Predict Duke Football Victories

[dukie8]

As to your assertion that Football loses money - it does not. 2/3rds of ACC revenue sharing is attributable to Football. at least 1/3 of Iron Duke contributions are attributable to Football. Net, net, Football makes a lot of money.

you are delusional. football loses A LOT of money. i don't have the time to look it up right now but it is in the millions. please site your sources that says that 1/3 of iron duke contributions are "attributable" to football. you also are ignoring the fact that in order to field a d1 football team, you have to admit a SIGNIFICANT number of "student" athletes who are woefully unqualified academically and who make a mockery of academics at duke. i don't want to hear about how duke football only takes smart athletes because it doesn't. far too many of the players have zero business attending duke and force the school to add a whole littany of gut classes in order to keep their eligibility. it's not pretty but it is a dirty little secret about the football duke that duke would prefer to keep quiet.

[dukie8]

Exiled, see my post above in response to Dukie 8. There are not tirades here. A dose of reality: Carolina, Wake and State no longer control the ACC. Revenue is revenue. If Duke is ridiculous in Football still in 5 years and if basketball is no longer tops, there will be pressure for changes in league configuration. Other smallish private schools in the ACC have figured out that it makes ecnominc sense to step it up in Football and they have with success - Wake and Boston College. Getting back to Wade - this is absolutely the worst looking stadium in the ACC. Wake is building the tower. Alumni Stadium at Boston College is pretty well configured already. Duke has to make the improvements. Recruits notice. Fans notice. Our ACC member schools notice. And, the irony is, it would not take that much money to turn Wade into an impressive venue.

when did bc decide to "step it up" in football? the 1960s? so now you have backed off your delusional claim that this clamoring to boot duke isn't going on now but will take place in 5 years? since you are so challenged to grasp what is going on NOW, why should we place any weight on what you are predicting what will happen in the future. your ignorant tirades are beyond tiresome.

[formerdukeathlete]

you are delusional. football loses A LOT of money. i don't have the time to look it up right now but it is in the millions. please site your sources that says that 1/3 of iron duke contributions are "attributable" to football. you also are ignoring the fact that in order to field a d1 football team, you have to admit a SIGNIFICANT number of "student" athletes who are woefully unqualified academically and who make a mockery of academics at duke. i don't want to hear about how duke football only takes smart athletes because it doesn't. far too many of the players have zero business attending duke and force the school to add a whole littany of gut classes in order to keep their eligibility. it's not pretty but it is a dirty little secret about the football duke that duke would prefer to keep quiet.

Firstly, Duke Football is a condition precedent to being a member of the ACC. Without Football, we would need to go the route of Davidson or perhaps join the Big East as a non-football member. FYI, revenue sharing for non-football members of the Big East is about 1/15th the revenue sharing from the ACC. Most revenue sharing from the ACC is football-related. I would invite you to learn more about the Iron Dukes, contact the Director, contact the AD. You will find that a significant percentage of annual contributions are from folks who want Duke to do well in Football. In fact, I would submit that less than 5% of contributions are from people who could care less whether Duke offers Football. It does not take much to see that Duke Football makes money in an economic sense after revenue sharing. IF you actually do not recognize this (which I find hard to believe), well I suggest a course or two in finance and accounting.

Regarding admissions standards, now this is something I have known quite a bit about over the years. Duke Football has had for the longest time a higher SAT average than Basketball. Carl Franks had to target white players with 1150 + SATs and minority players with 1000 + SATs. This had to do with standard deviation from the general student population. 1000 was basically a cut off, though exceptions were made. During Spurrier's time (when I was very involved in the admissions process) the average SATs of the Football team hovered below 1100, when the average for the school was 1300. The average SAT of all affirmative action admitted students was around 1100. Yes, today, the SAT minimums for Football apparently has been dropped, and so have targeted SAT averages for the team. I do not agree with this. I think Duke can improve and win without making admissions exceptions too far removed from the general student population. But, not with one of the worst Football stadiums in Division 1. As to "gut" courses, I might buy that they exist somewhat to cater to students who have been admitted with lower admissions criteria. However, there are many more affirmative action admitted applicants each year than the 30 or less Football and Basketball players admitted. And, as at Harvard, non-rev. sports students have on average higher admissions criteria than affirmative action applicants admitted each year.

[formerdukeathlete]

when did bc decide to "step it up" in football? the 1960s? so now you have backed off your delusional claim that this clamoring to boot duke isn't going on now but will take place in 5 years? since you are so challenged to grasp what is going on NOW, why should we place any weight on what you are predicting what will happen in the future. your ignorant tirades are beyond tiresome.

