New AD has a plan

[Qwerty]

Interestingly, Kevin White started his coaching career in track and field. Although I expect he's not going to play favorites, I'm guessing he disagrees with the notion that runners should just be "big boys and girls" and put up with whatever abuse they get.

[dukie8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Stadium

inone, I mentioned that there might be a better example of a non-rev sport as being entirely dependent upon football and basketball for its existence. I thought mens lax had 4 -6 schollys endowed out of 12 allowed. This is on its way, which was my comment. I understand the risk that Duke with dismal football and basketball for a period of years might face additional pressures from the ACC. My point is why take that risk, however remote, that we could be another Temple (booted from the Big East)? Fix the stadium (sans track). It will help sustain the Football program in the long run.

why do you insist on fear mongering that duke somehow will get booted out of the acc if basketball declines? temple isn't even remotely similar to duke. temple is in the A-10, which doesn't have D1 football, so only its football team joined the big east. their football team stunk for years and finally got kicked out. that's it.

how is that even remotely similar to duke, which has been in the acc for decades, fields ranked teams in many many sports, has a basketball team that has generated millions of dollars for the other schools and is the biggest game for many schools in many sports? duke could lose every basketball game and football game over the next 5 years and there wouldn't even be a whiff of it getting kicked out of the acc.

also, your examples of ohio state and wisconsin as models for what we need to do for a football stadium are laughable. they are the #1 and #10 sized universities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_enrollment

with 53K and 42K students, respectively. duke has less than 12K students, has most alums leave the area after graduation and has 2 larger state schools within 45 minutes to compete with for "independent" locals. could you pick 2 schools that are even more different than duke?

WW holds 34K. i think looking at a school like wake (small, private and traditionally terrible in football but on the rise) is much more instructive than looking at what ohio st and wisconsin are doing. do you know what wake averaged last year, after 2 stellar seasons? 32,595. worrying about boosting up WW's seating capacity to 40-50K is ridiculous at this point. do i think that it is a great place? no. does it need work done? yes, but vastly increasing the seating, particularly at the expense of a world class track, isn't something that should be done in the near future.

[devilirium]

You may know more of this, but I understand Brodhead and Alleva got calls from Swofford that the league was concerned about the poor state of Duke Football. You know what that might mean...some down years in hoops and then the Conference might want to amend the charter (if not kick us out) to change the way conference football rev. is shared, that is, unless we look like we have a real Football program.

Absolutely, correct. Frank Dascenzo told me that an official in the ACC office (Mike Finn--I believe he was a former associate AD at Duke) basically approached him and told him that the conference was extremely concerned about Duke's lackadaisical approach to football. Word got to the administration, and that spurred them to get going. Basically, it was the threat of embarrassment and heavier sanctions. It was the right move by the league. Joe Alleva may have claimed that Duke had spent a lot of money on football (which he never revealed how much--and that is in keeping with Duke's privacy policy, I s'pose), but the proof was in the pudding with the million dollar salary increase for the HC and then further spending on the assistants.

I wonder if Joe is checking out hydroplanes with kegs down in the Bayou?

[devilirium]

Duke isn't talking about vastly increasing the seating...White briefly touched on 40 K, that puts Duke in line with a school like ECU.

The track needs to be relocated. You can hem and haw about the glory days, but it's leaving. I like using it...it's been a benefit to the Duke community and the teams, but when done, tis done, 'twere better to be done quickly.

[Inonehand]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Stadium

Dukie8, Duke routinely drew 45k fans in the 1950s and 1960s, when Duke was a much younger school - fewer alums - and the Triangle Area barely an area population wise. Today, with what 6 times the population, or is it 10 times, with good Football again, we need more than 33k seats. With the track, Duke's is the least impressive stadium in the ACC and all of bcs, many think. Without the track, with the field lowered and permanent seating looking like the rest of the stadium brought down close to the field, we are at perhaps as much as 44k capacity (or less and we lose capacity if we go to chair back seating), and our stadium becomes one of the more impressive, and beautiful smaller stadiums in bcs. I think this helps attendance, recruiting, chances of sustaining the program, attracting coaches, etc. The list of schools which have moved the track out of the football stadium is a long one. Read a bit about Ohio State, for example.

inone, I mentioned that there might be a better example of a non-rev sport as being entirely dependent upon football and basketball for its existence. I thought mens lax had 4 -6 schollys endowed out of 12 allowed. This is on its way, which was my comment. I understand the risk that Duke with dismal football and basketball for a period of years might face additional pressures from the ACC. My point is why take that risk, however remote, that we could be another Temple (booted from the Big East)? Fix the stadium (sans track). It will help sustain the Football program in the long run.

