A Query About the Duke Football Program

[6th Man]

This thing is going to take time. Duke didn't even have a 100 yard practice field until 2-3 years ago. The University made no commitment to football until recently. The facilties have been subpar forever. There is a very small student body to help fill stands, and a community surrounded by bigger state schools in Raleigh and Chapel Hell.

I would say Coach Cut has one of the toughest coaching jobs in America if not the toughest. The level of play under Cut whether winning or losing is night and day beyond the previous run of coaches. Duke would lose games by wide margins...at least we are competing in most games. We need to win some of the close ones and make it to a bowl soon to generate recruiting and fan enthusiasm.

[Duvall]

Minor quibble - I'd say money is by far the largest reason for Stanford's success. They had some bball alum named Arrillaga who dropped $100 million straight to the athletic department. The two schools are very similar in most other regard and the other factors are much smaller in extent - name recognition, reputation, etc. I mean, Duke still can't afford to offer financial scholarships to many of our athletes!

Gradually it is changing, and patience is key.

However, it all boils down to money.

Location is also a factor, I think. It's a lot easier to find talent when you're one of four BCS schools and seven FBS schools in a state of 37 million than it is when you're one of four BCS schools and five FBS schools in a state of 9 million. But money is the biggest factor.

[sagegrouse]

This thing is going to take time. Duke didn't even have a 100 yard practice field until 2-3 years ago. .

Harrumph! Well, Duke had a 100-yard practice field fifty years ago. The open end of the stadium included a field at least that long. What happened to it? I can remember seeing scrimmages there while running on the track.

sagegrouse

[-bdbd]

Stanford has a much more recent history of football success than we do, and so Duke football is in a MUCH deeper hole than Stanford has been in.
Their university endowment of 15 billion is three times greater than Duke's of 5 billion, and their athletic endowment is also much larger.
Their training facilities and stadium and much larger and well-equipped than ours, though that may begin to change soon.
Stanford has Jim Harbaugh, arguably one of the best college football coaches in the country. Cutcliffe is a great coach, but probably not on Harbaugh's level. I don't think it's a knock on Cut to say this.

aside: I have to give props to the attitude Harbaugh has instilled in their program. In 2007 (a 4-8 season) prior to their game against #2 USC, he stated publicly, "We bow to no man. We bow to no program here at Stanford University." They then beat USC 24-23.

Therefore, it IS NOT logical or valid to compare the two programs head-to-head.
However, their 40-12 blowout of VT last night IS useful to show what Duke football can achieve, and it is what we should strive for.

It is not fair to Cutcliffe to say we are not getting better enough when in 3 years we have more wins than the previous 9. Building a football program takes a long time, much longer than with basketball, and ultimately time will tell, but 3 seasons after 8 wins in 9 seasons is not enough time.

It obviously starts with recruiting, and our classes coming in have much more depth and more than half the commitments are 3-star recruits. I think a reasonable goal for us is to expect mostly 3-stars with a few 4-stars.

I believe the loss of John Drew, a would-be sophomore 300+ lb DT and 4-star recruit to expulsion, was a huge factor in our porous defense and 3-9 season.

I grew up in the Stanford area and almost went to school there, twice - undergrad and grad school. It is a fair parallel as far as the academics -- Stanford might generally rank just a few slots higher -- but the comparison stops there (other than both schools having terrific BB coaches!). Stanford is located in a metropolitan setting (Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, just outside SF -- full of people to more easily fill their larger, nicer stadium), with year-round gorgeous weather, a huge endowment, and much, much better football facillities. Don't under-estimate the value that top-notch facillities and a full stadium has on recruits, to say nothing of a decent tradition and playing in a major media market (SF/Oak/SJ). I'm guessing that Stanford has a greater population to recruit from within 50 miles than we do in the entire state of NC (not that they are limited to just that area). BTW, Stanford has an incredible overall athletic tradition, and is a perrineal Sears Trophy contender.

We are addressing the facillities issues slowly, after 40+ years of lagging horribly far behind the rest of D1. We will eventually do some things to improve our stadium, and it will show greater attendance with greater on-field success. We can't do much about playing in a metro area or major media market, but can emphasize other things that favor Duke (like B-ball and Lacrosse, proximity to the East coast, med school/Sports Medicine, beautiful campus, etc). But for the moment, it isn't a fair comparison.