In the late 80s early 90s, BC's football stadium sat 32k. Thereafter they added buildings to create suites and stands which raise capacity to 44k. The stadium quite frankly was inimpressive before hand. Residents of Chestnut Hill fought each stage of stadium expansion - folks park on their streets during games, etc. I attending one council meeting in which the matter of stadium expansion was addressed. Experts testified for BC as to the parking issue and as to the necessity of having a slightly larger stadium - a certain critical mass needed to be reached in order to field a competitive program. The AD also testified as to the need for suites for corporate revenue. BC's proposal at the time was approved. And, they expanded the stadium one more time after that.

From what I understand, Roof's / the Football Program's stadium proposals do not call so much for the adding of seats as for the adding of suites and stadium amenitites which improve the viewing experience and improve home game revenue. Removing the running track and bringing seats to the field might be accompanied with individual seats in the current stands. Actual increase in home capacity might not be much in actual numbers. I figure capacity stops around 40k.

[Exiled_Devil]

I would invite you to learn more about the Iron Dukes, contact the Director, contact the AD. You will find that a significant percentage of annual contributions are from folks who want Duke to do well in Football. In fact, I would submit that less than 5% of contributions are from people who could care less whether Duke offers Football. It does not take much to see that

Once again, you are confounding issues. A small percentage of people not caring about football does not equal everyone else thinking football success is necessary for the university to be successful.

And every Iron Duke I know - which is a decent number -are Iron Dukes for the sake of Basketball Tickets, and football is a secondary (if that) thought. It doesn't mean that people don't care about football, but they are giving and coming for basketball.

Duke Football makes money in an economic sense after revenue sharing. IF you actually do not recognize this (which I find hard to believe), well I suggest a course or two in finance and accounting.

Okay, so here you have done three things - first, asserted that you have a monopoly on reality by saying 'if I don't recognize this'. It shows an arrogance about a complex situation, one which you over-simplify regularly. Secondly, you have insulted me by implying I do not understand finance when in fact I teach management skills including applied finance, and have regularly
worked with Fuqua students. Third, you are mixing arguments. I never argued about football as a financial issue. That is someone else. I don't care about the financial situation of football - whether it costs millions or makes millions, it should be part of the university. I just don't see a solid argument that football success is essential to university success.

Relatedly, the point of your argument that is most ridiculous ( I don't recall using tirade, but regularly pointing out the illogic in your argument.) is the idea that football has a significant impact on the applications to the school, and consequently on the quality of the students. As far as I understand, Duke has been accepting a smaller percentage ( a key admissions metric) and also getting higher enrollment numbers for acceptances over the last few years. Both of those data points suggest that Duke is getting stronger students, with more elite applicants enrolling. This is not a fool-proof argument, but much more feasible than the assertion that by not having strong football teams, we are losing out on the 'leaders of the future'.

I don't hate football - I wish it well. Football is not and will not be the linchpin of university success at Duke. Duke is a successful school because of academics - you know, those things that are the mission of universities.

Exiled

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Once again, you are confounding issues.

Okay, so here you have done three things -

I hate it when these discussions dissolve into pissing matches It is when I stop reading threads. You have both passed into this realm in the last few posts. Stop it, but let civil discussion continue.

[Indoor66]

I hate it when these discussions dissolve into pissing matches It is when I stop reading threads. You have both passed into this realm in the last few posts. Stop it, but let civil discussion continue.

Here, Here! Nothing is being added.

[Bluedawg]

Removing the running track and bringing seats to the field might be accompanied with individual seats in the current stands. Actual increase in home capacity might not be much in actual numbers. I figure capacity stops around 40k.

I'm not sure how they can do that. As it stands now the stadium wall at field level is less than 7 feet high. To add seats from there would require that they almost be flat, which will not work.

Although its a great idea i don't see how practical it is.

[Bluedawg]

i don't get it. the article says that the board has NOT approved it AND there is no funding. isn't a little bit premature to be leaking this out? isn't it akin to the baseball coach, on his own, drawing up plans for a 50,000 seat stadium without any other backing? it all sounds nice but someone has to pay for it.

The publication of it may be a good idea to rally support and get people talking about it...like we are.

[formerdukeathlete]

I'm not sure how they can do that. As it stands now the stadium wall at field level is less than 7 feet high. To add seats from there would require that they almost be flat, which will not work.

Although its a great idea i don't see how practical it is.