Temple was never a full member of the Big East, FDA. In fact they were ONLY a football member. They left because Villanova (a team that does not play BCS football) would not give them their vote to become a full member. While pathetic at football, they were never booted from a conference tghey were truly never in.

[formerdukeathlete]

Temple was never a full member of the Big East, FDA. In fact they were ONLY a football member. They left because Villanova (a team that does not play BCS football) would not give them their vote to become a full member. While pathetic at football, they were never booted from a conference tghey were truly never in.

If you google all things temple big east conference, you will find mentioned in about 20 different articles that the big east decided to boot Temple in March 2001. Reasons poor attendance and poor progress of the football program.

Interesting paralells with Duke. Temple Stadium was completed in 1928, a horseshoe design with a track around the field built in a natural ravine, 34k capacity. Sound familiar. Temple felt they were suffering from track itis for years. And, finally they demo-ed the stadium around 1980. The league used against Temple its lack of a suitable home for its Football games - playing smaller expected crowd games in Franklin Field, led to even smaller crowds (Franklin Field also suffers from track itis), and larger expected crowds in Vet, which did not materialize often due to the inconvenience, or lack of progress in the program. Temple should have done what I recommend for Duke, remove the track, lower the field and connect the crowd to the game.

[formerdukeathlete]

[url]

.........WW holds 34K. i think looking at a school like wake (small, private and traditionally terrible in football but on the rise) is much more instructive than looking at what ohio st and wisconsin are doing. do you know what wake averaged last year, after 2 stellar seasons? 32,595. worrying about boosting up WW's seating capacity to 40-50K is ridiculous at this point. do i think that it is a great place? no. does it need work done? yes, but vastly increasing the seating, particularly at the expense of a world class track, isn't something that should be done in the near future.

Were I in White's shoes, with what I expect is his perspective coming from where he came, I might be looking at all of these factors, and thinking about the following:

1. Duke was good, at times very good in Football from the 1930s through the 1960s. It drew routinely 45k for home games. NC State, UNC and even Wake Forest were all in the Triangle area at the time. The Triangle area now has 10 times the population. You want pro football, drive 3 hours to Charlotte. Duke alum retirees are flooding the area.

2. We just got a wake up call from Swofford, who suggested grumblings among members that Duke was not carrying its weight vis a vis Football. But, I dont want to just get by. I think Duke is a more attractive University than it was back when it was good in Football. I think and plan on winning in Football at Duke.

3. WW does not pass the laugh test, the smell test, and the problem is not that the bathrooms are old, the problem is the track hurts game day and makes the place look very unimpressive. I know from my days at Notre Dame that the football stadium influences recruiting.

4. I know Duke can win in Football. When we start doing this, what would be our expected crowds? I think 40k is a slam dunk. We are a larger school, and with the Hospital, have many more employees than Wake. Our extended metropolitan area is much larger. Look at the history of Duke attendance. And, I think we need to be drawing more crowds to both keep in good standing with the Conference, as well as to find the revenue to help support the program.

5. Intermediate term we will need a slightly bigger stadium.

6. Immediately, we need a remodled more impressive stadium.

7. We get better and bigger for $6 - 8 million and that includes Field Turf. It will cost us $6 million to build a new track on West. It needs to be on West to be close to all of the other training facilites.

8. I am going to pick a spot for the track, and get on the phone with some donors who might like to name the new track after a family member.

9. We will locate the track by where there would be room to build also an indoor track down the road, as fundraising suggest allows.

10. I would start 7-16-08, and plan on working on building the new track as soon as commitments and permits were obtained. Get the new track constructed, so that we start on Wade at the latest after the 09 season.

[Inonehand]

If you google all things temple big east conference, you will find mentioned in about 20 different articles that the big east decided to boot Temple in March 2001. Reasons poor attendance and poor progress of the football program.