Just b/c we haven't matched The Cardinal's trajectory doesn't mean Cut is failing by any means. You can see the right steps finally being taken - like facillities investments, tradition creation (e.g. Devil Walk), local HS recruiting base being established, Wally Wade refurbishment plans, changing from the 'losing is acceptable' mentality, etc. We'll get there. And I believe Cut will be our coach when we do. Heck, Harbaugh probably won't even be the Stanford coach by the time next year when they come to Durham. (With any luck, their QB will be gone by then too...)

And I agree, we are still building up our talent pool at key positions, such as D and O-lines (which this year's recruits, and last year's Red-shirts will go a long way to address). ....Patience, grasshopper.

[Bob Green]

Harrumph! Well, Duke had a 100-yard practice field fifty years ago. The open end of the stadium included a field at least that long. What happened to it? I can remember seeing scrimmages there while running on the track.

sagegrouse

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.db...&ATCLID=218252

In 2002, the Duke football program moved into the Yoh Football Center, a facility complete with locker room, weight room, sports medicine area, indoor workout space, player lounge, computer center and meeting spaces. Later in the decade, the Brooks Practice Facility was completed with a full-length practice field with a FieldTurf surface as well as the Brooks Football Building, which houses a locker room, athletic training area, media room and storage space.

While not specifically spelled out in the Wallace Wade Stadium info link, it is my understanding that the old practice field was only 60 yards long.

[sagegrouse]

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.db...&ATCLID=218252



While not specifically spelled out in the Wallace Wade Stadium info link, it is my understanding that the old practice field was only 60 yards long.

You can't be right. There were full-scale scrimmages down there. Moreover, Bo Diddley played there in 1964, and there was no way he would play on a substandard football field.

I'll do some surveying next time I'm on campus.

sagegrouse

[blazindw]

The two practice fields were 80 yards long, not the full 100, bit with the 10 yard endzones, yes it was 60 yards in the playing field. I was on the video staff for 3 seasons when I was in school, and even then Coach Franks (and Roof) on more than one occasion had to alter practices due to the smaller playing surfaces.

[fan345678]

This is only partially true.

You can win without a lot of talent if you have a non-traditional scheme that is expertly executed by smart football players. They don't have to be the BEST football players, but they have to be smart and execute the system to perfection.

Boise State doesn't get a lot of 4- or 5-star recruits, but they have a brilliant coach in Chris Peterson who has implemented a complex offensive system that takes risks and puts opposing teams on their heels. If you don't have the talent, you have to take chances.

Boise State's offense may be complex, but in no way is it non-traditional. Boise State does have the talent and that's why they beat all of the much less talented teams on their schedule (except for Nevada). When they play a more talented team (VT this year, Oklahoma in the past), they win because of experience and execution. Yes, they're well-coached, but they don't win because of their system.

There are a lot of problems with "non-traditional" systems. Georgia Tech can't pass, can't recruit a QB or WR's who can sustain an effective passing game, and can't win when the opposing defense has more than a week to prepare. Rich Rod's defense was a disaster in the Big Tweleven and on offense he has been unable to clone Pat White, Steve Slaton.

Gary Barnett didn't really do anything "non-traditional" at Northwestern. He just had a great running back, great linebacker, solid QB, and a huge city behind him.

[davekay1971]

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. In other words, he was ranked high but not in the five-star group.

He wasn't in SI's top 25:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200.../10/14/25.qbs/

Andrew Luck was in the same class as Renfree and he was ranked the 68th best overall prospect by Rivals, while Renfree was not in the top 100.

Is the point of this post simply to clarify Renfree's high school ranking, or to imply that we should be dissatisfied with Cut's quarterback recruiting? I'm sure Cut would love to snag whichever quarterback prospect he wants coming out of high school, as well as recruit a half dozen fast, athletic 300 pound linemen, every year. But you're talking about getting 5 star recruits to come to a school whose last quarter century is arguably one of the worst of all BCS programs, plays in a conference that is widely considered about the 5th best for football, has a tiny stadium and (until Cut got here) completely inadequate facilities, has no discernable fan base, and has no track record of getting athletes to the NFL. Given all that, I think Cutcliffe's doing a commendable job recruiting.

As an aside, I think it's way too early to consider Renfree, in any way, a disappointment. He had an up-and-down year in his first year as a starter, but he showed great potential. We'll see his development over the next two years, and there's every possibility he could become on of the better quarterbacks in the nation before he's done.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

And hey, Vanderbilt had Jay Cutler. Where's our gunslinger?

