Upper St. Clair linebacker Dakota Conwell said he knew three weeks ago he wanted to accept Pitt's scholarship offer.
But after talking to his brother, Dane, a running back on Upper St. Clair's PIAA championship team in 2006, he decided to consider his options.
"He wanted me to be a little patient," said Dakota of his brother, who initially went to Indiana University before transferring to California University of Pennsylvania. "He said, 'Don't just make an emotional decision; really think about it.' "
He did, but in the end, it didn't matter.
Conwell called Pitt coaches Wednesday and became the third WPIAL player — and the first from a Class AAAA school — to verbally commit to the Panthers. Overall, Pitt has seven commitments in its Class of 2012, five from Pennsylvania.
"They make you feel like you are part of the Pitt family," said Conwell, who also had offers from Maryland, Temple and Toledo. "They are good guys and good coaches."
Conwell, 6-foot-1, 210 pounds, is rated as a three-star recruit by Rivals.com .
He also plays quarterback at Upper St. Clair, but he will be an outside linebacker at Pitt. Specifically, he will play the Spur position that has rush, coverage and running-game responsibilities.
"I am good in space, and I like covering people," he said. "I think I will fit well in that scheme."
Work in progress
Here are the seven seniors from the Class of 2012 who have made verbal commitments to Pitt:
Player (Pos.) School
Trenton Coles (WR) Clairton
Dakota Conwell (OLB) Upper St. Clair
Brandyn Cook (OL) St. Xavier (Ohio)
Marzett Geter (DB) Sto-Rox
Myles Hilliard (DE) Bedford (Ohio)
William Parks (DB) Germantown
Alkwan Williams (LB) Johnstown
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 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.