Coach Cutcliffe and recruiting

[77devil]

Oh please. Show me in writing where this is law. As far as I know, Duke is able to recruit 4-5 players a year who meet baseline NCAA sliding scale rules. This is fact and was published in the New & Observer about 1-2 years ago. Granted, I do know that Duke's standards are higher then the NCAA minimum, but no where do I recall reading top 10% rank etc. If that's the point, why even higher Cutcliff. He can't work miracles.

Your ignorance is exceeded by your pomposity. I am not a triangle resident nor an N&O reader, but a search of the archives found no article with the assertion you contend is fact.

The essential point remains that Duke must cast a wide, (i.e., national) net to recruit from a limited number of academically qualified and athletically gifted students.

[CatfiveCane]

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.

In some ways I want to agree with you and disagree with you at the same time. I mean Orgeron brought in Werner and Kehoe as his OC and Line coach. Now I was never a fan of Werner, but Kehoe being overwhelmed and outmatched? That's just absurd. I do know that Kehoe is/was a lazy recruiter.

College football is 90% about talent, 10% coaching. It's amazing how great talent can make you look like a great coach. And how bad talent makes a great coach look bad. I'm not saying that Orgeron was a great coach, but he didn't have a lot of talent to work with.

[CatfiveCane]

Your ignorance is exceeded by your pomposity. I am not a triangle resident nor an N&O reader, but a search of the archives found no article with the assertion you contend is fact.

The essential point remains that Duke must cast a wide, (i.e., national) net to recruit from a limited number of academically qualified and athletically gifted students.

I'm being pompous? Let's make a bet of $500. If I find the article you pay up. If I can't find it... I pay up.

[dyedwab]

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? 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).

Um, Duke "recruits" nationally in everything, because it is a national school. Since you seem not to understand what people are saying to you, let me take a walk with you from my part of the world, Northern New Jersey. Now, where I'm from, there are are great football programs at the high school level, but in reality, there are two legit college programs that to go to - Penn State and Rutgers (maybe Syracuse) so there could be three.

Now, here's the thing. Lots of kids, even great football players who want to play in the NFL, don't want to spend 3 or 4 years in New Brunswick or Happy Valley. And, tell me if I'm running ahead here, let's say these kids are also really good students. Where I'm from, almost no school in the South, particularly the SEC has a shot at these guys. Except Duke and a couple of others. But mostly Duke.

You say that the bulk of the football talent is in the South. Maybe. That's also where the bulk of the major college football programs are. So perhaps recruiting MD, DC, PA, NJ, and NY where there are fewer options is the right place.

I like what I've seen so far from Cutcliffe. The best thing is that he seems to understand what Duke's strengths are as a University, not just what its weaknesses are as a football program.

[CatfiveCane]

Um, Duke "recruits" nationally in everything, because it is a national school. Since you seem not to understand what people are saying to you, let me take a walk with you from my part of the world, Northern New Jersey. Now, where I'm from, there are are great football programs at the high school level, but in reality, there are two legit college programs that to go to - Penn State and Rutgers (maybe Syracuse) so there could be three.

Where I'm from, almost no school in the South, particularly the SEC has a shot at these guys. Except Duke and a couple of others. But mostly Duke.

Well I'm not too sure where you get your info, but the last time I checked Duke hasn't done a very decent job recruiting... period. However the good players they have gotten are either from TX, GA, or FL. Not New Jersey.

And the fact you say Rutgers is a "legit" college program makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. Granted they had one good year last year. What else they do? Is Hawaii a legit program now too?

Now let me think of all the "decent" programs up North: Penn State obviously. Syracuse is a "big" name even though they were awful. Rutgers. Boston College. I would consider UConn a decent program now. Pittsburgh is a good program. Maryland a "northern" school? Plus they have all those Ivy league schools that attract some decent players who want the Ivy League education.

"Where I'm from, almost no school in the South, particularly the SEC has a shot at these guys. Except Duke and a couple of others. But mostly Duke."

How can you say this? What proof? As far I can tell Duke has not done a good job recruiting any northern state well.

[CatfiveCane]

I just want to say I'm not here to get into some pissing contest with anyone here. But I do like football and have been watching college and Duke football for a LONG time.

I think Cutcliff is a HUGE upgrade compared to Roof... but that doesn't equal instant success. I view recruiting as his primary weakness.

I guess we will just have to wait and see for the next 2-3 years..

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

I just want to say I'm not here to get into some pissing contest with anyone here. But I do like football and have been watching college and Duke football for a LONG time.

I think Cutcliff is a HUGE upgrade compared to Roof... but that doesn't equal instant success. I view recruiting as his primary weakness.

I guess we will just have to wait and see for the next 2-3 years..

Other than watching Duke football, what is your connection to Duke?

[CatfiveCane]

Other than watching Duke football, what is your connection to Duke?

What point are you trying t make here? You sound like a broken record.