Interesting paralells with Duke. Temple Stadium was completed in 1928, a horseshoe design with a track around the field built in a natural ravine, 34k capacity. Sound familiar. Temple felt they were suffering from track itis for years. And, finally they demo-ed the stadium around 1980. The league used against Temple its lack of a suitable home for its Football games - playing smaller expected crowd games in Franklin Field, led to even smaller crowds (Franklin Field also suffers from track itis), and larger expected crowds in Vet, which did not materialize often due to the inconvenience, or lack of progress in the program. Temple should have done what I recommend for Duke, remove the track, lower the field and connect the crowd to the game.

Again, Temple was never a full member of the Big East. Villanova kept them out. There is no parallel. The fact I agree with you that we should do the field lowering and track removal does not change the fact that you throw out reasons for it that don't hold water.

[dukie8]

Again, Temple was never a full member of the Big East. Villanova kept them out. There is no parallel. The fact I agree with you that we should do the field lowering and track removal does not change the fact that you throw out reasons for it that don't hold water.

it's laughable that FDA used temple as an example of a school in a similar situation as duke, it was pointed out that temple has NOTHING to do with duke and then FDA continues on his diatribe. what to do with WW is a very important issue. completely ignoring other posters correcting you doesn't help the discussion.

[formerdukeathlete]

it's laughable that FDA used temple as an example of a school in a similar situation as duke, it was pointed out that temple has NOTHING to do with duke and then FDA continues on his diatribe. what to do with WW is a very important issue. completely ignoring other posters correcting you doesn't help the discussion.

I present all the reasons why, which Dukie8 neither acknowledges nor understands - he completely ignores the rationale in his response and feels free to levy an insult while doing what he accuses me of doing.

inone, you may be correct that Villanova kept Temple out from becoming a full member of the Big East. But you are incorrect in what you imply, that Villanova was the reason (preventing Temple from becoming a full member was the reason) why Temple left the Big East as a Football Member. Temple was perfectly happy staying in the Big East as (just) a Football Member. Temple was booted. The lack of a suitable football venue was cited as a reason, poor attendance another, and lack of progress on the field. Villanova is not a Football member of the Big East. They had no vote in this.

Duke just got a wake up call from Swofford and the Conference due to lack of progress on the field and poor attendance.

The paralells between the schools, their football programs, include poor attendance, lack of success on the field, and identical football stadiums (until Temple moved to the Vet and Franklin Field in 1978) with the identical problem of fans complaining about the track.

It is also laughable that anyone thinks if Duke goes for a period of time stinking in Basketball and Football that we would not risk sanctions or worse. There is a chance for this.

Part of the solution to mitigate this risk is simple: remove the track from Wade, lower the field, bring permanent seats to the field. This has been done many times before in similar situations, and these sorts of objections have been overruled in as many times.

[Indoor66]

with the identical problem of fans complaining about the track.

I, basically, agree with the remodel of WW and, probably, moving the track to another site. I also see the difficulty with the situs issues and a desire to maintain the relative compactness of Duke's athletic facilities. That said, the only person complaining about the track on a regular basis is FDA. The above quoted statement is, IMO, a red herring.

[roywhite]

My .02 on the location of the track---there was some real benefit to the location of the track a number of years ago. Duke was home to some major track competitions, including the Pan-African games and an NCAA championship. Attendance was very good, and Wallace Wade was a good venue for major competition. Track in the area was at a high point in the early 1970's with Coach Buehler's teams being strong (there was some scholarship money available and some outstanding peformers, esp. in middle and long distance), and Dr. Walker at NC Central.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. There have been some good individual track athletes (esp. women) but no scholarship money for men has had a major effect. So we are not seeing major national or international competitions at Wade.

Seems to me there would be a real benefit to the football setting to remove the track, and that a good track facility could be built elsewhere on West Campus for a reasonable cost.

[formerdukeathlete]

I, basically, agree with the remodel of WW and, probably, moving the track to another site. I also see the difficulty with the situs issues and a desire to maintain the relative compactness of Duke's athletic facilities. That said, the only person complaining about the track on a regular basis is FDA. The above quoted statement is, IMO, a red herring.

Maybe, one of a few "complaining" through posting on DBR. I would not call it complaining; I would call it bringing up the problem and offering a solution to the problem.

About, Temple...I recall you are from PA...with some checking you will find that one of the reasons Temple agitated to move out of the old Temple Stadium, also known as Owl Stadium, was that folks did not like the track.

