A Query About the Duke Football Program
If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?
Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).
Now, I'm a fan of David Cutcliffe, but we're not seeing steady improvement under his watch. While Stanford went from 1-11 to 4-8 to 5-7 to 8-5 to 12-1 under Jim Harbaugh, Duke stagnated in 2010 after some modest improvement from 2007 (1-11) through 2009 (5-7). The defense simply hasn't gotten better and play in the trenches has taken a step back.
To me, when you're coaching at a small school in a big-time conference, you have to do two things to be successful. First, you have to implement a non-traditional (or even gimmicky) offense and/or defense to make your team more difficult to prepare to play. Second, you have to recruit players that fit your system and can run it to perfection. This does not necessarily mean you have to bring in a ton of 4- or 5-star recruits. Rather, it means that you have to find the best players for your particular brand of football.
As to the first item, Coach Cutcliffe has done a pretty good job implementing a fairly non-traditional spread offense at Duke. However, he has failed to craft any similar innovation on the defensive side of the ball. Such an innovation is necessary to stop ACC offenses, particularly on the ground. He could go to a straight 4-6 or play a base 5-2. Whatever it is, he needs to take chances and implement (or hire a new defensive coordinator to implement) a new defensive system.
As to the second item, I believe Coach Cutcliffe has not quite succeeded. He needs to find and bring to Durham capable big men to man the offensive and defensive lines, and he also needs to bring in as many speed guys as possible to keep the spread offense moving. Finally, to truly push Duke to the next level, he'll need to develop a pro prospect at the quarterback position. To his credit, Coach Cutcliffe is trying to lure top quarterback recruits to Duke with his system and promises of airing it out. His success or failure as a head coach will probably turn on whether he finds an "Andrew Luck."
Those are my thoughts. As a huge football fan, I want to see the Duke program become a winner. I just think they'll have to take a non-traditional path to get there. So far, I don't think Coach Cutcliffe has been non-traditional enough. Here's hoping he takes more chances and strikes gold soon...
Coming out of a Deep, Deep Hole
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J_C_Steel
If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?
Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).
Now, I'm a fan of David Cutcliffe, but we're not seeing steady improvement under his watch. While Stanford went from 1-11 to 4-8 to 5-7 to 8-5 to 12-1 under Jim Harbaugh, Duke stagnated in 2010 after some modest improvement from 2007 (1-11) through 2009 (5-7). The defense simply hasn't gotten better and play in the trenches has taken a step back.
I think you are asking a natural question. Let me help with you with some background. The poster above has already mentioned endowment and resources (yep, it's a good thing to be the largest intellectual property owner in Silicon Valley). Here's some more:
In the ten NFL drafts since 2001, Stanford has had 31 players drafted. Duke has had one - 1 - 1.000 - uno - eine -un! Moreover, IIRC that draftee never played a down in the NFL. The next lowest total in the ACC is 17 for Wake Forest. The big boys, Miami and FSU, have had around 75 drafted in these ten years, while the bulk of the ACC -- UNC, State, Clemson -- have had around 25.
I haven't researched wins and losses for the two programs, but I believe they would show a comparable picture of Stanford doing far better than Duke. Therefore, it is misleading to conclude that Stanford at 1-11 four years ago and Duke at 1-11 are really in the same position. Stanford has been up and down, but Duke football has been in the pits for years and years and years. It took a long time to get there, and it will take years to get out.
I share your frustration. In my four years at Duke we won the ACC in football three times, and these weren't necessarily the glory years.
Laying Duke's football woes at the feet of the current coach and his staff is completely unfair. IMHO (where the H is always silent) Cut knows how to coach, recruit, and run a program, and for the first time in nearly 50 years, someone is getting the resources to do it.
sagegrouse