ShareThis Page
Thomas More picked 1st in Presidents’ Athletic Conference preseason poll; W&J 2nd |
District College

Thomas More picked 1st in Presidents’ Athletic Conference preseason poll; W&J 2nd

| Wednesday, August 3, 2016 3:57 p.m

Seven years after he attended the Presidents’ Athletic Conference football media day as a player, Andrew DiDonato returned Wednesday and reflected on the changes in the league in that small span of time.

“I love this league, and I believe it’s better than ever,” said DiDonato, a former South Fayette and Grove City quarterback in his first season as coach of his collegiate alma mater. “It didn’t surprise me, but actually sitting here, it definitely opened my eyes to how this has changed for the better.”

The PAC, which in recent years seemed to be a league of Thomas More and Washington & Jefferson at the top with everyone else underneath, looks to have more parity heading into this season.

Those two teams again took the top spots in the conference’s preseason poll — defending champion Thomas More first, W&J second — but three others received first-place votes.

Case Western finished third in the poll, followed by Westminster and Carnegie Mellon.

“When you get in a situation where traditionally it’s been a two-team league and everybody else is playing for third place, that doesn’t necessarily help even the first- and second-place teams,” said Westminster coach Scott Benzel, whose team placed second in the conference last season. “To get balance and to have the ability to play week in and week out is really going to benefit everybody.”

Bethany, St. Vincent, Waynesburg, Geneva, Thiel and Grove City rounded out the poll.

The PAC added Carnegie Mellon and Case Western as members in 2014. Both teams showed progress last season, tying with W&J for third place. Carnegie Mellon won an Eastern College Athletic Conference bowl game.

Westminster won nine games, its most since 1997, and also claimed an ECAC bowl victory.

Thomas More, which finished with an undefeated regular-season record and advanced to the second round of the NCAA Division III playoffs, will attempt to head off the upstarts and win its eighth conference title in the past nine seasons.

“We know each week, the quality in the PAC is going to be tough,” Thomas More coach Regis Scafe said. “Teams are gunning for you. I know (we have a target), but that’s part of it. You want to succeed, and the hard part is trying to do it again.”

W&J was the preseason favorite last year but finished 8-2, 6-2 in conference play.

The Presidents return quarterback Pete Coughlin (Upper St. Clair), whom coach Mike Sirianni called the best player in the conference.

“I’m worried about us,” Sirianni said. “I think that was part of our issue last year: What is this team doing? What does this team have back? To be honest with you, I don’t care. We’ll worry about that team the week we play them, but other than that, I’m going to worry about getting our players better.”

As competitive as the PAC appears, the teams still face an upward climb in unseating Thomas More and W&J. Those teams have won or shared the PAC title every season since 2006, with Waynesburg the only other school to claim a piece of it in that time.

“If you want to be at the top of that list, you have to beat those people,” Carnegie Mellon coach Rich Lackner said. “You’re not going to get there through osmosis. You have to work hard, you have to go out there and compete every play.”

Doug Gulasy is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at or via Twitter @dgulasy_Trib.

Categories: College-District
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.