I'm not convinced by the argument that the university administration needs to prove that it places a high priority on athletics, because, let's face it, it's not that a high priority, and shouldn't be for a major research institution. It's a luxury - an enjoyable one - but not a necessity.
And in two years football recruits (and high students generally) won't even remember the lacrosse case.
The only way to fix this is to win. From my observations, Duke students typically do a pretty good job of turning out for the first game, and stop showing up when it becomes apparent that Duke is in for another loss-filled season. Winning will take care of that.Yup. This issue is way undervalued in importance. Obviously, I'd love to see a packed WW, but the most important ingredient for the players in this regard is the support of their peers. Great student support would go a long way toward mitigating a less than full WW.
How is that supposed to affect the success of the football program - by hurting the feelings of the players? It's not clear why it matters whether faculty support is "tepid," so long as they remain willing to address the needs of athletes as students.I'm surprised to see this question asked so soon after the Gang of 88 debacle. Here is a report from an official Duke publication showing tepid (at best) faculty support for football, and it surely hasn't gotten any better since then. More is available here, including K's concern, and here. The situation is often described in much starker terms by those who note that a frequent academic antipathy to sports is made worse for football players at Duke since hoops is untouchable and football is the other high profile sport.