It is eerie that the stadium was virtually identical to Wade, same design, same track, same capacity. Folks thought it both unimpressive (too small) and not fan friendly (the track). Check with your contacts, re back in the day at Temple, and then reconsider "red herring" comment.

[dukie8]

you present ridiculous ideas and arguments and completely ignore responses that refute what you post. this isn't rocket science. comparing what ohio st and wisconsin have done in football is ridiculous to the point that it shouldn't even require a response. comparing temple's boot from the nonsensical hodgepodge big east football league is even more ridiculous. you simply don't read posts. temple was booted out because, contrary to what you posted, its only team in the league (where are all of its other top 25 non revenue teams in the big east as well as the highest profile basketball team?) was terrible and wasn't contributing anything to the league kitty. if its small stadium was even a remotely key issue for why it got booted, then what was the big east thinking accepting uconn with its 40K stadium, allowing a truly deplorable team for decades (rutgers) to remain in the league with its 41K stadium and, drumroll please, cincinnati into the league with its robust 35K stadium??? note that all of those schools have SIGNIFICANTLY larger student bodies than duke.

you keep on harping back to the fact that duke used to be able to draw 40-50K in the 1950s. could you cite any more meaningless (and exaggerated) data? drive thrus were popular then. university of chicago used to be a power in football. so were the ivies. there was no internet, cable or satellite tv then either. to conclude that there are a few more options for the casual sports fan on a saturday afternoon in the triangle area may be the understatement of the year.

wake should be the blueprint that we follow because i can't think of a school more similar (small, private, no football tradition, no football success, academics not thrown out the window, in nc, etc) that has turned around a floundering football program as successfully (and quickly) as wake. the fact that wake, with the top team in the acc 2 years ago, drew 32K/game each of the last 2 seasons should be extremely instrumental in guiding how big WW realistically needs to be. we do not need a 50K stadium that will be half full most of the time and never full.

[formerdukeathlete]

......
wake should be the blueprint that we follow because i can't think of a school more similar (small, private, no football tradition, no football success, academics not thrown out the window, in nc, etc) that has turned around a floundering football program as successfully (and quickly) as wake. the fact that wake, with the top team in the acc 2 years ago, drew 32K/game each of the last 2 seasons should be extremely instrumental in guiding how big WW realistically needs to be. we do not need a 50K stadium that will be half full most of the time and never full.

Wake's is a changing blueprint, and Wake has what Duke will achieve in removing the track, seats right up to the field. Wake will be at 40k within a decade. Washington and Kansas will remove their tracks within that time. Duke sold out games with Spurrier and Goldsmith and comes in at over 30k when playing State, UNC, and close when playing V Tech, with horrible teams. My point is that the stadium as reconfigured will help sell seats. Every first row seat moves down to the field, second row and so on. We are probably talking 40-44k, take 15% off when coverting to seat backs, and we are back at around 36k. I can tell from attending games at the LA Coliseum before and after the track was removed and additional seating brought down to a lowered field, that it helps the atmosphere a lot. I can tell you that watching a game at Cal is a hell of a lot more exciting than watching a game at the old Pitt stadium - similar footprint, Cals just does not have a track and you are right up on the field.

Ultimately, if we cant fill 40k in the exploding area of RDU, then we should de-emphasize Football. We wont have the revenue to justify keeping it up. But, I think it is highly rational and prudent to fix the stadium, bring seats to the field, and address this problem Duke has vis a vis our facilties and give it our best shot.

[Indoor66]

Wake's is a changing blueprint, and Wake has what Duke will achieve in removing the track, seats right up to the field. Wake will be at 40k within a decade. Washington and Kansas will remove their tracks within that time. Duke sold out games with Spurrier and Goldsmith and comes in at over 30k when playing State, UNC, and close when playing V Tech, with horrible teams. My point is that the stadium as reconfigured will help sell seats. Every first row seat moves down to the field, second row and so on. We are probably talking 40-44k, take 15% off when coverting to seat backs, and we are back at around 36k. I can tell from attending games at the LA Coliseum before and after the track was removed and additional seating brought down to a lowered field, that it helps the atmosphere a lot. I can tell you that watching a game at Cal is a hell of a lot more exciting than watching a game at the old Pitt stadium - similar footprint, Cals just does not have a track and you are right up on the field.