I have mentioned this in several posts, but, neglected in the one you quote, to mention that the process of moving seats to the field also involves lowering the field. This was done with the LA Coliseum in 1993-1994. Cost was actually fairly reasonable. When the field is lowered ,water accumulation, drainage piping below the surface, etc, is redone with the addition of pump stations to help get rain water (not absorbed by the field) out.

[riverside6]

Leaving reality for one moment...

Just played with Duke on NCAA Football 08 and beat UNC 31-28 if that is indication. Ra'Quan Boyette had a great game, as did Eron Riley.

Fun game, and you may now go back to the morbid reality of Duke football.

[Exiled_Devil]

Good call. I just get worked up by the 'administration hates athletics' and 'a successful school needs a strong sports team (football or basketball)' arguments.

I've let myself get too wrapped up in it. I'm done.

Exiled

[DevilAlumna]

As far as I understand, Duke has been accepting a smaller percentage (a key admissions metric) and also getting higher enrollment numbers for acceptances over the last few years. Both of those data points suggest that Duke is getting stronger students, with more elite applicants enrolling.

Exiled, in total agreement with you.

FDA's problem is that he thinks this "new type" of excellent student isn't the type that Duke should be enrolling. Therefore, to him, these metrics are probably a bad thing.


From his own posts, I get the sense he'd prefer more of the "Work Hard, Play Harder" (frequently a shorthand "Work Just Hard Enough then Get Drunk!") approach.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...9874#post29874

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/...0743#post30743

[formerdukeathlete]

Exiled, in total agreement with you.

FDA's problem is that he thinks this "new type" of excellent student isn't the type that Duke should be enrolling. Therefore, to him, these metrics are probably a bad thing.


From his own posts, I get the sense he'd prefer more of the "Work Hard, Play Harder" (frequently a shorthand "Work Just Hard Enough then Get Drunk!") approach.

Certainly makes me wonder why you bother posting on an athletic fan site, when most student athletes at Duke and other schools pursue social activities rather than late night book club meetings.

I prefer Harvard's admissions criteria to Duke's current criteria, and Harvard's policies result in admitting more accomplished, more academically accomplished students. I dated one of the Deans at Cal Tech, of all places. At the time, 94-95, Cal Tech received then as it does today, applications replete with perfect SAT math scores. I distinctly recall her telling me how the admissions staff sifted through all of the resume padding and the assigned weight to time consuming extracurriculars such as jobs, summer jobs, varsity sports and student government.

Duke's current admissions policies result in admitting classes with almost 40% affirmative action applicants. The result is that many kids with 1400 SATs who work in high school, who are leaders in student government, who are varsity athletes (not recruited by Duke) do not get in. And, to compensate for the mean lowering effects of admitting so many affirmative action applicants, the admission staff must focus more simply on raw academic data. This skewing, to compare with Yale and Harvard, is that Duke admits fewer recruited student athletes, fewer high school leaders, fewer non recruited student athletes, fewer on a percentage basis kids who have demonstrated leadership and the potential of for example turning into a Rick Wagoner some day. Our geeky sports fans who appear on national TV are the talk of even schools like Harvard.

When I took my first job in Boston after law school I occassionally went to Harvard parties, mostly HBS parties, but once after a Harvard - Yale football game I got taken along by a few alums to an on campus party which included Harvard undergrads. I have to tell you that these were pretty darn good guys from the perspective of someone 4 years older at the time. I also recall Wellesley and other gals in attendance. Some pretty decent social life. Hey, but, they were not geeks, they might have been attending a book reading session to interpret Othello. But, hey, they wanted to drink some beers and meet Wellesley girls.

[guayaco]

I concur with former duke athlete. I also started noticing that Duke's admission staff was more impressed with high SAT scores, high class rankings, and a lot of padding with extracurricular activities that did not point to leadership qualities. An interview tells you so much more about the individual and whether he/she truly is a well-rounded person with solid intellectual and social skills, and leadership qualities.

I don't interview prospective Duke students anymore because the admission staff started to completely ignore my recommendations. Of course I don't expect all my recommendation to be the main factor in deciding whether or not to admit an applicant, but let me throw a case study at you and you decide if Duke admission messed up or not.

Kid A was valedictorian at one of the biggest high schools in the Dallas area, or Texas for that matter. Incredible SAT scores, math team stud, president of a bunch of academic clubs, etc. He had his life programmed all the way through business school and as a trader at Goldman Sachs in NY. And he flat out told me that Duke was his freaking 6th option!

Kid B was in the top 10% of his class, captain of his soccer team, showed passion to learn and explore the surprises that life might bring him. He was also an Iranian-American who founded his school's (btw, the same school as the previous kid) first Iranian-American club after fighting the principal and the city's school board who tried to prevent him from doing so. This kid wanted to go to Duke so badly - Duke was his first choice.

