Sign the Petition for Alleva to interview Rick Neuheisel

[Genedoc]

So . . . once a sinner, always a sinner. Got it.

And I'm sure no one here has ever bet on a March Madness pool.

So just how many demonstrable examples of cheating are required for some to simply be not worth the risk? If Jim Harrick called and said "This time, I promise I won't cheat", would you believe him? What about Steve Howe? "No no, this time, I PROMISE I won't do drugs". Darryl Strawberry?

That's the problem with being a proven liar - your words are meaningless moving forward. Rick Neuheisal is a proven liar. The most disgraceful part of this whole affair has been watching a substantial number of alleged Duke supporters jump on board and explicitly advocate that we give a known liar a third chance. That is precisely how schools end up on probation. I mean, you really want Duke to win, and everyone else is doing it - what's the harm in buying a kid a nice dinner when he's visiting and showing him a good time! Boosters like you, Duke could do without.

[jimsumner]

"And I'm sure no one here has ever bet on a March Madness pool."

Why do people keep alluding to this as if this the only or even primary reason some of us are cool on RN? Read the thread and address the entire body of criticism or don't bring it up.

Look, you're gonna have me some latitude here to not name names or give too much away, but I've talked to a fair number of folks with some knowledge of what's going on, and not one of these people think that Rick Neuheisel and Duke are a good fit.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but evidently the selection committee agrees, as he was not brought it for an interview. I'm not sure there was ever as much interest on the Duke side as some thought. It seems like whatever interest there was was generated from the other side of the equation.

I don't think the man is the anti-christ, people can and do change for the better, and I have no problem with somebody else giving him a shot. But I don't think Duke is the school to do that.

[OldPhiKap]

Boosters like you, Duke could do without.

I think you're going a bit far there, my friend, or perhaps you haven't read my prior posts. But I appreciate you holding that moral line for all of us.

Re: "proven liar" allegation -- who are you voting for in the next Presidential election? The guys who lied to their preachers about "until death do us part"? Or maybe the gal who lied about planting questions at press conferences? Or maybe the guy who got caught plagurizing a few years ago? I'm sure the guy/gal you're supporting has never lied. Nope. Not one little bit. Because only perfect people hold jobs as important as Commander in Chief or, even more prestigious, Duke's football coach.

Since you obviously have not read my last posts, let me state: I am not defending RN or his past. I am not saying that he should be hired without proper vetting. I do think that Spurrier and Paterno's recommendations carry some weight, especially since both know what it takes to run programs at good institutions. I'll take their considered opinions over either your or mine. In any event, I have not lived such a chaste life that I can automatically eliminate folks from consideration because of what they may have done in the past. If you are blessed to be in a position to do so, thank your lucky stars.

[Bluedawg]

Boosters like you, Duke could do without.

A bit over the top isn't this? I've made it clear that I disagree with this premise, but Duke football always needs passionate people.

[OldPhiKap]

A bit over the top isn't this? I've made it clear that I disagree with this premise, but Duke football always needs passionate people.

Bluedawg -- when I referred in a prior post to folks who were keeping this on a high level, you were one of the ones I had in mind. We may disagree on this point, but we both want what is best for the university and our programs.

GTHC. (that aughta bring us all together, right?)

[OldPhiKap]

Why do people keep alluding to this as if this the only or even primary reason some of us are cool on RN? Read the thread and address the entire body of criticism or don't bring it up.

The thread displays a wide variety of opinion on the matter, and it seems to be pretty fully discussed. My point in raising the March Madness issue was not to encapsulate all that RN is accused of. It was to gently point out the glass house that many find themselves in here. I am sorry if my purpose was not clear, but if you re-read it in that light (and my follow-up response to another poster) I think you will get my drift.

Look, you're gonna have me some latitude here to not name names or give too much away, but I've talked to a fair number of folks with some knowledge of what's going on, and not one of these people think that Rick Neuheisel and Duke are a good fit.

