Coach Cutcliffe and recruiting

[Carlos]

Anyone seriously know how good a recruiter he is? I have no doubts that he's a top notch offensive mind and will be a huge UPGRADE. But what about recruiting?

He was fired from Ol'Miss. The team he left was in terrible shape due to lack of recruiting. Anyone read "Meat Market"? It basically follows the life of Ol'Miss head coach after Cutcliff was fired. Doesn't seem to paint a favorable picture of Cutcliff in terms of recruiting.

Are you saying that a book written by a guy who was given full access by Orgeron doesn't paint a favorable picture of Cutcliffe? Color me shocked... shocked I say.

Cutcliffe was run off from Ole Miss because he wouldn't throw his assistants under the bus after one losing season. But if you're a college AD or president it sounds much better to say "we didn't feel his recruiting was strong enough" than to say "he didn't fire all his assistants." And if you're a college coach who comes in and goes 3-8 your first year it certainly sounds better to say "that last guy sure didn't leave me with much" than to say "wow, maybe I wasn't ready for a head coaching job."

Interestingly enough, despite having two of his own recruiting classes in there, the recruiting genius Orgeron could never do any better than the worst of all of Cutcliffe's years. You can't lay that all at the feet of Cutcliffe.

BTW - saying that Ole Miss is in the SEC and therefore should have recruited better talent ignores the fact that no coach has done well there.

So you want to know what kind of recruiter Cutcliffe is but you discount the Mannings because it doesn't support your belief. You also discount the rankings from the recruiting services. It seems that anything that doesn't play into your idea that Cutcliffe can't recruit isn't worth talking about.

BTW - the fact that a number of kids who committed to Zook transferred or never played for Florida is hardly surprising since the coach and the style of play are two important factors in where a kid will go.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Pete Carroll was not going to leave USC to come to Duke.
Urban Meyer was not going to leave Florida, nor was Jim Tressel going to leave Ohio State. Belechick was staying with the Patriots.

I think we were very very lucky to find and get Cutcliffe. If he had a perfect record he would be a successful head coach in the SEC or elsewhere and unavailable to Duke. He seems like a man of talent and integrity. He has some great connections. I think he is competitive and knows how to win. I am sure he learned some things from this Mississippi experience, and also his stints after Mississippi.

Look at the pool of the coaches that was reasonably available to Duke. They all had "flaws" ranging from previous NCAA sanctions to never having coached in a BCS league. According to "rumors" Karl Dorrell was second on the list. I am much much happier with Cutcliffe than I would have been with Dorrell.

I am not buying my tickets to the next BCS National Championship game but I am looking forward to improvement in Duke football. I think he was an excellent hire.

SoCal

[wilko]

When Cut gets things moving in the right direction it will be on us as a fanbase to support the team. They have to do their part and get some wins and be competitive, but assuming they do THAT...

We have to fill the stands and go to some games or we wont be able to keep him. He'll get hired away. The next coach that can win at Duke... what will he be worth? It made Spurrier a household name.

Soon (I hope) we will have to honor our part of the bargain

[A-Tex Devil]

Pete Carroll was not going to leave USC to come to Duke.
Urban Meyer was not going to leave Florida, nor was Jim Tressel going to leave Ohio State. Belechick was staying with the Patriots.

I think we were very very lucky to find and get Cutcliffe. If he had a perfect record he would be a successful head coach in the SEC or elsewhere and unavailable to Duke. He seems like a man of talent and integrity. He has some great connections. I think he is competitive and knows how to win. I am sure he learned some things from this Mississippi experience, and also his stints after Mississippi.

Look at the pool of the coaches that was reasonably available to Duke. They all had "flaws" ranging from previous NCAA sanctions to never having coached in a BCS league. According to "rumors" Karl Dorrell was second on the list. I am much much happier with Cutcliffe than I would have been with Dorrell.

I am not buying my tickets to the next BCS National Championship game but I am looking forward to improvement in Duke football. I think he was an excellent hire.

SoCal

Exactly. Cutcliffe brings credibility. Cutcliffe brings experience. Cutcliffe brings connections. We've tried to catch lightning in the bottle with our last 2 hires, and as great of people as they were, they simply weren't chief executives ready to lead a D1 team.

