North Allegheny's Coniker chooses Richmond
North Allegheny's Brendan Coniker beats Mt. Lebanon's Matt McGraw for a long gain on Friday August 31, 2012.
Photo by Sidney Davis | Tribune-Review
Brendan Coniker had scholarship offers from Mid-American Conference schools, but the North Allegheny star has given a verbal commitment to play football at Division I FCS powerhouse Richmond.
Coniker also had offers from MAC schools Akron, Ohio and Toledo, as well as FCS Delaware and Old Dominion. Richmond is coached by Danny Rocco, whose family is from Fox Chapel, and Coniker was recruited by Spiders linebacker coach Manny Rojas, a former West Allegheny star.
“He went on a visit to Richmond and really enjoyed it,” North Allegheny coach Art Walker said. “He's their top guy, as far as what I'm hearing from them. It's a great opportunity, a good school, a great campus and he loved the atmosphere. He thought Richmond felt right for him and made the commitment.”
The 6-foot-1, 190-pound senior had 29 receptions for 477 yards and nine touchdowns, including a controversial catch against Upper St. Clair in the WPIAL title game at Heinz Field last fall. He was one of only two sophomores to start on the Tigers' 2010 PIAA Class AAAA champions —Michigan recruit Patrick Kugler was the other — and played a starring role as a receiver and cornerback last season.
Kevin Gorman is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org or 412-320-7812.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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 â 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.