Ultimately, if we cant fill 40k in the exploding area of RDU, then we should de-emphasize Football. We wont have the revenue to justify keeping it up. But, I think it is highly rational and prudent to fix the stadium, bring seats to the field, and address this problem Duke has vis a vis our facilties and give it our best shot.

Now I am back to disagreeing, FDA. The fans come to see winning football, not because of the configuration of the stadium! I attended games at WW in the 60's when Bill Murray was coach and thereafter until moving away in the 70's. The fans came to see the games to see the games, not the stadium. There were rare full stadiums, though the crowd was signifantly larger than the game I attended last year.


That said, your fear-mongering about being kicked out of the ACC is absolute bull. Duke will not de-emphisize and the ACC will never consider dismissing Duke.

Make your arguments but don't go off the deep end. Keep real and others may agree. Your "sky is falling" rhetoric gets real old.

[formerdukeathlete]

Now I am back to disagreeing, FDA. The fans come to see winning football, not because of the configuration of the stadium! I attended games at WW in the 60's when Bill Murray was coach and thereafter until moving away in the 70's. The fans came to see the games to see the games, not the stadium. There were rare full stadiums, though the crowd was signifantly larger than the game I attended last year.


That said, your fear-mongering about being kicked out of the ACC is absolute bull. Duke will not de-emphisize and the ACC will never consider dismissing Duke.

Make your arguments but don't go off the deep end. Keep real and others may agree. Your "sky is falling" rhetoric gets real old.

Indoor, feel free to disagree, but I must take issue with your characterization of the risks I have suggested as fear mongering.

Also, back in the day, in the 60s, Pitt had a track, Penn State, Temple, Ohio State, Texas Tech, Wisconsin had just gotten rid of theirs. None of these schools have tracks in their football stadiums today.

As for fear mongering or sky is falling, none of my posts have suggested that getting kicked out of the ACC was imminent. I can tell you it caught our admin by surprise that the Conference office brought up the sad state of Football as an issue - read between the lines - that is step one.

Wade is the worst stadium in BCS, of course the worst stadium by far in the ACC. IMO, the stadium hurts recruiting, hurts our ability to attract coaches, hurts our ability to sell tickets.

This is very easy to see that it is a problem, one which is best fixed by first removing the track.

You dont think so, fine. But, be decent on this board not to mischaracterize posts. Read some of the other information, before just summarily concluding that the track does not need to go. Why have so many other schools gotten rid of theirs? Why are the only two remaining BCS schools with tracks planning to get rid of theirs - Washington imminently. It hurts the look of the stadium, its a 100 year old design, diminishes the game day experience. Fans have other ways to watch a game. Got to make it enjoyable to make the effort to be there, to fill the seats. Bathrooms and hot dog stands are less important imo than being right up there on the action. You have concluded otherwise. But, note that your conclusions run counter to those of so many other programs which did what Duke could easily do.

[crimsonandblue]

Well, every situation is different. But as FDA mentioned, Kansas is moving towards finally doing away with its track. Right now, it's not clear that the field will be lowered. Instead, Kansas may initially go with some sort of club seating we're testing out this fall in the open end of the horseshoe. Here's an early example of the club chairs that also have flat screen tvs in front and will have an exclusive concession tent.



Basically, trying to do some stop gap things in lieu of the expense of digging down and lowering the field to add seats to a 44,000 seat facility that's only now regularly filled to capacity.

But tons of money has been and is being spent on upgrading what were fairly poor facilities by BCS standards.

[formerdukeathlete]

Thank you for the post re Kansas. Kansas has perhaps the most storied track in the country, yet they are proceeding with removing it from the football stadium.

Kansas stadium is a bit different - its above ground, whereas all of Wade's underlying structure, as it carries down to the field is already sitting on the ground / dirt (concrete). In the case of Wade, excavation would be a simpler matter than at Kansas and ought to be less expensive. As you excavate and lower, you form up the concrete carrying down the existing pitch., eliminating the need for retaining walls, etc.

[dukie8]

Kansas has perhaps the most storied track in the country, yet they are proceeding with removing it from the football stadium.

what on earth are you smoking? ever hear of hayward, millrose or franklin field? the days of jim ryan are ancient history.

kansas has a student body of 30K and a stadium that holds 50K, which sells out. duke has a student body of 11K and a stadium that holds 34K, which never sells out. do you need me to help you with the numbers to see how kansas is in just a slightly different situation in terms of need to add seating capacity?