Even when we had Cutler at Vandy we still lost most of our games. I hope that the new coach, James Franklin, and a new financial commitment to football can turn things around, but many remain skeptical.

[roywhite]

Is the point of this post simply to clarify Renfree's high school ranking, or to imply that we should be dissatisfied with Cut's quarterback recruiting? I'm sure Cut would love to snag whichever quarterback prospect he wants coming out of high school, as well as recruit a half dozen fast, athletic 300 pound linemen, every year. But you're talking about getting 5 star recruits to come to a school whose last quarter century is arguably one of the worst of all BCS programs, plays in a conference that is widely considered about the 5th best for football, has a tiny stadium and (until Cut got here) completely inadequate facilities, has no discernable fan base, and has no track record of getting athletes to the NFL. Given all that, I think Cutcliffe's doing a commendable job recruiting.

As an aside, I think it's way too early to consider Renfree, in any way, a disappointment. He had an up-and-down year in his first year as a starter, but he showed great potential. We'll see his development over the next two years, and there's every possibility he could become on of the better quarterbacks in the nation before he's done.

Absolutely. In the last 5 games of the year, Sean completed almost 70% of his passes and cut down sharply on his interceptions.

QB play, QB recruiting, etc. is waaaayyyy down the list of concerns about Duke football.

[Reilly]

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. ....

I believe Scout rated Luck as the #4 QB out of h.s., and Renfree as the #10 QB.
I believe Rivals rated Luck as the #4 QB out of h.s., and Renfree as the #15 QB.
Luck is 7 months older; Renfree had knee surgery.
Luck is 6-4, 235; Renfree 6-5, 220.
H.S. soph year: Luck 1529 yds, 7 TDs ... Renfree 1533 yds, 10 TDs
H.S. junior year: Luck 2926 yds, 27 TDs ... Renfree 2483 yds, 25 TDs
H.S. senior year: Luck 2684 yds, 19 TDs ... Renfree 3353 yds, 41 TDs
2008: both redshirt
2009: Luck 2575 yds, 13:4 TD:INT ... Renfree 330 yds, 4:2 TD:INT
2010: Luck 3051 yds, 28:7 TD:INT ... Renfree 3131 yds, 14:17 TD:INT
2010: Luck 70% completion/166 QB effic ... Renfree 61% completion/120 QB effic

We have an excellent QB in Renfree. If the INTs get cut down a bit (help if the WRs catch the ball rather than tipping to other team) ... if the OLine continues to come around (slated to be even better the next couple of years) ... Renfree could do wonderful things for us ... maybe not at the same level as Luck, but if he can be 80 to 90% as good or productive, that'll be great

[SupaDave]

Just b/c we haven't matched The Cardinal's trajectory doesn't mean Cut is failing by any means. You can see the right steps finally being taken - like facillities investments, tradition creation (e.g. Devil Walk), local HS recruiting base being established, Wally Wade refurbishment plans, changing from the 'losing is acceptable' mentality, etc. We'll get there.

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.

On the money! People who are unfamiliar with Durham easily overlook the caliber of athletes in the Durham schools. Hillside is hot right now. In the recent past, Riverside, Northern and Southern have been hot.

[jimsumner]

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.

Desmond Scott and Corey Gattis went to Hillside and Duke tried to get in on Lee, so the foundation has been laid.

But just because Durham kids go to Durham high schools, that doesn't mean they grow up as fans of the Durham university (ies). They are a lot more likely to have parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, principals, teachers, ministers, physicians, insurance agents, store owners, family friends etc. who went to UNC or NC State and want to push them in that direction. That applies to every part of the state. That's just the reality of growing up and living in North Carolina.

[J_C_Steel]

J C Steel,

You've lost us here. Renfree was a very highly ranked QB prospect. There are several different rating services, but Parade and Scout ranked him very highly.

If you're going to continue to contest this point, I don't see much basis for discussion about areas for improvement in Duke FB.

Fair enough. Renfree was a very good recruit. I'll give you that. I simply don't put him in the marquee, 5-star class. And that's fine because it's such an inexact science.

The key, to me, is not the level of the recruit but how he fits the coach's system. If Renfree can be taught to run Coach Cutcliffe's offense to perfection, none of us will care about what rating he carried as a prospect.

