rushers on this team, if I were coaches I'd recruit transfer defensive linemen and tell them job is there's to lose Dbs we still can't stop screens, which set up slants which set up the deep ball which we can't stop Lb play is solid but we can't blitz them because we need them in coverage due to extreme lack of a 4 man rush Also against quality opponents 45 45 38 49 Against worst offense in d1 27

Safety play has to improve and that's where the vets are.

[bbtds]

Game 6 and we don't have a sack, there is no pass rushers on this team, if I were coaches I'd recruit transfer defensive linemen and tell them job is there's to lose

Dbs we still can't stop screens, which set up slants which set up the deep ball which we can't stop

Lb play is solid but we can't blitz them because we need them in coverage due to extreme lack of a 4 man rush

Also against quality opponents
45
45
38
49

Against worst offense in d1
27

Well, you always look poor against the good teams when you lose and you always look good against the "not as good" teams such as Marist when you win convincingly.

You can't say the defense didn't improve greatly.