Knoch OL Shinsky commits to Kent St.
Knoch senior Connor Shinsky remained patient as the offers to play Division I football piled up during the fall and early winter.
Shinsky, who took a studious approach to recruiting, wanted to visit several campuses and meet potential teammates and coaches before he gave his word to commit or even put together a list of top choices.
Then a weekend at Kent State gave Shinsky a reason to abruptly end his search.
The 6-foot-5, 250-pound two-way starter for the Knights committed to Kent State Sunday, just 24 hours after completing his official visit to the Kent, Ohio, campus. The Golden Flashes recruited Shinsky to play either offensive guard or offensive tackle.
“At the end of my visit, I didn't want to leave,” Shinsky said. “I felt comfortable there, like it was meant to be.”
Shinsky received seven Division I offers during the past year: Kent State, Texas-El Paso, Bucknell, Lafayette, St. Francis, Albany and Stony Brook. Kent State made its offer last spring, shortly after Shinsky had a strong showcase camp there. The offers from Bucknell, Lafayette, Albany and Stony Brook all rolled in during or after the 2013 football season, yet Shinsky was steadfast about his desire to research the schools before he jumped at an opportunity.
In addition to Kent State, Shinsky visited Lafayette and St. Francis.
Bill West is a staff wrtier for Trib Total Media. Reach him at email@example.com or via Twitter @BWest_Trib.
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.