Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 75
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    About 150 feet in front of the Duke Chapel doors.
    FDA, I am disappointed in you. Despite repeated, and I mean REPEATED efforts, you continue your pattern of posting unfounded allegations and then, when asked to provide specifics, sidestepping the issue.

    In the latest example, you posted:

    Quote Originally Posted by formerdukeathlete View Post
    The issues Ben Patrick and others raised about Duke's coaching staff upon leaving the program early may be more relevant than Saturday's performance as to whether we need a coaching change.
    to which NYC Duke Fan responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by NYC Duke Fan View Post
    I am not familiar with the issue that Ben Patrick or others raised about the coaching staff. Could you tell me and others what they were?
    This is a simple and direct question about the content of your previous post. Your post sure sounded like you had direct knowledge of the "issues" raised by Patrick and other departing players, and NYC Duke Fan, like others, I'm sure, wanted to know what these issues were. But instead of answering with specifics, you give us speculation:

    Quote Originally Posted by formerdukeathlete View Post
    ... Ben probably wanted some assurances as to the type of offense Duke would run in 06. My guess also is that some of the coaching turnover initiated by Roof alienated him.

    ... my sense is that he did not have confidence in the game day coaching, signal calling, and therefore did not have a strong sense that his talents would be used to full potential. He had one more year to perform. And the Delaware staff provided assurances regarding offensive style that Duke, Roof did not.

    Players Ben Patrick, Tyler Krieg and others have provided valuable information about whatever disconnects with Roof and his staff. Alleva and others in the AD interviewed these guys before they left and have the info.
    I do not know whether you actually know what issues Ben Patrick raised or not (In fact, I don't know if Ben Patrick actually raised any issues at all upon his departure.), but I do know that your style of posting, intentional or not, leads to obfuscation. The unspecified "issues" now hang out there as indistinct blemishes on the Duke program, but in fact may only be products of your unique imagination.

    Put up or shut up. That is, to be clear, please make every effort to avoid this in the future or find yourself another place to post.
    JBDuke

    Andre Dawkins: “People ask me if I can still shoot, and I ask them if they can still breathe. That’s kind of the same thing.”

  2. #42

    We Have a Coach

    To quote Jason Evans:

    "First of all, Ted Roof is our coach and deserves our support for the time being. I hope he keeps the job for a long time as he will have to turn things around to keep it so having him still as our coach would mean things have turned around."

    This is a very young season. I personally have my doubts about Roof but I will give him the benefit of the doubt as long as he is the coach or until the end is obvious. It is too early for it to be obvious.

    SoCal

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tennessee
    On Cowher:

    There was some talk that he might be interested in the NCSU job, when he was moving to the RTP area. What a coup it would be to get him, though.

    <enter daydream>

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Parts Unknown

    "To the best of my knowledge, Alleva has not hired a coach with a winning record."

    Quote Originally Posted by YmoBeThere View Post
    To be consistent, the Alleva naysayers(such as myself) will say "Danowski inherited a team put together by Mike Pressler.
    But that wasn't the statement.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    This is a very young season. I personally have my doubts about Roof but I will give him the benefit of the doubt as long as he is the coach or until the end is obvious. It is too early for it to be obvious.
    SoCal
    I guess "the end" being "obiuous" is my concern. Some posters who were at the game spoke of the team in the second-half with "no heart"... that they "gave up". My thought is that this kind of display by players is a direct reflection of the coach and his staff. As I've said in other posts, I'm a Coach Roof supporter, as I think he brings the right things to the table. But, if players "give up" with "no heart", I do start to question the coach.

  6. #46

    some more backgroud for you

    Quote Originally Posted by JBDuke View Post
    The unspecified "issues" now hang out there as indistinct blemishes on the Duke program, but in fact may only be products of your unique imagination.
    Ben Patrick almost left duke after the 04 season, according to a post by Watzone on these Boards. Of course, he did leave after the 05 season - after graduating in May 06, I believe.

    Ben was featured in an article in March, April 2007, I think in the N&O, regarding his decision to leave Duke and play at Delaware.