So who does Duke admit? Kid A, who told Duke to take a hike, as expected, and ended up going to Penn, while kid B went to the University of Texas and who I am 100% sure is making that university extremely proud (not to say Kid A is not doing the same for Penn, but you get my point)

Who would you have admitted?

[dukie8]

I hate it when these discussions dissolve into pissing matches It is when I stop reading threads. You have both passed into this realm in the last few posts. Stop it, but let civil discussion continue.

it's more or less civil but when certain posters simply make up facts (eg, "at least 1/3 of Iron Duke contributions are attributable to Football" or "less than 5% of contributions are from people who could care less whether Duke offers Football") it's not unreasonable to ask for the source of such outlandlish claims. what is uncivil is when such certain poster, rather than providing sources, tells me to "contact the Director, contact the AD" to verify his falsehoods. very persuasive indeed.

[dukie8]

In the late 80s early 90s, BC's football stadium sat 32k. Thereafter they added buildings to create suites and stands which raise capacity to 44k. The stadium quite frankly was inimpressive before hand. Residents of Chestnut Hill fought each stage of stadium expansion - folks park on their streets during games, etc. I attending one council meeting in which the matter of stadium expansion was addressed. Experts testified for BC as to the parking issue and as to the necessity of having a slightly larger stadium - a certain critical mass needed to be reached in order to field a competitive program. The AD also testified as to the need for suites for corporate revenue. BC's proposal at the time was approved. And, they expanded the stadium one more time after that.

From what I understand, Roof's / the Football Program's stadium proposals do not call so much for the adding of seats as for the adding of suites and stadium amenitites which improve the viewing experience and improve home game revenue. Removing the running track and bringing seats to the field might be accompanied with individual seats in the current stands. Actual increase in home capacity might not be much in actual numbers. I figure capacity stops around 40k.

so your definition of "stepping it up," as it relates to college football, is adding seats to a stadium? mine involves on the field performance. bc went to 4 bowls in the 80s and another 4 bowls in the 90s, including a final #5 ranking in 1984 and a final #13 ranking in 1993. the stadium began its renovation in 1994, the year AFTER bc had just finished #13 and had knocked off #1 notre dame in south bend to prevent nd from winning another national championship. i'm certainly glad that bc just then decided to "step it up" because it really was slacking until the 1994 stadium renovations. you may want to check your facts before making any more of these silly comments.

[DevilAlumna]

Post title: Why so hostile towards any type of social life, DA?

Certainly makes me wonder why you bother posting on an athletic fan site, when most student athletes at Duke and other schools pursue social activities rather than late night book club meetings.

What makes what I wrote "hostile" in regards to social life at Duke, FDA?

What isn't social about late night book club meetings? And why do I have this quote running through my head now? "Demented and sad, but social."

FWIW, I had my days as a crazy sorority chick at Duke. But I also know a lot of folks who didn't appreciate the dearth of social options outside of drunken frat parties when I went there. You seem to think that social = frat party.

And drinker or non-drinker, it has nothing to do with being a sportsfan.

[Richard Berg]

Duke's current admissions policies result in admitting classes with almost 40% affirmative action applicants.

Link please.

An interview tells you so much more about the individual and whether he/she truly is a well-rounded person with solid intellectual and social skills, and leadership qualities...Who would you have admitted?

Admissions officers will (or should) tell you up front that well-roundedness is not valued the way it once was. Being #1 in one area is more attractive to them than being good in many areas because it allows them to construct a "well-rounded class."

Besides, you can't admit a class full of future leaders. Leadership is a wonderful trait, but it's not directly tied to academic success as much as other factors. For every gifted leader on track to becoming the next Senator, you also need to be recruiting the next Pulitzer author, Nobel chemist, musician, economist, and so on...many of those paths have little to do with leadership.

You also need to balance things out for sanity. A campus full of Type As [as in personality] would be even less fun than a campus full of nerds

As for the decision, I'd almost certainly admit A, and maybe B too. Depends on how gifted B was. You don't really say.

[edit: clarity]

[Duvall]

So who does Duke admit? Kid A, who told Duke to take a hike, as expected, and ended up going to Penn, while kid B went to the University of Texas and who I am 100% sure is making that university extremely proud (not to say Kid A is not doing the same for Penn, but you get my point)

Who would you have admitted?

Both, but I'm a soft touch. I think that Duke has room for both kids that excel within the system and those that are willing to take it on. Indeed, I feel that Duke needs both kinds of students.