Accepting that Duke will not get the VERY top 5-star players, Coach Cutcliffe has to recruit for his system. That will determine whether the Blue Devils will be successful.

[J_C_Steel]

Boise State's offense may be complex, but in no way is it non-traditional. Boise State does have the talent and that's why they beat all of the much less talented teams on their schedule (except for Nevada). When they play a more talented team (VT this year, Oklahoma in the past), they win because of experience and execution. Yes, they're well-coached, but they don't win because of their system.

I disagree with you here. Chris Peterson runs a fast-paced, pro-style offense that uses zone blocking schemes in the run game and creative screens and flood patterns in the passing game. It's very different from any offense run in that conference. Charlie Weis tried to bring a similar style to Notre Dame and failed.

As for recruits, look at the prospects Boise State brought to Idaho from 2004 through 2008. You don't see a lot of 4- or 5-star players at all. The very talented prospects didn't become Broncos. Yet they have been able to beat far more talented teams (Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Oregon State, etc.).

There are a lot of problems with "non-traditional" systems. Georgia Tech can't pass, can't recruit a QB or WR's who can sustain an effective passing game, and can't win when the opposing defense has more than a week to prepare. Rich Rod's defense was a disaster in the Big Tweleven and on offense he has been unable to clone Pat White, Steve Slaton.

Gary Barnett didn't really do anything "non-traditional" at Northwestern. He just had a great running back, great linebacker, solid QB, and a huge city behind him.

As I've noted before, implementing a "non-traditional" system is a risk. But what's the alternative? Play traditional football with less talent and average one ACC win per year? That isn't particularly attractive to me as a fan.

Excellent coaches can find a way to win with less talent. I've seen it. And I'd like to see Duke run a "non-traditional" or even gimmicky defense next year in an attempt to slow some teams down and get them thinking. It's better than trotting out a failed 3-4 and then switching to a base 4-3 and watching teams run all over the defense.

[roywhite]

As I've noted before, implementing a "non-traditional" system is a risk. But what's the alternative? Play traditional football with less talent and average one ACC win per year? That isn't particularly attractive to me as a fan.

Excellent coaches can find a way to win with less talent. I've seen it. And I'd like to see Duke run a "non-traditional" or even gimmicky defense next year in an attempt to slow some teams down and get them thinking. It's better than trotting out a failed 3-4 and then switching to a base 4-3 and watching teams run all over the defense.

Perhaps you've heard this old saying:

"It's not about the X's and O's; it's about the Jimmys and the Joes"

which is old football talk that means attracting and developing talent is more important than the particular scheme. I don't doubt the ability of Coach Cut and his staff to devise schemes that give our team the best chance to succeed.

Simply, we need more good players on defense. Some of those may already be in the weight room and the practice field, young guys whose time will come. Some are prospects in high school who may be receptive to Duke and Duke football.

We'd all like to speed up the calendar, but I believe Coach Cut is the right man for the job, and has the program heading toward winning seasons.

[SupaDave]

Desmond Scott and Corey Gattis went to Hillside and Duke tried to get in on Lee, so the foundation has been laid.

But just because Durham kids go to Durham high schools, that doesn't mean they grow up as fans of the Durham university (ies). They are a lot more likely to have parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, principals, teachers, ministers, physicians, insurance agents, store owners, family friends etc. who went to UNC or NC State and want to push them in that direction. That applies to every part of the state. That's just the reality of growing up and living in North Carolina.

I totally agree Jim. But Duke and Cut are doing things VERY different in Durham nowadays. He has a shot he never had before. Start winning a little more with local kids and the program becomes even more attractive.

[loran16]

As I've noted before, implementing a "non-traditional" system is a risk. But what's the alternative? Play traditional football with less talent and average one ACC win per year? That isn't particularly attractive to me as a fan.

Excellent coaches can find a way to win with less talent. I've seen it. And I'd like to see Duke run a "non-traditional" or even gimmicky defense next year in an attempt to slow some teams down and get them thinking. It's better than trotting out a failed 3-4 and then switching to a base 4-3 and watching teams run all over the defense.

Once again, you're assuming we've plateaued. There's a possibility that this is the case, but there's a stronger possibility that we simply had a rebuilding year after losing Thad and a lot of D Starters. You shouldn't be watching a team that's still 4-8 in two years.

As for non-traditional, Duke tried to lure a non-traditional coach here...our first choice for a coach after Roof was PAUL JOHNSON. Johnson chose GT instead.