    Kreig, Bauta (both for other programs) and Benion (chose to grad., rather than come back) left Duke after the 05 season. Each was a likely starter on the O line for the 06 season.

    Kreig was featured in an article in the San Jose Mercury News prior to his 06 season at Cal. Kreig was critical of Duke's program, and of all of the coaching changes - something like 3 OCs in 3 years, etc.

    I don't know what weight or concern to assign to the player and assistant coaches attrition under Roof. It's been too much. As Du82 said, we still do not know whether Roof can coach. I hope if, as Roof continues to struggle, Duke can intervene and help stave off further attrition among players who will help the program.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    6 miles from Heaven, 10 miles from Hell
    Quote Originally Posted by formerdukeathlete View Post
    Ben Patrick almost left duke after the 04 season, according to a post by Watzone on these Boards. Of course, he did leave after the 05 season - after graduating in May 06, I believe.

    Ben was featured in an article in March, April 2007, I think in the N&O, regarding his decision to leave Duke and play at Delaware.

    Kreig, Bauta (both for other programs) and Benion (chose to grad., rather than come back) left Duke after the 05 season. Each was a likely starter on the O line for the 06 season.

    Kreig was featured in an article in the San Jose Mercury News prior to his 06 season at Cal. Kreig was critical of Duke's program, and of all of the coaching changes - something like 3 OCs in 3 years, etc.

    I don't know what weight or concern to assign to the player and assistant coaches attrition under Roof. It's been too much. As Du82 said, we still do not know whether Roof can coach. I hope if, as Roof continues to struggle, Duke can intervene and help stave off further attrition among players who will help the program.


    One complaint by Kreig was the constant coaching changes. Not sure how letting Roof go right now would help that.

    It would appear that most of the players who left were Franks's recruits. That happens with a lot of head coaching changes, and would likely to happen if Roof were to leave. Even if it theoretically helps the program for Roof to leave, this will be a byproduct of that decision.

    Some of the decision making for those red-shirt seniors like PAtrick is that Duke was unlikely to win much last year, even with them. The best thing for Patrick AND the Duke program is for them to move on, to allow younger players who theoretically will be part of a turnaround, to gain experience, and not be blocked by a player in their last semester. (How that is working is obviously a question yet to be answered.)

    DelleDonne (hope I'm spelling correctly here) leaving was a different story. He did something wrong that resulted in a one-game suspension, which turned out to be the absolutely wrong game for him to miss, as it gave Azack his opening and blocked DD from his chance. So he decided for a fresh start and a chance in the long run to start, rather than (at the time of the decision) sit behind a classmate for three years. (DD would have been "clear" his red-shirt senior year.)

    A question for FDA that I asked on the old board setup, and never got an answer.

    This is regarding your constant insistance that removing the track and adding seats is necessary for football to be successful at Duke. HOw many rows do you really think you'll be able to add (assuming, as you point out, that the field is able to be lowered, as any seats right now would be too low to see.) What I see on the sidelines is most of the space, including the track, is used on Football Saturdays for game related things. The benches for the teams (the UCons benches appeared to be back against the wall, at the edge of the track) set up areas, cheerleaders all were on the track. There just isn't that much "free" space, with or without the track. My guess is that maybe three or four rows would fit, meaning about 2000-3000 seats (there's about 45 rows in the stadium, one row has about 700 seats, I estimate.) Is this really that important? Seating close at football games is significantly less important than at other sporting events, as it makes it difficult to see everything that's going on.

  8. #48

    as a general matter redshirt seniors can move on; Patrick was a key player

    Quote Originally Posted by DU82 View Post
    One complaint by Kreig was the constant coaching changes. Not sure how letting Roof go right now would help that.

    It would appear that most of the players who left were Franks's recruits. That happens with a lot of head coaching changes, and would likely to happen if Roof were to leave. Even if it theoretically helps the program for Roof to leave, this will be a byproduct of that decision.

