Feinstein, Mickle and Duke
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jimsumner
Feinstein backed Tom Mickle for the Duke AD job when Tom Butters retired. Duke declined to take his advice and hired Joe Alleva instead.
Feinstein may bend over backward to take his shots at Duke at times nowadays, but he was right about Tom Mickle. Mickle was brilliant, creative, funny, and unpredictable. Duke went with safe and unimaginative. Mickle could have been the most successful AD in the nation -- the Coach K of ADs. In fact, in my view that was the likely scenario. But he could have flopped with a scheme or two that was before its time or off-base (but never unethical; that was never a danger with Mickle). And because he was so colorful, a mistake could have been a doozy.
Duke has built a brand based on excellence, innovation, and flexibility (read the introduction to the Duke Forward campaign to see what I mean). It values the exceptional. I suspect Feinstein's argument was that those brand values should have led Duke to take some risk and gone for something special, rather than choosing the safe and generic.
Most of us would say, it's time to get over it: time to acknowledge that even if you viewed that one decision as violative of Duke's purported values -- even hypocritical -- that enough time and players have moved on to say it's time to stop trying to find every other piece of evidence of hypocrisy on the part of Duke. But Feinstein, like all of us, is entitled to hold his grudge as long as he chooses. He doesn't lose that right just because he has a broader audience for his opinions than the rest of us do.
Keohane and Brodhead and K
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wilson
Some of what you say here, most notably your final point regarding Feinstein's oft-repeated stance on football and big-time athletics in general, is spot-on. However, Nan doesn't get a pass here for being panicked when K flirted with the Lakers. She departed from Duke at the end of the 2003-04 school year, and then K had his Lakers dalliance that same summer. So actually it was Brodhead who had to deal with Kupchak's would-be wooing immediately after installation as president.
Put me solidly in the camp who believes that Nan indeed wanted to de-emphasize athletics (not to mention a number of other dimensions of Duke campus life).
Aha, the story is more complex. Both times Duke has changed presidents, K has been tempted by or entertained outside offers. Maybe I have it mixed up, and it was the Celtics rather than the Lakers back in 1993, but there was the very real possibility that K would leave. Nan not only said, "I can't imagine anything worse than Mike Krzyzewski leaving," but also that, "I can't even think of what would be second." (Quoes from memory :rolleyes:.)
You will note that every time Duke changes presidents K wangles a competitive offer from the NBA and gets a better deal at Duke for him and his family. And it doesn't matter whether it is a coincidence or not. I think the Nan deal made him an assistant to the president and a lifetime job after basketball, as well as enriching the pot.
sagegrouse