[dyedwab]

Well I'm not too sure where you get your info, but the last time I checked Duke hasn't done a very decent job recruiting... period. However the good players they have gotten are either from TX, GA, or FL. Not New Jersey.

Right. And that's a failure of both imagination and execution. Lennie Friedman, former Duke offensive lineman who played years as a pro - New Milford, NJ. Chris Port, former New Orleans Saint - Wanaque. Billy Granville- Trenton. The point is that Duke used to have success recruiting really good players from NJ and it is my view that we haven't harvested that field well enough because, we have clearly focused elsehwere

And the fact you say Rutgers is a "legit" college program makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. Granted they had one good year last year. What else they do? Is Hawaii a legit program now too?

Um, yeah. Rutgers is legitimate enough that there coach has turned down opportunities from Miami and Michigan in consecutive years. And those of us who have followed HS football up there have always believed that keeping NJ kids home might actually provide good raw material for a nice program. Oh yeah, 3 straight years in bowl games for the first time in school history - for the school that played the first ever college football game

Ok. I missed a few (though if your not giving me Rutgers, I'm not giving you UConn). But for these kids we are talking about - its Stanford, Northwestern, and Duke. THAT's our universe

"Where I'm from, almost no school in the South, particularly the SEC has a shot at these guys. Except Duke and a couple of others. But mostly Duke."

How can you say this? What proof? As far I can tell Duke has not done a good job recruiting any northern state well.

Not recently, but we used to. Duke used to have a pipeline of a few guys a year from NJ schools - schools at which many other students attended Duke.

My point is that Duke can recruit up there by focusing on what attracts people to Duke - interestingly enough, it can also work on football players

[Carlos]

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.

No, actually you haven't explained that well at all. First off, as I noted earlier, the transfer's from Zook's last class wouldn't be unusual at all. A coaching change - and the change in the style of play - would certainly bring about transfers. But when you said you were also factoring in the first year of Meyer's recruiting into your 75% figure I did a little checking.

The stats you cited as the first year of Meyer's recruiting were for the class signed in 2005. Given that Meyer didn't actually start coaching the Gators until after Utah's Fiesta Bowl win and the national signing day for the football is typically in the first week of February, it's difficult to credit that class to Meyer, much like next year's freshman class at Duke will have been mostly signed by Roof.

Oddly enough, in Meyer's first full year of recruiting (2006), all but one of the 27 players he signed are still on the roster.

So you haven't done anything to show that the stats from Zook's last two years of recruiting are the norm rather than simply the result of the coaching change.

Likewise, you haven't done anything to show that Cutcliffe's recruiting classes suffered from the same sort of attrition that you use to devalue the rankings.

[Jumbo]

What point are you trying t make here? You sound like a broken record.

The poster has been asking you a question. You have ignored it repeatedly. This thread has run its course and will now be closed, but your tone has been noted and a number of mods are concerned about it. Suffice it to say we'll be keeping a closer eye on your posts going forward.

[Stray Gator]

IMO, the rationale that a program's won-loss record for the first two years after a coaching change should be attributed mainly to the recruiting skills of the former head coach, on the theory that winning college football games depends only 10% on coaching and 90% on the level of talent, reflects a failure to account for the more subtle dynamics and multiple factors that often accompany a coaching change. At UF, for example, the transition from Zook to Meyer entailed not only the obvious dramatic change in offensive systems, but also a less evident but equally impactful shift in coaching psychology--i.e., Zook was a "player's coach" who allowed his guys lots of slack and always took their side when trouble arose (like the time he went over to confront a fraternity in defense of his players); Meyer is a strict, no-nonsense disciplinarian who demands hard work and adherence to the rules. A number of the players recruited by Zook simply didn't fit or weren't comfortable with the new system and coaching regime under Meyer. Everyone agrees that both Zook and Meyer are superb recruiters and are loved by their players; they just have different systems and different personal leadership styles.

When a coaching change occurs, many factors other than talent level of the holdover players can affect the team's performance. Based on my observations as an avid college football fan for almost 50 years, the most significant influences are adjustments to (a) changes in offensive/defensive schemes, and (b) changes in position coaches, both of which can result in underutilization or diminished performance of existing talent. In addition, I think in fairness you have to look at such factors as difficulty of schedule and relative strength of opponents, which can change from one season to the next.

What I don't understand is why anyone would be motivated to express a negative assessment of Coach Cutcliffe's recruiting ability and make pessimistic predictions about his prospects of success even before he's had an opportunity to demonstrate what he's capable of achieving at Duke. Maybe you thought another candidate might have been a better recruiter; but what conceivable purpose does it serve to gripe about it now? Coach Cutcliffe has given Duke fans no reason to doubt that he will do a great job--as a recruiter, as a motivator, as a program-builder, as a game-day coach, and as a leader who will make us proud of our team and the stuident-athletes who wear the Duke uniform. At the very least, I think it's premature, and unjustified, and unseemly, to start criticizing him for anticipated failings.