Al Featherston's latest: Can Duke Sustain Football Success?

[gus]

In his typically excellent article asking Can Duke Sustain Football Success?,
Featherston asks this question:

But can [Cutcliffe] use his current success to recruit the kids who can take him to the top of the college basketball world?

I'm going to go ahead and say "no". As great a coach as Cutcliffe is, I'm not sure he'd be my first choice to fill that (hopefully still many years in the future) vacancy.

[CDu]

I'm going to disagree. The ACC is not a juggernaut of a football conference, and we can certainly continue to schedule a soft out-of-conference schedule to maximize the chance at bowl eligibility. Can we continue to win 9+ games a year? Maybe, maybe not. But continually making bowls? I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

I think Coach Cutcliffe is building something sustainable. We know have depth at the skill positions, and we're able to redshirt our top freshmen. Between that and his good coaching, I think good things are to continue. Maybe not THIS good, but still good.

ETA: I now see that you were making light of the typo ("basketball"). My bad. I agree - he's not going to get Duke football to the top of the college basketball world.

[SoCalDukeFan]

In his typically excellent article asking Can Duke Sustain Football Success?,
Featherston asks this question:



I'm going to go ahead and say "no". As great a coach as Cutcliffe is, I'm not sure he'd be my first choice to fill that (hopefully still many years in the future) vacancy.

I think it was an excellent article. The mistake shows what Cut faces in building football at a basketball school.
Even Al has Duke basketball constantly in his head.

SoCal

[gus]

I'm going to disagree. The ACC is not a juggernaut of a football conference, and we can certainly continue to schedule a soft out-of-conference schedule to maximize the chance at bowl eligibility. Can we continue to win 9+ games a year? Maybe, maybe not. But continually making bowls? I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

I think Coach Cutcliffe is building something sustainable. We know have depth at the skill positions, and we're able to redshirt our top freshmen. Between that and his good coaching, I think good things are to continue. Maybe not THIS good, but still good.

I was just being snarky about the mistake. Cutcliffe coaches football, not basketball.

In terms of football, I absolutley agree that Duke can sustain a level at which bowl games are a reasonable expectation year in and year out. I am not ready to believe that Duke can be a top 5 team though.

[loran16]

In his typically excellent article asking Can Duke Sustain Football Success?,
Featherston asks this question:



I'm going to go ahead and say "no". As great a coach as Cutcliffe is, I'm not sure he'd be my first choice to fill that (hopefully still many years in the future) vacancy.

As Featherston notes, It's worth noting Cut's got an edge in that his rebuilding year is going to be 2015, not next year - duke loses very few players of real importance (Cockrell, Annunike, Simmons, Harding) next year and returns practically every offensive skill player of relevance. Not to mention the secondary is already 85% Freshmen or Sophomores. Next year's Duke team will take a step back probably only because of a tougher ACC, not because of their own fall. So the recruiting effects of this year should already be in place to help Duke rebuild from the bigger losses coming in 2015.

The real question is whether Duke will be equipped to handle when Cut eventually leaves - Cut will probably stay until he retires, but he's not young and he has health issues. Hopefully that transition, when it eventually comes, will be seamless.

[Duvall]

Next year's Duke team will take a step back probably only because of a tougher ACC, not because of their own fall.

Will the ACC be tougher next year than it is this year? Looking just at the Coastal + Wake slate, it's hard to see those games being substantially tougher next year.

[bleudiable]

The real question is whether Duke will be equipped to handle when Cut eventually leaves - Cut will probably stay until he retires, but he's not young and he has health issues. Hopefully that transition, when it eventually comes, will be seamless.

By that time I hope that the new Wade-Cutcliffe Stadium ("The Cut") will be rocking for many fall Saturdays to come.

But I wonder if we can't be competitive on a Stanford level so that when Cut recruits the next Andrew Luck the pieces are there to have a breakthrough year. As I have said before, I have learned not to doubt what the man says. Why are our expectations so low (bowl eligibility every year) when his (championships) are not?

[loran16]

Will the ACC be tougher next year than it is this year? Looking just at the Coastal + Wake slate, it's hard to see those games being substantially tougher next year.

Miami should be better - as should VT.

UVA can't be worse.

[Duvall]

Miami should be better - as should VT.

UVA can't be worse.

"Miami should be better" is probably one of the most-repeated phrases in the last decade of ACC football.

VT does have a young defense that should improve next year. But then, they finally have to come back to Duke for a game.

[gus]

By that time I hope that the new Wade-Cutcliffe Stadium ("The Cut") will be rocking for many fall Saturdays to come.

But I wonder if we can't be competitive on a Stanford level so that when Cut recruits the next Andrew Luck the pieces are there to have a breakthrough year. As I have said before, I have learned not to doubt what the man says. Why are our expectations so low (bowl eligibility every year) when his (championships) are not?

The problem with comparisons to Standford is that, while they have similar obstacles in terms of academic rigors... they have quite a few advantages over Duke. Chief among those is a half billion athletics only endowment.

[nyesq83]

Like you wrote, "In the Cut"...

And I believe that Duke can reach higher heights, but only one game at a time.

If Cut can continue to recruit great QB's and we can get get breakout receivers and talented players on both sides of the ball who have athleticism and football intelligence and heart, Duke Football can excel every year.