I accept your word on that and will not ask for greater detail, because I respect your opinion and information.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but evidently the selection committee agrees, as he was not brought it for an interview. I'm not sure there was ever as much interest on the Duke side as some thought. It seems like whatever interest there was was generated from the other side of the equation.

I asked some time ago whether the decision not to talk to RN was made by JA or the whole committee, because that goes a long way to answering the question. I did not see any response to that, and initial reports indicated a split of opinion on the matter. If you are saying that they all considered it and decided not to talk to him, that answers the question I have been asking since the beginning. If on the other hand it is simply a matter of JA deciding unillaterally, I don't think he's getting fair consideration.

I don't think the man is the anti-christ, people can and do change for the better, and I have no problem with somebody else giving him a shot. But I don't think Duke is the school to do that.

Fair enough. As I have previously stated, reasonable minds can differ and I do not quibble with those who come down on the other side of the question. No worries.

[Bluedawg]

Bluedawg -- when I referred in a prior post to folks who were keeping this on a high level, you were one of the ones I had in mind. We may disagree on this point, but we both want what is best for the university and our programs.

GTHC. (that aughta bring us all together, right?)

Always!

[jimsumner]

It's possible that a member or two wanted to interview RN but they apparently were neither admant nor persuasive on the matter.

We do know that Duke interviewed

Rod Broadway
Paul Johnson
Bobby Johnson
Karl Dorrell
David Cutcliffe
Hue Jackson

Am I leaving anyone out?

Chan Gailey apparently cancelled an interview and there are conflicting reports on what happened on that prospective Lou Holtz interview.

And backdoor contacts were made with a number of other people, including Steve Spurrier. In fact, talks with Spurrier might have constituted an interview but why quibble?

The point is, this search was neither hasty nor cursory and there is no reason to believe that any viable candidates were eliminated without being offered an interview. So there's no reason to think RN was that viable a candidate.

[Genedoc]

A bit over the top isn't this? I've made it clear that I disagree with this premise, but Duke football always needs passionate people.

Not in my opinion, or I wouldn't have stated it. Duke football most certainly does not need people, passionate or otherwise, who are willing to hire a proven cheater in order to win a few football games. Hiding behind "I don't want to hire him, just interview him" is preposterous. Why interview someone you aren't interest in hiring?

Passionate boosters who are willing to blur the ethical lines are exactly the reason programs end up on probation. I'm dead serious when I say that the petition circulated should serve the athletic department as a watch list of boosters who may be willing to cheat - and put Duke's reputation at risk - in the name of winning.

I'm not saying the new hire needs to be a saint. However, I wouldn't hire a lawyer who'd been twice disbarred, an MD who'd had his license suspended twice, and I certainly think that any coach who's twice left programs after cheating should be eliminated from coaching Duke.

[captmojo]

Isn't this all sort of a moot point now?

[YmoBeThere]

Is it too late to sign the petition?

[SoCalDukeFan]

According to this story http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_7717424 UCLA is going to interview Neuheisel.

Would be an interesting hire for them and would give the LA area two charismatic college football coaches. I personally doubt if he will get the job but he does have strong support from some UCLA alumni I know, including a former player.

SoCal

[Bluedawg]

Isn't this all sort of a moot point now?

yes it is, even though the underlying concepts may linger.

I think Duke staked out it's place in college football...

Brodhead also reiterated Friday that Duke will not change its admissions policy or its standards to boost the football program.

"I'll tell you that not a single coach has said that lowering academic standards is necessary for Duke to succeed in football ... no one," Brodhead said. "Everyone [we've interviewed] has said that it's not necessary and that it would be a mistake for us."

"We're looking at people who are committed to being coaches of student-athletes," Brodhead said. "That's been very important for us and for them."

...NCAA violations will not be accepted and coaches who cannot demonstrate their ability to win without them will not be considered.