Cutcliffe has led teams to bowl games and won them. Cutcliffe has had his hand in some MAJOR recruiting wars, some he's lost, some he's won, but he's gotten his foot in the door and is battle tested. What I'm most optimistic about, though, and what I think you'll see immediately next year is how prepared we will be for games. Fewer mental mistakes, fewer silly penalties, fewer avalanches a la the end of the first half of the Clemson game. Even if we wind up 3-9 or 4-8, what you will see will be a true D1A caliber football team. I'm not sure you could have said that for the most part of this decade.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

When Cut gets things moving in the right direction it will be on us as a fanbase to support the team. They have to do their part and get some wins and be competitive, but assuming they do THAT...

We have to fill the stands and go to some games or we wont be able to keep him. He'll get hired away. The next coach that can win at Duke... what will he be worth? It made Spurrier a household name.

Soon (I hope) we will have to honor our part of the bargain

Does this mean you feel no loyalty unless the team wins?

[CatfiveCane]

Cutcliff defin brings credibility to the Duke program. Way more than Franks or Roof could. That's why I'm asking serious questions here: The lifeblood of college football... recruiting.

Now the only two things people here have said is this: Manning and Rivals/Scout's star system. I contend that the Manning situation is a very rare one and will unlikely repeat itself and the star system from Rivals in unreliable (The Florida example was from TWO recruiting classes, not just Zook's class). I could care less about Ole Miss' record after Cutcliff left. All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent. It took Butch Davis 5 years to recover Miami after the Dennis Erickson fiasco... and that's being able to recruit in talent rich South FL. So my orginial question was whether anyone had any real ideas as him as a recruiter. Obviously not. I will try the Ole Miss and Tennessee boards for more info.

Now the issue of where Duke should recruit. Well Duke should recruit where ever it can find talent. But that's clearly not in the North. Let's look at he BCS winners since 1998

1998 - Tennessee
1999 - FSU
2000 - Oklahoma
2001 - Miami
2002 - OSU (although Miami probably should have won)
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - UF
2007 - LSU

You see a trend here? Besides 2002, all these schools are NOT from PA, NJ, Michigan, or Ohio or other Northern States. They are basically from FL, TX, CA, and LA. That's where the talent is... and that's where Duke needs to recruit. Granted in an ideal world Duke could recruit everywhere, but granted limited time, NCAA rules, and manpower... Duke needs the best bang for the money. Plus Duke is still a Southern School, in a southern conference (ignoring BC)

[Mike Corey]

Cutcliff defin brings credibility to the Duke program. Way more than Franks or Roof could. That's why I'm asking serious questions here: The lifeblood of college football... recruiting.

Now the only two things people here have said is this: Manning and Rivals/Scout's star system. I contend that the Manning situation is a very rare one and will unlikely repeat itself and the star system from Rivals in unreliable (The Florida example was from TWO recruiting classes, not just Zook's class). I could care less about Ole Miss' record after Cutcliff left. All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent. It took Butch Davis 5 years to recover Miami after the Dennis Erickson fiasco... and that's being able to recruit in talent rich South FL. So my orginial question was whether anyone had any real ideas as him as a recruiter. Obviously not. I will try the Ole Miss and Tennessee boards for more info.

Now the issue of where Duke should recruit. Well Duke should recruit where ever it can find talent. But that's clearly not in the North. Let's look at he BCS winners since 1998

1998 - Tennessee
1999 - FSU
2000 - Oklahoma
2001 - Miami
2002 - OSU (although Miami probably should have won)
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - UF
2007 - LSU

You see a trend here? Besides 2002, all these schools are NOT from PA, NJ, Michigan, or Ohio or other Northern States. They are basically from FL, TX, CA, and LA. That's where the talent is... and that's where Duke needs to recruit. Granted in an ideal world Duke could recruit everywhere, but granted limited time, NCAA rules, and manpower... Duke needs the best bang for the money. Plus Duke is still a Southern School, in a southern conference (ignoring BC)

Not sure what your motive is here, but I'll take the bait anyway:

1) Rivals and Scout rankings aside--which you've failed to delegitimize aside from your digital shoulder shrug--your assertion that Cutcliffe left the program "in shambles" is conspicuously unfounded, unfair and outrageous.

2) Your twisted use of logic in only considering the BCS winner fails to consider where those kids came from, and who also fielded competitive teams that year. Talent exists outside of the national champions, and the suggestion of otherwise is downright mind-boggling.

Similarly, dismissing the talent out of non-Southern states is, quite frankly, foolish, if you're doing so simply because of geography...which is apparently what you're doing.

Consider NFL draft picks in recent years, look at all of the players born and bred in the Midwest and northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and kindly consider reconsidering your inconsiderate conclusions.