    Some of the decision making for those red-shirt seniors like PAtrick is that Duke was unlikely to win much last year, even with them. The best thing for Patrick AND the Duke program is for them to move on, to allow younger players who theoretically will be part of a turnaround, to gain experience, and not be blocked by a player in their last semester. (How that is working is obviously a question yet to be answered.)

    DelleDonne (hope I'm spelling correctly here) leaving was a different story. He did something wrong that resulted in a one-game suspension, which turned out to be the absolutely wrong game for him to miss, as it gave Azack his opening and blocked DD from his chance. So he decided for a fresh start and a chance in the long run to start, rather than (at the time of the decision) sit behind a classmate for three years. (DD would have been "clear" his red-shirt senior year.)

    A question for FDA that I asked on the old board setup, and never got an answer.

    This is regarding your constant insistance that removing the track and adding seats is necessary for football to be successful at Duke. HOw many rows do you really think you'll be able to add (assuming, as you point out, that the field is able to be lowered, as any seats right now would be too low to see.) What I see on the sidelines is most of the space, including the track, is used on Football Saturdays for game related things. The benches for the teams (the UCons benches appeared to be back against the wall, at the edge of the track) set up areas, cheerleaders all were on the track. There just isn't that much "free" space, with or without the track. My guess is that maybe three or four rows would fit, meaning about 2000-3000 seats (there's about 45 rows in the stadium, one row has about 700 seats, I estimate.) Is this really that important? Seating close at football games is significantly less important than at other sporting events, as it makes it difficult to see everything that's going on.
    Patrick was a 1-AA All American and the only 1-AA player to play in the North South senior bowl. However, he was poorly utilized in the 04 and 05 seasons. In fact, it was worse in 05 than in 04. Patrick was clearly the exception to the redshirt senior, go, move along little dogy. So were Krieg, Bauta who was an underclassman, and Benior who just graduated. In each specific case, Duke would have been a better team and more likely to win one in the 06 season had they stuck around. If I had been in Roof's shoes, I would have done eveything legitimately possible to have encouraged these guys to stay.

    Re the stadium, based on my research, Kansas is the only other Division 1 school in which a track still separates the field from the stands. In most all stadiums - take Notre Dame for instance, the stadium was built through digging a hole in the ground and then building stands on the slope. Duke can lower the field and still leave room for benches. You correctly note that Duke's track may be a little tighter than Kansas' track, for example. Anecdotally, it is my understanding that Duke gets many more seats (than what you estimate) in lowering the field, including endzone seats at the open end of the horseshoe built from the current field level down to the new, lowered field level. Also, if the field is 10 feet lower than newly installed seats (rather than the 6 feet currently, this helps offset what you describe the phenom that one is better able to see more of the action all over the field if one is farther away from the field.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Randall_Stadium

    Regarding the 11k seats Wisconsin acquired in removing their running track and lowering the field in 1958. These seats included endzone seats as I have described above. I reviewing a fair number of Division 1 renovations involving removing the running track, the lowest number added was 6k and the highest may have been Wisconsin.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Quote Originally Posted by formerdukeathlete View Post
    Re the stadium, based on my research, Kansas is the only other Division 1 school in which a track still separates the field from the stands.
    It is difficult to see from this view, but there is a walk-way between the stands and field at Keenan. Granted it's not a track, but the walkway is between the field and the stands with a fence separating the walk-way from the field.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lompoc, West Carolina

    Don't go there...it'll kill ya

    OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH. Don't you think an image of Sanford Stadium in Athens would leave a nicer picture in the reader's mind?

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by formerdukeathlete View Post
    Re the stadium, based on my research, Kansas is the only other Division 1 school in which a track still separates the field from the stands. In most all stadiums - take Notre Dame for instance, the stadium was built through digging a hole in the ground and then building stands on the slope. Duke can lower the field and still leave room for benches. You correctly note that Duke's track may be a little tighter than Kansas' track, for example. Anecdotally, it is my understanding that Duke gets many more seats (than what you estimate) in lowering the field, including endzone seats at the open end of the horseshoe built from the current field level down to the new, lowered field level. Also, if the field is 10 feet lower than newly installed seats (rather than the 6 feet currently, this helps offset what you describe the phenom that one is better able to see more of the action all over the field if one is farther away from the field.
    Not that I really want to go head to head with FDA, but I'm have a couple of questions I'm dying to ask.