Assistant coaches must stay within the program, or if they leave, their assistants must be able to replace them for success to be perennial.

[TruBlu]

In terms of football, I absolutley agree that Duke can sustain a level at which bowl games are a reasonable expectation year in and year out. I am not ready to believe that Duke can be a top 5 team though.

I do not believe that Duke can be a consistent top 5 team, but I do believe that we can be an occasional top 5 team when our recruiting gets better, which should happen with the success we are currently experiencing.

I do predict that Duke will cease to be the favorite team for our opponents to schedule for their homecoming game.

[NYBri]

In order for the football program to become capable of developing a top 5 team, it has to start with the recruiting. At the moment, we are basically getting 3 star players with the sprinkling of a few 4 star. The top five programs get 5 star players at skill positions and they are backed up by mainly 4 star guys.

Tom Izzo says that great players make him a better coach because they play better and win more games. It all starts with the players.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I am in awe of the job Cut has done in rebuilding the football program and he have overcome some significant obstacles.

Realistically the next step is continued top 1/2 in the ACC Coastal or regular top 20 in the nation.

IMHO Duke could have a top 5/10 team IF they have a great QB and a season with few injuries, but it will be hard to maintain. However I think getting to where they are now would be very hard. (It probably was which just shows the great job Cut did.)

The regular top teams have at least two significant advantages:
1. Geographic recruiting - Without putting down NC high school football, for relatively local talent Duke must compete with NC, NC State, Wake, Va, Va Tech, South Carolina, Clemson etc. Compare that to Ohio State who basically owns Ohio; 3 programs in Florida; two in Alabama; a few in Texas; 2 in So Cal.

2. Money - Look at the athletic budgets in the SEC. Stanford has all that endowment money. Texas has their own network, Oregon has a billionaire who seems to want to see how much he can spend on Oregon sports.

Having said this, the more Duke wins the easier the recruiting will get for Cut. I personally think Duke's overall reputation is excellent and a winning program will have an easier time getting national recruits.

SoCal

[Reilly]

I do not believe that Duke can be a consistent top 5 team ...

Given that FSU has had one final AP top 10 team in the past 12 years (this year will make 2 in 13 seasons), and that Clemson has not finished in the AP final top 10 in 23 years, I agree with you.

Final AP top 10 finishes by ACC schools (ACC around since 1953; school achieve it when in ACC):

BC: 2007
MD: 1953, 1954, 1955, 1976
VA: - never -
VT: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009
Duke: 1960
UNC: 1980, 1981, 1996, 1997
State: - never -
WFU: - never -
Clemson: 1978, 1981, 1982, 1988, 1990
GT: 1990, 1998
FSU: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2012
Miami: - never -

[JasonEvans]

Given that FSU has had one final AP top 10 team in the past 12 years (this year will make 2 in 13 seasons), and that Clemson has not finished in the AP final top 10 in 23 years, I agree with you.

Final AP top 10 finishes by ACC schools (ACC around since 1953; school achieve it when in ACC):

BC: 2007
MD: 1953, 1954, 1955, 1976
VA: - never -
VT: 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009
Duke: 1960
UNC: 1980, 1981, 1996, 1997
State: - never -
WFU: - never -
Clemson: 1978, 1981, 1982, 1988, 1990
GT: 1990, 1998
FSU: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2012
Miami: - never -

Wow, this is some truly excellent research!

George Welsh had some very good teams at UVA in the late 80s and 90s. I sorta find it hard to believe he never had a top ten team. to me the really stunning thing is that Miami, who was a fixture in the top 5 in the 80s and 90s and even into the early 2000s, has never been a top ten team since joining the ACC. They were largely brought in to boost our football profile and give us a national title contender but they haven't even finished the season ranked in the Top 25 in 6 of the 9 seasons they have been in the conference. Sigh...

-Jason "we sure ain't a football conference" Evans

[Reilly]

...this is some truly excellent research ...

Thanks. But not really. www.cfbdatawarehouse.com has an "in the polls" page for each team, so it's very easy to look up.

[Olympic Fan]

Good stuff reilly ... it should help us keep expectations in perspective.

Agree that Duke is never going to be a consistent top 5 team or even top 10 team. Few programs are.

But can Duke get there every once in a while? Maybe one great national run every decade with 4-5 extra conference title contenders in there ... with minor bowls in the "off" years?

That's what I want to see.

Is that impossible?

[Reilly]

... UVA in the late 80s and 90s. I sorta find it hard to believe he never had a top ten team...

UVa was the #1 team in the land for 3 weeks in 1990 ... finished #23 that year:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/...nia/polls.html

[Wander]

Good stuff reilly ... it should help us keep expectations in perspective.

Agree that Duke is never going to be a consistent top 5 team or even top 10 team. Few programs are.

But can Duke get there every once in a while? Maybe one great national run every decade with 4-5 extra conference title contenders in there ... with minor bowls in the "off" years?

That's what I want to see.

Is that impossible?

No way - hell, if you replayed this exact season 100 times, I bet there are a couple universes where Duke is undefeated and ranked in the top 10 this season.

There's been a lot of comparisons to the Wake team that won the ACC a few years ago, and that's a fair comparison in a lot of ways, but here's one important difference: that Wake team was largely the result of patient redshirting and a lot of 5th year seniors. On the other hand, we have a ton of important players who aren't seniors. We're built well for the long term.