[A-Tex Devil]

All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent.

Patrick Willis (and several other NFL players recruited by Cutcliffe, coached by Orgeron) says hello. Orgeron was awful. Period. The offensive coaching staff he brought in was overwhelmed and outmatched. They had a Tebow like (not as good, but same skill set) QB named Lane that they basically ruined in just a couple of years. Cutcliffe didn't leave Ole Miss in shambles. He was prematurely fired and replaced by someone who wasn't as good of a coach and the results spoke for themselves. Would Ole Miss have been a perennial bowl contender if Cutcliffe stayed? I can't speak to that, but I can say they'd be better off today.

Now the issue of where Duke should recruit. Well Duke should recruit where ever it can find talent. But that's clearly not in the North. Let's look at he BCS winners since 1998

1998 - Tennessee
1999 - FSU
2000 - Oklahoma
2001 - Miami
2002 - OSU (although Miami probably should have won)
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - UF
2007 - LSU

You see a trend here? Besides 2002, all these schools are NOT from PA, NJ, Michigan, or Ohio or other Northern States. They are basically from FL, TX, CA, and LA. That's where the talent is... and that's where Duke needs to recruit. Granted in an ideal world Duke could recruit everywhere, but granted limited time, NCAA rules, and manpower... Duke needs the best bang for the money. Plus Duke is still a Southern School, in a southern conference (ignoring BC)

If you don't believe OH, NJ, PA, IL have talent worth pursuing, I don't know what to tell you. We're Duke. We should recruit nationally (in fact, we have to). NOthing compares to TX, FL and CA, and then GA and NC, but after that, we have the resources and alumni base to start cherry picking those states that the other "southern" ACC schools don't even bother with. I don't mind concentrating on NC, GA and FL (I think if you look at our roster, we already do), but we've had too many good players come from the midwest and northeast to ignore that pipeline.

[formerdukeathlete]

....
Now the issue of where Duke should recruit. Well Duke should recruit where ever it can find talent. But that's clearly not in the North. Let's look at he BCS winners since 1998....

Granted in an ideal world Duke could recruit everywhere, but granted limited time, NCAA rules, and manpower... Duke needs the best bang for the money. Plus Duke is still a Southern School, in a southern conference (ignoring BC)

in 2005 Duke's incoming class was ranked 31 by scout - USF, the highest ranking among the second tier in Florida, was 54. The next year Duke was 36 and USF was 56.

Duke's academic restrictions which limit the prospects are also its strengths. This is why a kid in Washington state who is a good student will be interested in Duke (as long as its football program is contending) who might also be recruited by USC, Notre Dame. Duke is more highly regarded and has better graduate schools, should the kid be interested in becoming a doctor after football, for example. Yes, the administration has given the football coaches more leeway, and Duke's football team SAT averages have declined a bit, but its team average is still probably among the top 3 of all BCS programs.

I think considering basketball is useful. Some comment on the basketball team - that not all of the kids are straight A students - well sure. However, Trajan Langdon, Shane Battier had high pushing 1400 SATs, and Brian Zoubek has 1490 on a 1600 scale. Trajan Langdon came all the way from Alaska. Why? Of course, K is an excellent coach, but it was also to attend a top 10 academic institution. You have one other choice in the BCS - Stanford.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Patrick Willis (and several other NFL players recruited by Cutcliffe, coached by Orgeron) says hello. Orgeron was awful. Period. The offensive coaching staff he brought in was overwhelmed and outmatched. They had a Tebow like (not as good, but same skill set) QB named Lane that they basically ruined in just a couple of years. Cutcliffe didn't leave Ole Miss in shambles. He was prematurely fired and replaced by someone who wasn't as good of a coach and the results spoke for themselves. Would Ole Miss have been a perennial bowl contender if Cutcliffe stayed? I can't speak to that, but I can say they'd be better off today.

If you don't believe OH, NJ, PA, IL have talent worth pursuing, I don't know what to tell you. We're Duke. We should recruit nationally (in fact, we have to). NOthing compares to TX, FL and CA, and then GA and NC, but after that, we have the resources and alumni base to start cherry picking those states that the other "southern" ACC schools don't even bother with. I don't mind concentrating on NC, GA and FL (I think if you look at our roster, we already do), but we've had too many good players come from the midwest and northeast to ignore that pipeline.