    Where would you put the track? Land is a premium here, though I'm sure you know that, so where would you put the track?

    Also, why would you want to add more seats when we aren't even filling the ones we have? The only time WW is sold out at this point is for concerts and we don't even average one a year, and perhaps the Va Tech game and I'd venture to guess you'll see more maroon and orange at those games that Duke Blue. I don't see the cost justification to create more seats except to be like everyone else.


    I am a Blue Devil worshiper!

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    ATT for the UConn game was a bit over 17K. And it's been clear for years Duke inflates the numbers. And that's the first game of the year when there's still a sliver of hope. I shudder to think what ATT is going to look like later in the year. Why we need to add seats is beyond me.

    Now, if the point of adding seats is to get people closer to the action, I could see that, I guess. But 10K in a 45K stadium is going to look even dumber than 10K in a 34K stadium.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  13. #53

    Shout out to Jarhead re the land question; only expansion down the road which works

    Quote Originally Posted by TillyGalore View Post
    Not that I really want to go head to head with FDA, but I'm have a couple of questions I'm dying to ask.

    Where would you put the track? Land is a premium here, though I'm sure you know that, so where would you put the track?

    Also, why would you want to add more seats when we aren't even filling the ones we have? The only time WW is sold out at this point is for concerts and we don't even average one a year, and perhaps the Va Tech game and I'd venture to guess you'll see more maroon and orange at those games that Duke Blue. I don't see the cost justification to create more seats except to be like everyone else.
    With what is planned for the concorse, the only stadium expansion which would complement the planned phased renovations, would be removing the track, lowering the field and adding seats in this fashion.

    Now, if Duke has a successful Football program, which at this point we need to plan on having or else give up the ACC, 40k + seats at Wade would be filled. A new top flight coach will plan on being successful and filling that many seats. You have to look at what is, needs to be down the road, rather than fixate on the present which reflects the poorest attendance of any BCS school.

    With removing the running track, Wade is lounder, a more intimidating place to play, as well as a more impressive venue.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lompoc, West Carolina

    chicken or egg...

    What comes first? A remodeled Wade to attract more fans and better talent or better talent and more fans in the seats to justify a remodeled stadium?

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Quote Originally Posted by captmojo View Post
    OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH. Don't you think an image of Sanford Stadium in Athens would leave a nicer picture in the reader's mind?


    Sure, why not.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by captmojo View Post
    What comes first? A remodeled Wade to attract more fans and better talent or better talent and more fans in the seats to justify a remodeled stadium?
    I don't think anyone is against remodeling Wade to add more amenities and make it more fan-friendly, but expanding a stadium that only sees 10,000 home fans on a good day is ridiculous.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Parts Unknown
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    ATT for the UConn game was a bit over 17K. And it's been clear for years Duke inflates the numbers. And that's the first game of the year when there's still a sliver of hope. I shudder to think what ATT is going to look like later in the year. Why we need to add seats is beyond me.

    Now, if the point of adding seats is to get people closer to the action, I could see that, I guess. But 10K in a 45K stadium is going to look even dumber than 10K in a 34K stadium.
    2006 ATTENDANCE.................... 137061
    Games/Avg Per Game.......... 7/19580

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedawg View Post
    2006 ATTENDANCE.................... 137061
    Games/Avg Per Game.......... 7/19580
    throatybeard was talking about real attendees, not fictional ones.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Exactly. Even if tickets-sold is the number, Duke has long treated student sections as if they're completely full at every game. If you really believe there are exactly 9,314 seats taken at every men's BB home game, I've got a piece of the true cross to sell you.

    Then we've got the fact that Virginia, FSU and Carolina all visited us last year. So to get figure Duke bodies, take those folks out too.