I understand that the Nigerian community in different parts of the country is a good source of football recruits whose families value education. This is a talent base likely overlooked and under appreciated. (Think Oghobaasee, Aye-Darko, Akinbiyi, Okpokowuruk.)

[Zeb]

I could care less about Ole Miss' record after Cutcliff left. All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent...

So my orginial question was whether anyone had any real ideas as him as a recruiter. Obviously not. I will try the Ole Miss and Tennessee boards for more info.

I suggest you do that. Obviously the detailed answers on this board showing him producing well-rated recruiting classes had no impact on your religious belief that he is a bad recruiter. To counter that, your argument is what--recruiting rankings don't mean much because they don't take into account transfers? Then you try to turn the discussion into where Duke should focus its recruiting efforts based on the location of recent BCS champions. Yeah--we'll definitely miss your contributions to this board. Go ahead and share your wisdom elsewhere.

[RepoMan]

All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent.

We are three pages in to this thread now, and you still have not offered any support for your theory, other than the fact that Ole Miss lost after Cut left, a fact which, under your evolving theories, you appear to concede may say more about the development and utilization of talent than about the existence of talent in the first place. Sure, rankings may not be a great metric, but that, combined with the coach's record while coaching, is about all we have to go on -- and those factors paint a favorable picture of Cut. Like someone else said, its hard to argue that this was a great hire for Duke, and your unsupported critiques of his prior recruiting prowess don't really suggest otherwise.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

CatfiveCane: What is your connection, if any, to Duke?

[jimsumner]

"When Cut gets things moving in the right direction it will be on us as a fanbase to support the team. They have to do their part and get some wins and be competitive, but assuming they do THAT..."

Perhaps I'm misreading this but on the surface this seems very disturbing. It seems to say that Duke fans have no obligation to support the team until it starts winning. Hopefully, this sentiment is not widespread.

[Jumbo]

Huh? Where are we? We are on a message board. The point is to discuss things. 90% of the items on this DBR board can never be proven. Plus I like football. And as long as I'm able to discuss football, I will.

Apparently you had difficulty understanding my first message, so let me try again. Your tone is unacceptable. The fact that a number of us are questioning whether you are a troll is not a good thing. Yes, we're here to discuss things. You're not discussing. You're ranting. Change your tone now or you'll need to find a new place to "discuss" Duke football shortly. Got it?

[wilko]

Does this mean you feel no loyalty unless the team wins?

I suppose that came off more harshly than I intended.

Depends on how you define loyalty. Excited about the future. Listening to games on the radio. Participating in discussion forums. Consume every free news item and recuiting nugget that I can find...

Perhaps I'm misreading this but on the surface this seems very disturbing. It seems to say that Duke fans have no obligation to support the team until it starts winning. Hopefully, this sentiment is not widespread.

Im not going to go as far as to say what other folks should be obligated to do.. But as far as this fan...

I'll go to more games when they start winning. Dang Skippy. I've gone to a handful of games under Roof's tenure and heck, I even brought a friend to 2 of them. But its no fun to always lose. It'll be much nicer to have a chance at a win and see some good football.

Maybe it was just me but the largest crowd I personally experienced at Wallace Wade was for the Stones. Maybe I went to the wrong games, but I dont think Im alone here. I just happen to have a big mouth and a willingness to speak what I see as the truth.

Its odd to me that 2 folks would choose to comment on this point.

The reality is that the Admin. just paid bucks to get the football program moving forward. Unless Wallace Wade gets as full as it was for the Stones a couple of times for Football we are fooling ourselves that this is a permanent change for the better. I think fans need to step up and justify the investment. Myself included. Maybe not so much for alot of you reading this but some (and you know who you are...) are in the same boat Im in.

I plan on taking my boys 5 and 3 to a game this year. I think they will LOVE it.

Im hopeful... ever hopeful

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

I suppose that came off more harshly than I intended.

Depends on how you define loyalty. Excited about the future. Listening to games on the radio. Participating in discussion forums. Consume every free news item and recuiting nugget that I can find...

Its odd to me that 2 folks would choose to comment on this point.

The reality is that the Admin. just paid bucks to get the football program moving forward. Unless Wallace Wade gets as full as it was for the Stones a couple of times for Football we are fooling ourselves that this is a permanent change for the better. I think fans need to step up and justify the investment. Myself included. Maybe not so much for alot of you reading this but some (and you know who you are...) are in the same boat Im in.

I see nothing wrong with having differing points of view. My view of supporting the football team happens to be ongoing, not just when we win. Having gotten to know many football players over the years, I respect the hard work and commitment they devote to preparing week after week in addition to their course work. As for fooling myself about what the future holds, I'm willing to take a chance on whatever will unfold.

I think it was in a recent Duke publication that I read an article which reported that over the years our former football players as a group give disproportionately more money to Duke and hold more alumni leadership positions than other groups.

It's my choice to support them by attending the games. Different people make different choices according to their own beliefs and what's important to them.

[Zeb]

Perhaps I'm misreading this but on the surface this seems very disturbing. It seems to say that Duke fans have no obligation to support the team until it starts winning. Hopefully, this sentiment is not widespread.

I would have to ask what do you mean by support? I am definitely intrigued by the new coach and excited about our prospects. I will always support our football team, if support is defined as "wishing them the best", but I certainly will spend more time following their fortunes and watching their exploits on the field when their performance improves. Is my preference for watching our basketball team over our football team really "very disturbing"? To me it seems very obvious.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Apparently you had difficulty understanding my first message, so let me try again. Your tone is unacceptable. The fact that a number of us are questioning whether you are a troll is not a good thing. Yes, we're here to discuss things. You're not discussing. You're ranting. Change your tone now or you'll need to find a new place to "discuss" Duke football shortly. Got it?

Thank you Jumbo.

[CatfiveCane]

Not sure what your motive is here, but I'll take the bait anyway:

1) Rivals and Scout rankings aside--which you've failed to delegitimize aside from your digital shoulder shrug--your assertion that Cutcliffe left the program "in shambles" is conspicuously unfounded, unfair and outrageous.

2) Your twisted use of logic in only considering the BCS winner fails to consider where those kids came from, and who also fielded competitive teams that year. Talent exists outside of the national champions, and the suggestion of otherwise is downright mind-boggling.

Similarly, dismissing the talent out of non-Southern states is, quite frankly, foolish, if you're doing so simply because of geography...which is apparently what you're doing.

Consider NFL draft picks in recent years, look at all of the players born and bred in the Midwest and northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and kindly consider reconsidering your inconsiderate conclusions.

I would have to disagree with you.

1) I think I have explained this well. While in the grand scale of things Rival star rating might be a decent indicator... it is not a good one. I pointed out UF's recruiting class the last year of Zook and first year of Meyer. I then pointed out Miami's recruiting class from 2002-2005. All these classes are "busts" yet were ranked very highly. Some people point to Duke's higher ranked classes vs USF. This is another prime example as to why "star rating" means very little. Also take a look at Virginia Tech (as someone already pointed out) and their "low" annual rankings. I think I have proven that stars mean very little in specific cases.

Cutcliff left the team in shambles. I base this on the records of Ole Miss 1-2 years after he left. Sorry but this is not basketball. Football talents takes 2-3 years to develop. Thus it's not unusual for a new Head coach to get 2-3 years free ride until he can bring in his own talent and development. You disagree? Urban Meyer won 2 years after Zook left, yet many still say he won with Zook's players. Same with Larry Coker at Miami. He won with Miami's players. I can almost guarantee if Pete Carroll left USC tomorrow, the Trojans would still be a great football team for the next 2-3 years. That's a reflection of Carroll and not the new Head Coach. That's college football.

2) I use BCS winners as an easy example. But I can list far more detailed examples. What were the top teams of this year? LSU, Georgia, USC, West Virginia, Oklahoma Missouri. Same may argue for Ohio State, but I think we all saw they were overmatched, and they would probably have lost to Georgia, West Virginia, Oklahoma and USC in my opinion.

Sorry, but the bulk of great football talent is in the Southern States. Of Course not all. And there are tons of great talent up north. But no school can recruit the entire nation. Recruiting is not just giving a kid a phone call 2-3 times a week and expecting him to fall in your lap. It requires constant attention. Developing connections to the community, high school coaches, and family. You really think Duke should spend all this time/energy for some kid in Washington and run the risk he ends up at Stanford, Oregon, Colorado, etc? Then what? There's probably only 3-4 programs that can really cherry pick (UF, USC, LSU, Notre Dame) at this time. Or should they focus in the South... building up contacts, getting to know coaches, the community. That's the best bang for Duke's buck. They are more easily able to follow a kid from NC, GA, and FL compared to come kid in WA or CA. Plus it is my belief that that kids from upnorth have a bias against southern schools and a real affinity to their northern football schools (i.e. PA star recruits will goto Penn State).