    And even if the 19K number were accurate, it would still be embarrassing. Wake Forest has been outdrawing us for years, and not just last year when they won the conference. And they're a smaller school.

    The facilities need A LOT of work. But capacity expansion is about the very last priority among activities that would fall under "facility improvement." Hey, I've got an idea. Why doesn't NCCU build a 30K seat arena for basketball!
    Last edited by throatybeard; 09-04-2007 at 03:36 PM.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    6 miles from Heaven, 10 miles from Hell
    Quote Originally Posted by formerdukeathlete View Post

    Re the stadium, based on my research, Kansas is the only other Division 1 school in which a track still separates the field from the stands. In most all stadiums - take Notre Dame for instance, the stadium was built through digging a hole in the ground and then building stands on the slope. Duke can lower the field and still leave room for benches. You correctly note that Duke's track may be a little tighter than Kansas' track, for example. Anecdotally, it is my understanding that Duke gets many more seats (than what you estimate) in lowering the field, including endzone seats at the open end of the horseshoe built from the current field level down to the new, lowered field level. Also, if the field is 10 feet lower than newly installed seats (rather than the 6 feet currently, this helps offset what you describe the phenom that one is better able to see more of the action all over the field if one is farther away from the field.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Randall_Stadium

    Regarding the 11k seats Wisconsin acquired in removing their running track and lowering the field in 1958. These seats included endzone seats as I have described above. I reviewing a fair number of Division 1 renovations involving removing the running track, the lowest number added was 6k and the highest may have been Wisconsin.
    The engineer geek in me questions your numbers. First, I definitely did not include the open end zone, only the current configuration. Closing the end zone would add a lot (the end zone is where most of the seats were added for the Rose Bowl), but would also be the only "structure" in the stadium (ie, steel and superstructure, instead of built into the hill.) That would be even more expensive. I still think about 700 seats per row added is a good estimate. You'd add more if the stands that used to be in the concourse were added back.

    Anyway, I have the Durham County 2005 GIS aerial photos on my computer, so I can measure distances in pretty close detail. From the 50 yard line (actually the white "buffer" around the field) there's 73 feet to the stands. That's essentially the furthest separation in the stadium. The closest separation perpendicular to the field is at the corner of the end zone (closed end of horseshoe), at 37 feet.

    Over at the evil ones' place 11 miles away, using Google Earth, it appears to be about 62 feet to the stands. As I remember it, those seats are essentially at field level, and hard to see a lot. (There is that walkway, which appears to be about twenty feet wide.) So their seats are eleven feet closer than ours, however ours have much better viewpoints, being around ten feet above the field level (when I sat there in the band, I could see the field over the players' heads.)

    Google Earth for UGA is less clear, but it appears to be about 60 feet from edge of field to stands. Wisconsin is about 60 feet to the stands as well, from Google Earth I think you can see the seats added when the track was removed. It appears the track was much further back from the field, and they had a lot more space to work with in 1958. Kansas, whose horseshoe is straight on the sidelines, rather than curved like ours, UW, UGA, is ~45 feet.

    Sixty feet seems to be the standard of these stadiums with the curved stands (the curved stands allows the seats to be oriented to the center, with better sight lines.) Carter-Finley is only about 25 feet, but the stands are higher, and from games I've attended there, the room on the sidelines is perhaps too narrow. Giants Stadium is about 45 feet.

    So, from all of this, I believe it's clear that you will NOT get a lot of seats from removing the track from Wallace Wade. Certainly not worth the expense of relocating the track facilities elsewhere, and lowering the field (if it can be done, not sure of the water table in that area, but it is one of the lowest points on campus.)

    (BTW, you still haven't ID'd a place to relocate the track. Or are you proposing getting rid of the track teams?)

Similar Threads

  1. Half Court Nothing But Net
    By 77devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-07-2009, 07:55 PM
  2. Half Full or Half Empty
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-02-2008, 12:39 PM
  3. Maryland down 17 at half
    By throatybeard in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 12:43 AM
  4. Duke & the Second Half
    By civileng68 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 06:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •