Goestenkors accepts Texas' offer [Archive]

Patrick Yates

04-03-2007, 03:08 PM

This is definitely not a positive by any definition of the word, but the world is not ending. Right now, like a bad breakup, there is a tendancy to remember the good times and forget the bad.

Frankly, Coach G wanted to be paid like Geno and Pat Summit, and that just is not fair. She hadn't earned that. I think this gives us a chance to bring in some young blood at coach, who may push us over the edge.

For all that Coach G has done for the program, and she did a lot, she was unable to get over the hump in the post season. The losses in the post season were always dissappointing. It seemed like teams peaked in Jan-Feb. Many of the NCAA or ACC tourney losses were "bad" in that the team collapsed or came out very flat. Finishing games was a problem during the season, unless we blew out a team and they subsequently quit.

Regular Season Success is good, but the post season is what it is all about. Also, before I hear about Coach K, or even Coach Wooden, taking longer to win it all, remember: G is not being fired. She is asking for a salary that would be unwarranted given her post season results, given that she is already one of the highest paid coaches in women's hoops. She took the money and ran.

Frankly, it might not be possible for a Women's team, any team, to earn enough to be profitable to justify that salary. I suspect her salary will be a loss leader at Texas as they strive to compete with OSU, UF, Stanford, and a few other large state school for overall athletic dept supremacy, a title that Duke and many other ACC programs eschew. Tenn and UConn are perhaps the only two profitable women't programs. Tenn plays in a huge arena that is constantly sold out, and is twice as large as Cameron, more so in fact. UConn fills her arena all the time (bigger than Cameron) as well as the nearby large staduim.

Duke only fills Cameron (barely) for huge, televised games. Duke can only afford K's salary thanks to the ACC's rich TV deal that the women are unlike to ever approach. The Duke girls, an undefeated and dominant team, were rarely on TV. In fact, the UNC men and Duke men combined were probably on national tv more than the women's teams at Duke, UConn, Tenn, UNC, and MD COMBINED.

The money just is not there. If G had an NC, and was a constant threat to win more (which she just is not yet given the seeming mental fragility of her teams in the NCAAs) then Duke could justify operating a money losing program. Right now, she is not worth it, and I remain somewhat skeptical that she will ever be worth it.

Good luck and best wishes to all sides.

Patrick Yates

irondog91920110

04-03-2007, 03:12 PM

She said it was about people, I think I guess our people didn't measure up to Texas. As others have said maybe it is time to look at what the AD has done or not done.

wxyz

04-03-2007, 03:13 PM

this is strange that duke apparently matched texas' offer....
leads me to believe that JA screwd it up for us

JA started off badly with his public comments about Duke's WBB losing money. Once you trip over yourself like that, it's hard to catch up when there is serious competition. Those same comments are going to make it harder to recruit an outstanding new coach. I really wonder if JA thought that G had it so good at Duke that she would never leave, in other words that he underestimated Texas until it was too late.

mgtr

04-03-2007, 03:14 PM

Patrick Yates -
An excellent analysis, right on target in my book.

Highlander

04-03-2007, 03:16 PM

Did Duke match Texas's offer? I haven't seen details of that.

Duvall

04-03-2007, 03:18 PM

Did Duke match Texas's offer? I haven't seen details of that.

That's been reported (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/kelli_anderson/04/02/inside.bkw/index.html), though there are no details. Probably never will be.

FireOgilvie

04-03-2007, 03:19 PM

Did Duke match Texas's offer? I haven't seen details of that.

Apparently Duke did match the offer. This wasn't about money. I'm guessing this was about the perceived lack of support the program received from the athletic department and the fans.

SoCalDukeFan

04-03-2007, 03:21 PM

Texas is a large state school with a huge local fan base in Austin. She can build a top team and expect to get great crowds to follow the team. Texas under Coach G could become another school with a profitbable women's bball program.

She can also expect the full support of the athletic department. It boggles my mind that her contract was not redone last year when she went to the NC game.

It will be interesting to follow Alleva's hiring process. I think he is incompetent and the hiring process will prove me correct.

SoCal

bluey

04-03-2007, 03:21 PM

G said herself that it is really about "the people". I'm sure working for the women's AD at Texas who she knows and respects vs JA is an easy decision. Not to say this has been easy for her, but when you look at that part it is.

Wonder how many years they will give her to get the UT program back where they want it? I doubt they will give her very long. The UT recruits for next year are not that great and UT big game attendance was less than Duke had this year for the big games.

Let's hope the next Duke class stays at Duke because they are fantastic!!! And let's hope JA doesn't screw up the chance to get a top coach.

ikiru36

04-03-2007, 03:22 PM

This is too bad, but, so long as Duke made a good faith effort to keep her (which, for Duke, I would deem $650K/year or more in salary), I don't feel ill about it.

Gail, thank you very much for bringing tremendous success, recognition and respect to Duke Women's Basketball. Best to you in future endeavors ('cept when you play or recruit against us!)

As much as I've loved Gail and and where she's led our program, I have to say that a number of times (almost entirely in the post-season) I have felt we were outcoached, at least in terms of the team demonstrating the ultimate mental toughness required, in the end.

That being said, I'd still love to have her coaching as she has recruited wonderful character and talent to Duke, and she and her players always conducted themselves in a manner which reflected well on the University.

I do think that Duke's success under her tenure was sustained long enough that should we bring in another young coaching talent (Alleva's job, oh crud!) the program has an opportunity to sustain itself. There are some impressive young coaches in Women's hoops and Duke has got to be a prime position right now given:

1) Top Conference
2) Top 10 caliber roster, right now!
3) Great recruits coming next year (assuming they stay, which sometimes depends on a reasonably quick and quality hire to retain them)
3) Academic Reputation
4) Basketball first school
5) Storied home arena
6) Good and soon to be great basketball facilities
7) Scenic and Historic Durham, N.C.
...........etc.

So long as we make the right hire, and there are some likely good options out there, what Gail has built, another could maintain and complete!

Best to you Gail!!!!! Go Lady Devils!!!!! Go Duke!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!

adam

04-03-2007, 03:24 PM

ESPNEWS just "broke" the story. I'm still holding out that this is a really bad April Fool's joke.

ESPN story can be found here, by the way...
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=2824238

Capn Poptart

04-03-2007, 03:25 PM

Yeah, but it's still a football school. Instead of no. 2 behind the men, her program will be no. 6 behind football, spring football, football recruiting, men's hoops and baseball.

adam

04-03-2007, 03:30 PM

According to the Duke Chronicle story...
http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/04/03/News/Goestenkors.Accepts.Texas.Offer-2820332.shtml

"A national search for a new head coach is expected to begin immediately, with California's Joanne Boyle and Miami's Katie Meier - both Duke graduates - expected to top Duke's wish list."

JasonEvans

04-03-2007, 03:31 PM

Good luck to Coach G. We wil always admire what she built here.

I say, Joanne Boyle, come on down! She's the logical choice for a replacement and I doubt we would ever have to worry about some other school prying her away from us once she starts winning national titles here!

-Jason "I am not a 'keep it in the family' no matter what kinda person, but Boyle is emminently qualified too" Evans

Duvall

04-03-2007, 03:31 PM

Yeah, but it's still a football school. Instead of no. 2 behind the men, her program will be no. 6 behind football, spring football, football recruiting, men's hoops and baseball.

Yeah, but it's the #6 program at the University of Texas, which is still going to get more fan support than the #2 program at Duke. That's not an indictment of Duke fans - it's simple math. There are more successful college programs in the Triangle than there are in the entire state of Texas.

gadzooks

04-03-2007, 03:38 PM

Frankly, Coach G wanted to be paid like Geno and Pat SummitReally? Where did you get that that was her expectation? We do have some pretty good information how much Texas offered her, and that probably Duke matched the offer, but I've never seen any indication that she went into this demanding a Summitt-type salary. Texas offered her what they thought she was worth. Why is it so unreasonable for her to say to Duke, "Look, I'd love to stay here, but dang, that's an awful lot of money." Duke was free to refuse to match if they didn't feel she was worth it.

Capn Poptart

04-03-2007, 03:38 PM

If a coach's priority is having a large alumni base and loads of local fans, then Duke University is not the place for that coach.

TwoDukeTattoos

04-03-2007, 03:40 PM

A brief blurb is also posted on WRAL.com, so this is definitely legit. It's reported that Duke matched the offer, so money obviously wasn't the deciding factor. What worries me is exactly WHAT was the deciding factor? JA, I would assume, but in what capacity? If, in fact, he did mismanage the women's hoops program, I certainly hope he tightens things up when the next coach comes in. And I hope his management style doesn't affect other atheletic programs, namely, of course, men's hoops.

On a postive side, G succeeded at Duke for so long that now all up and coming kids associate Duke women's hoops with quality and rich tradition, so I think we're in a fairly good position to pick up where we left off, at least to some degree. Recruiting should still go well.

Duvall

04-03-2007, 03:41 PM

If a coach's priority is having a large alumni base and loads of local fans, then Duke University is not the place for that coach.

Judging by her public comments, a bigger priority was having a supportive and well-run athletic department. Duke University is also not the place for that.

bird

04-03-2007, 03:52 PM

I went to quite a few games while Boyle coached at Richmond. From my ant's point of view:

Pros:

1. Good relationships with her players.
2. Strong sidelines presence.
3. Players seemed to improve during season.
4. Competent in-game tactics.
5. Team reached above-trendline success while here.

Cons:

1. Questionable fashion sense at times.
2. No proof of recuiting prowess -- she won with holdover players, and had only one notable recruit that comes to mind. No idea how recruiting doing at Cal.
3. Tragic end of her run here: best player on her team - best player at Richmond for a long time -- had ACL injury at end of senior season, and team flamed out. Not Boyle's fault, of course, but hard to get over.

dkbaseball

04-03-2007, 04:05 PM

Some may find it reassuring that Alleva's prerogatives in the hiring process have been substantially reduced, or at least they were two years ago when a new baseball coach was hired. I believe he was just one vote on a hiring committee of about half a dozen. Chris Kennedy conducted the interview process. The particular hire resulting from that process isn't, at this point, especially reassuring, but at least people seem to have a general idea now of Alleva's capabilities in this area.

adam

04-03-2007, 04:09 PM

From what I've read, only Greg and Marty attended the on-campus rally for Coach G. Why wasn't there more support from the men's program to keep Coach G at Duke?

onepresent

04-03-2007, 04:10 PM

Judging by her public comments, a bigger priority was having a supportive and well-run athletic department. Duke University is also not the place for that.

Compare the number of non-coaching staff in women's basketball office (around 3) to the men's (10+). Those folks are overworked. (and I'm not saying they should be equal)

BigDuke6

04-03-2007, 04:12 PM

I hate to be so glum but this has been a really depressing year plus one month for Duke Athletics. Huh, how about that for my first post? Here's looking to next year.

SlimSlowSlider

04-03-2007, 04:33 PM

DukieInKansas

04-03-2007, 04:36 PM

I'm sorry to see her go and wish her great success in Texas - just never against Duke!

From various articles I read, which I will admit were not extensive and I haven't gone back looking for the link, I sensed that one of the things she was looking for from Duke was some perks for the team - charter flights rather than coach and such. If Duke matched the pay of Texas, it may have come down to treatment of the players by the athletic department. I'm not making a judgement on whether the team should have charter flights or not, just commenting that her decision may not have been based solely on her income. (Do the men have charter flights?)

I hope the women't team has a great season next year. They were fun to watch this year!

dukestheheat

04-03-2007, 04:38 PM

i'm sick over this and my heart dropped when i read it. i also was feeling better about her staying the longer she held out. and to respond to slimslowslider, i didn't know she'd been divorced and if so, you are probably entirely right in that she needs a new start.

i hope that that is the case is this matter.

dth.

hurleyfor3

04-03-2007, 04:40 PM

Yeah, but it's still a football school. Instead of no. 2 behind the men, her program will be no. 6 behind football, spring football, football recruiting, men's hoops and baseball.

I'm beginning to think this has become the Universal Excuse.

We lose to LSU -- yeah, but they're a football school, no one there cares.
Florida repeats -- yeah, but they're a football school, no one there cares.
Texas gets G -- yeah, but they're a football school, no one's gonna care.

I helped perpertate this, of course.

KandG

04-03-2007, 04:44 PM

Hasn't anybody considered that it was not about the money, but about a change of scenery? I think i read on these boards that she recently got divorced. Maybe she wanted to have a new start somewhere else. Maybe her leaving is not an indictment of Duke or Alleva or anything else.

As an armchair psychologist myself, I actually find this explanation pretty compelling. I remember feeling some dread that the odds were not good when I found out that she was single and 44. Without speculating on her personal life, she's at a time in her life that is a good time to make a big change like this, without concerns of having to move a family across the country.

If her divorce was indeed recent, then this type of move makes even more sense...but I'm still bitterly disappointed that she couldn't be compelled to stay, in order to see the program she built through to her first championship.

Atlanta Duke

04-03-2007, 05:01 PM

From what I've read, only Greg and Marty attended the on-campus rally for Coach G. Why wasn't there more support from the men's program to keep Coach G at Duke?

McRoberts was busy studying for finals

azazel

04-03-2007, 05:02 PM

From Jason Evans:
post deleted, we don't need sour grapes like that around here

KandG

04-03-2007, 05:10 PM

post deleted

Not only is this a terrible attempt at "humor" from a first time poster, it doesn't even come close to hitting the mark -- the rest of the players on the youngest, most turnover-prone, least poised Duke men's basketball team in a decade "understanding basketball" more than the most successful coach in Duke women's history? I'm not sure some of those guys understand basketball any better than most players on Division II teams.

But maybe I'm just bitter and you're a troll.

dockfan

04-03-2007, 05:16 PM

McRoberts was busy studying for finals

Funniest one-liner I have read around here in awhile. :D

azazel

04-03-2007, 05:22 PM

Not only is this a terrible attempt at "humor" from a first time poster, it doesn't even come close to hitting the mark -- the rest of the players on the youngest, most turnover-prone, least poised Duke men's basketball team in a decade "understanding basketball" more than the most successful coach in Duke women's history? I'm not sure some of those guys understand basketball any better than most players on Division II teams.

But maybe I'm just bitter and you're a troll.

Wow you've had an account since March 2007?

I believe the men's program understands basketball better than Coach G. I could just be basing that on their 3 national championships, but in my mind it's based on the fact that her players are confused in the last minute of games like UConn in the elite 8 last year (a miracle win, considering...) or Rutgers this year. Maybe it's the fact that she had Lauren Rice and Iciss jacking up 3s all the time instead of banging in the post. I don't know -- I can't stand Coach G any more (the Minnesota game in 2004 was the final straw for me) and I can't wait to see Texas choke up huge leads against Texas Tech on a regular basis while she practices her deer-in-headlights look on the sideline. How could we lose to Maryland ?!?!?!?

wxyz

04-03-2007, 05:25 PM

<snip>

There are some impressive young coaches in Women's hoops and Duke has got to be a prime position right now given:

1) Top Conference
2) Top 10 caliber roster, right now!
3) Great recruits coming next year (assuming they stay, which sometimes depends on a reasonably quick and quality hire to retain them)
3) Academic Reputation
4) Basketball first school
5) Storied home arena
6) Good and soon to be great basketball facilities
7) Scenic and Historic Durham, N.C.
...........etc.
<snip>

Based on JA's original comments, which put Duke way in the hole with G, I assume Duke also will offer any new young coach a low salary, some put-downs to the press, and mention that Duke needs someone who likes long bus rides.

hurleyfor3

04-03-2007, 05:26 PM

McRoberts was busy studying for finals

yeah, this is potd material. more like the last four weeks, in fact.

god, what a depressing place dbr has become. i need to cheer up, excuse me while i go read ic.

Uncle Drew

04-03-2007, 05:28 PM

I heard that Gail always had the hots for Mack Brown when he was at UNC and since her divorce this was the best way to get close to him. Okay, I didn't hear that, it's a total lie. But the way people are speculating, I figured I'd just throw more BS out there. Seriously Duke and it's fans will miss her. She was a great representative for Duke and a role model for women across the state. I wish her luck at Texas against anyone but Duke.

ehdg

04-03-2007, 05:33 PM

Sad to hear Coach G has decided to leave us for Texas. But all we can say is thank you for all you did to improve our Ladies program. Though we really wish you had chosen to say Good Luck and may you find happiness there.

azazel

04-03-2007, 05:36 PM

yeah, this is potd material. more like the last four weeks, in fact.

god, what a depressing place dbr has become. i need to cheer up, excuse me while i go read ic.

I don't know why everyone is in such a bad mood. The women's team is going to win the national championship next year!

hurleyfor3

04-03-2007, 05:38 PM

I don't know why everyone is in such a bad mood. The women's team is going to win the national championship next year!

and the chicago cubs will win the world series

azazel

04-03-2007, 05:41 PM

and the chicago cubs will win the world series

I don't know from baseball but the women are going to win the national championship next year!

ikiru36

04-03-2007, 05:58 PM

Based on JA's original comments, which put Duke way in the hole with G, I assume Duke also will offer any new young coach a low salary, some put-downs to the press, and mention that Duke needs someone who likes long bus rides.

In the rest of the post you quote from, I note my fear of Alleva being involved.

Nevertheless, from anything I've seen, Coach G was already being reasonably financially compensated (estimates seem to range from 400-500+K/year), in clear excess of Hatchell and Fricke (who are in the same conference and have won NCs) and most other women's coaches.

I definitely stand by stating that Duke is a very good job right now as a Women's basketball coach and (Alleva's poorly timed/poorly worded statement aside) until I hear that Coach G and/or our players were being treated shabbily/disrespectfully by the school, the long bus rides comment seems inappropriate (if that is somehow insinuating a callouness in not being provided with a chartered jet. sheesh.)

And while I tend to agree that his comments were stupid and had a negative impact, I've heard little more than conjecture that the relationship with Alleva was the main reason Coach G wanted to move on. There certainly are other potential factors as well including personal as well as the opportunity to replace a legend (#2 winningest coach all-time), at a top-notch large state school with one of the most successful programs in the history of her sport. Just saying that sure it's an easy opportunity to grind an ax at Duke's athletics department, but really, on the whole, the overall success of Duke's mens and womens athletics programs (including Women's Basketball) speak for a lot of people doing a lot of things right.

azazel

04-03-2007, 06:10 PM

From Jason Evans:
post deleted, we don't need sour grapes like that around here

So is the plan also to delete all the posts criticizing Joe Alleva? Or is he still fair game because he hasn't made a conscious decision to leave Duke for another school?

j(ay)mike

04-03-2007, 06:11 PM

She said it was about people, I think I guess our people didn't measure up to Texas. As others have said maybe it is time to look at what the AD has done or not done.
If that's the case, then yes, Alleva needs to go. What a disaster.

azazel

04-03-2007, 06:15 PM

If that's the case, then yes, Alleva needs to go. What a disaster.

Better pile on Alleva now before he decides to leave. If he does then anything you say afterward is just sour grapes.

How could we lose to Maryland ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?111111one

godukecom

04-03-2007, 06:25 PM

isnt it interesting that the last 4 teams that the wbb team has lost all wore red jerseys?
just saying, although i cant think of how it relates to this topic other than the fact that texas is brown...

throatybeard

04-03-2007, 06:51 PM

What's really terrifying is that he's hiring Goestenkors' replacement.

At least if we have to replace Ted Roof, there's a decent chance someone other than Alleva will be doing the search.

bludev03

04-03-2007, 07:51 PM

BDevilU

04-03-2007, 08:13 PM

Why do I suddenly feel like a Red Sox fan after Babe Ruth went to the Yankees?

Retaining quality coaching staffs (as well as hiring them) is one of the primary responsibilites of an AD. Joe Alleva has shown a distinct lack of ability when it comes to this area... aside from throwing huge sums of money at K and his staff to keep them happy. However, when it comes to the second highest profile (and some would say more likeable) coach at Duke, that is exactly what he chose NOT to do. Matching the Texas offer seems fine on the surface, but a slight bump would have been better. Aside from his lackluster comments, a percentage increase on the Texas offer (however small) would have proclaimed that Duke truly wanted G more than the Longhorns.

GG will be missed. It was refreshing to watch the #1 Ladies without dealing with the intense anti-Duke sentiment than accompanies every Men's game.

Now I'm afraid that another bad coaching hire by Alleva could sink the program into mediocrity (or worse). Indifference and poor hiring decisions are among the reasons that Duke football faded to the current state. I cannot help but feel that a similar fate awaits Ladies' Hoops under Alleva's watch, given recent events. The Red Sox had their curse, and Duke Football certainly seems mired in theirs, still. I can only hope that the departure of GG truly isn't an invocation of the next Devil curse.

Clipsfan

04-03-2007, 08:29 PM

As great as GG is, I cant see justifying paying her 800k. Tara Vandeveer, Stanford's coach, has won 2 NC and an Olympic gold medal, and she makes around 450.
Kim Mulkey at Baylor makes 840, which is waaaaaaaay too much for her.

Brenda and Sylvia make less than 300, yet, each has a NC.
Kay Yow, a Hall of Famer and has won an Olympic gold medal, only makes 200.

As a result, based on meritocracy, GG should have been estatic to make 400-500. However, if Texas wants to get that Texas sized checkbook out and write her a Texas sized check, then more power to them...

As much as I have thought that G has done a great job of building the Duke program (and she definitely has), I agree that there has to be a maximum price that we are willing to pay. I don't know what that price should be, as it is difficult to value intangibles such as the fact that the team helps Duke's overall image. That may be minor, as few people watch women's bball, but no matter what it has some value. Even so, Duke doesn't have unlimited funds, and from what I've read on the board G was already very well compensated in comparison to the rest of the ACC.

I wish her the best of luck, and hope that we find another coach who represents the school as well as she did.

azazel

04-03-2007, 08:36 PM

http://www.nj.com/rutgerswomen/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1174713925226220.xml&coll=1

Harding, who is averaging 13.9 points, was suspended for the entire 2004-05 season for violating team rules.

"I told her she could transfer if she wanted to, or she could choose to stay and fight," Duke coach Gail Goestenkors said. "She right away said, 'I'm staying. I'm going to be better than ever.' When she made that decision, I knew great things were going to happen for her and for us."

I find it fascinating that everyone wants to jump on Joe Alleva for letting Coach G go and not jump on G herself who, two years ago, almost let Lindsey Harding go!

wxyz

04-03-2007, 08:38 PM

In the rest of the post you quote from, I note my fear of Alleva being involved.

Nevertheless, from anything I've seen, Coach G was already being reasonably financially compensated (estimates seem to range from 400-500+K/year), in clear excess of Hatchell and Fricke (who are in the same conference and have won NCs) and most other women's coaches.

I definitely stand by stating that Duke is a very good job right now as a Women's basketball coach and (Alleva's poorly timed/poorly worded statement aside) until I hear that Coach G and/or our players were being treated shabbily/disrespectfully by the school, the long bus rides comment seems inappropriate (if that is somehow insinuating a callouness in not being provided with a chartered jet. sheesh.)

And while I tend to agree that his comments were stupid and had a negative impact, I've heard little more than conjecture that the relationship with Alleva was the main reason Coach G wanted to move on. There certainly are other potential factors as well including personal as well as the opportunity to replace a legend (#2 winningest coach all-time), at a top-notch large state school with one of the most successful programs in the history of her sport. Just saying that sure it's an easy opportunity to grind an ax at Duke's athletics department, but really, on the whole, the overall success of Duke's mens and womens athletics programs (including Women's Basketball) speak for a lot of people doing a lot of things right.

You are right that in my frustration about G leaving I was being too quick about the negatives. There are certainly good aspects about the Duke opportunity. I have no idea whether working relationships with JA was a factor in G's decision or will be a problem for recruiting. I do sense that the intangible issue of "are we important to you" are issues that women's teams and their coaches think of frequently, as they emerge from an era of mostly all men's teams, so I think that this issue is one that JA or whoever is going to have to address successfully for a high-quality recruitment. I do not have a good feel of whether JA and the Duke administration want a championship- level women's team, which inevitably does cost more, or just a women's team that has low revenues balanced by low expenditures. Whatever happens, G will be a hard act to follow.

throatybeard

04-03-2007, 09:03 PM

http://www.nj.com/rutgerswomen/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1174713925226220.xml&coll=1

I find it fascinating that everyone wants to jump on Joe Alleva for letting Coach G go and not jump on G herself who, two years ago, almost let Lindsey Harding go!

That's not even a remotely comparable situation.

azazel

04-03-2007, 09:41 PM

That's not even a remotely comparable situation.

I agree, Alleva let go of the 3rd or 4th best coach in the ACC (two others have titles and I can't decide on Kay Yow) .. G almost let go of the best player in the ACC.

wxyz

04-03-2007, 09:48 PM

Alleva in Forbes said: ""In the end, it came down to her seeking a new challenge at this stage in her career and her life," Duke athletic director Joe Alleva said in a statement. "While we are disappointed that she has chosen to leave, we have to look forward now and search for the best women's basketball coach for Duke University." JA might have been repeating Brodhead, who was quoted as saying much the same thing.

IMO, both sentences are problematical, but I hope all works out well.

DukeWarhead

04-04-2007, 04:14 PM

Over the past few years, many fans on this board have struck me as overly-appreciative when someone leaves the Duke family. No, I am not at all advocating wishing bad luck or cursing someone when they decided to move on, but all of the "Thanks for everything, best wishes in the future" messages seem a bit sappy, and to an extent,
It's as if some Duke fans think it is beneath them to be displeased when an important player or coach puts thier personal (often financial) situation ahead of the Duke program. Again, I perfectly understand that you have to "do what's best for you and yours" but that doesn't mean that we as Duke fans have to smile, pat you on the back, and wave pleasantly as you walk out the door enroute to a bigger paycheck. Their is something to be said, after all, for loyalty. (i.e. see Shelden's decision to stay, K's decision to turn down millions coaching in the NBA, Lee Melchionni's willingness to ride the pine for three seasons and not transfer.)
I do not wish ill on any of the early departers. I cheer for Luol Deng, Elton Brand, Dunleavy, et al. However, I cheer much louder for Chris Duhon, Grant Hill, and the others who put Duke first.
I realize that many will paint this post as a "sour grapes" message, but that's wrong. I just think that the congratulatory messages to those who have left Duke for more $$ (because this IS really what its about) are a bit profuse.
That is all.:eek:

AtlBluRew

04-04-2007, 04:29 PM

I look forward to posting a profuse congratulatory message to Joe Alleva.

77devil

04-04-2007, 04:52 PM

Alleva in Forbes said: "In the end, it came down to her seeking a new challenge at this stage in her career and her life," Duke athletic director Joe Alleva said in a statement."

How contrived. Without a championship, the challenge at Duke is hardly complete.

wxyz

04-05-2007, 08:08 AM

It may be that the deciding factor in G's leaving was anxiety among the coaches created by the abrupt firing of Mike Pressler. That's not just history, as the same unease could be in the mind of a prospective new coach.

Duke84Blue

04-05-2007, 06:24 PM

dukie8

04-06-2007, 12:44 AM

From what I had heard/read, I thought the big "selling point" for Texas was that they had far superior financial support and resources for their women's program than Duke. And, that whatever Coach G asked for, Texas would provide (within reason of course) because of the size and power of their athletic program. So, I went to the facts. From 2003-2005, Texas spent $3.42M, $3.58M and $3.67M on women's basketball. That's a lot of money! But, then I looked at Duke and was surprised to see that in that same period, we spent $1.54M, $2.27M and $2.8M leaving us not all that far behind Texas. And, look at the growth rates. While Texas grows at about the rate of inflation, Duke has nearly doubled their financial support in 2 years! Overall, UT runs about $1M deficit for women's basketball. While Duke was nearly doubling their expenses from '03-'05, the deficit widened from about $1M in 2003 to $2.2M in 2005. To me, that shows tremendous financial support. Not only have we plowed a lot of money into the program, but we are doing it knowing that we are running a tremendous deficit. Rarely do you increase expenses like that (while running such a deficit) without truly "believing" in the product. For comparative purposes, Maryland spent $1.9M in 2005 and UNC $2.0M, so we outspent the other top two programs in the ACC by a wide margin.

you do it when you have title ix in your face and you have tremendous pressure to be politically correct. i have to admit that i was very disappointed that duke supposedly caved into the pc pressure and ponied up $800K for coach g despite the fact that TOTAL revenue for women's basketball was $600K. that makes absolutely no sense -- particularly when there are 2 other coaches in the acc with ncs who are in the $250-$300 range. it would be one thing if 20K people showed up for home games and there was a massive public following (eg, like in tennessee and uconn) but they can't even get 5000 people to show up for home games and most of those people are getting in for free or with heavily discounted tickets. it should be clear that the number of people who follow duke women's basketball is miniscule and likely no different than any of the men's "nonrevenue" sports. if it can't sell out cis, it's not like there are large pockets of supporters in other parts of the country. after running a $2MM loss, duke should be looking at ways to CURTAIL spending -- not increase it.

devildownunder

04-06-2007, 03:14 AM

devildownunder

04-06-2007, 03:22 AM

I agree, Alleva let go of the 3rd or 4th best coach in the ACC (two others have titles and I can't decide on Kay Yow) .. G almost let go of the best player in the ACC.

Absurd reasoning. You cannot determine who is the best coach simply by counting championships in a vacuum. Coach G built her program into a perennial top-10 powerhouse and she did it from the ground up. Her teams are in the hunt for national honors every single year. None of the coaches to whom you refer have come close to doing that.

devildownunder

04-06-2007, 03:23 AM

you do it when you have title ix in your face and you have tremendous pressure to be politically correct. i have to admit that i was very disappointed that duke supposedly caved into the pc pressure and ponied up $800K for coach g despite the fact that TOTAL revenue for women's basketball was $600K. that makes absolutely no sense -- particularly when there are 2 other coaches in the acc with ncs who are in the $250-$300 range. it would be one thing if 20K people showed up for home games and there was a massive public following (eg, like in tennessee and uconn) but they can't even get 5000 people to show up for home games and most of those people are getting in for free or with heavily discounted tickets. it should be clear that the number of people who follow duke women's basketball is miniscule and likely no different than any of the men's "nonrevenue" sports. if it can't sell out cis, it's not like there are large pockets of supporters in other parts of the country. after running a $2MM loss, duke should be looking at ways to CURTAIL spending -- not increase it.

how much money does football make?

Duke84Blue

04-06-2007, 04:10 AM

Football made $8.3M in 2005 and spent $10.0M. Men's hoops made $12.2M and spent $8.1M.

devildownunder

04-06-2007, 07:30 AM

Football made $8.3M in 2005 and spent $10.0M. Men's hoops made $12.2M and spent $8.1M.

OK, if that's true then football is operating at a loss. Does that mean it should be dropped?

dukie8

04-06-2007, 08:43 AM

OK, if that's true then football is operating at a loss. Does that mean it should be dropped?

no, but it means that we shouldn't go out and spend $3 million on a coach. however, it DOES have substantial revenue (thank you very much fsu and va tech) so one could make a reasonable argument that if duke went out and did spend a lot of money on a great coach, the program will turn around and it will turn a profit. there's at least something to work with in football. it doesn't get any better than this year for women's hoops -- undefeated in the reason season and #1 for most of it -- and it still only managed to generate a paltry $600K in revenue. it isn't that much of a stretch to guess that when the team falls back to 10th or 15th in the country that this figure is going to drop.

the argument that women's basketball is some sort of "loss leader" is absolutely absurd. a loss leader for what? i have never heard of a single person who chose duke over another school because of women's basketball. however, i knew A LOT of people who chose duke over other schools with men's basketball being a deciding, if not the key, factor. i also have never heard of big alum donations coming in because of women's basketball. women's basketball is no different than baseball, men's/women's xc, men's/women's golf or men's/women's tennis -- nonrevenue sports that make duke look good when they do well but only in the eyes of a tiny fraction of the public.

devildownunder

04-06-2007, 10:32 AM

no, but it means that we shouldn't go out and spend $3 million on a coach. however, it DOES have substantial revenue (thank you very much fsu and va tech) so one could make a reasonable argument that if duke went out and did spend a lot of money on a great coach, the program will turn around and it will turn a profit. there's at least something to work with in football. it doesn't get any better than this year for women's hoops -- undefeated in the reason season and #1 for most of it -- and it still only managed to generate a paltry $600K in revenue. it isn't that much of a stretch to guess that when the team falls back to 10th or 15th in the country that this figure is going to drop.

the argument that women's basketball is some sort of "loss leader" is absolutely absurd. a loss leader for what? i have never heard of a single person who chose duke over another school because of women's basketball. however, i knew A LOT of people who chose duke over other schools with men's basketball being a deciding, if not the key, factor. i also have never heard of big alum donations coming in because of women's basketball. women's basketball is no different than baseball, men's/women's xc, men's/women's golf or men's/women's tennis -- nonrevenue sports that make duke look good when they do well but only in the eyes of a tiny fraction of the public.

Costs are extremely high for football and it would be extremely difficult to elevate the program's longterm status. In fact, given the places football and w bball occupy, I'd say that women's basketball has a better shot of consistenly making money in the near future (though not much of it) than the football program. Connecticut and Tennessee weren't always where they are now but they have gotten to that point and sustained it. Coach G was on the verge of reaching that level herself and once you do that in wbball it's easier to sustain than in football because there are fewer competitors at or near the top.

Attendance figures are regularly quoted as evidence of a lack of appeal for the program but take a look at how far they have come. Big games now draw decent crowds. When G started, NOBODY went to any women's, ever. At least, nobody went to the 1 a year i would catch a highlight of on espn.

This is not to suggest that football should be banned and that wbball is going to turn into a money machine. The point is to say that w-bball CAN'T make money at Duke because it hasn't to this point is wrong. In fact, I think it is very likely more accurate to say that Duke's women's bball program will make money before it's football program does (again, admittedly not much) provided it continues in the direction Coach G had it going. And despite that distinct possibility, and the money lost on fball, some on this board and elsewhere claim that the answer to the athletic department's money problems is to be frugal WRT women's bball. That is potentially short-sighted, IMO, and perhaps has a lot to do with emotion.

And of course w-bball could be a loss leader. For all the talk about how little exposure the women's bball team gets, it's a heckuva lot easier for alumni to see it perform in high-stakes competition on national television than any sport besides men's bball and football. And if you take raw numbers the women's team was probably on nationally MORE than the football team was this year. If that program did win two or three national championship over the next four years (not at all far-fectched) I dare speculate that a large percentage of alumni who care about sports enough to contribute financially to athletic success would start to view the program with an immense amount of pride and augment their contributions accordingly.

Kewlswim

04-06-2007, 01:21 PM

Costs are extremely high for football and it would be extremely difficult to elevate the program's longterm status. In fact, given the places football and w bball occupy, I'd say that women's basketball has a better shot of consistenly making money in the near future (though not much of it) than the football program. Connecticut and Tennessee weren't always where they are now but they have gotten to that point and sustained it. Coach G was on the verge of reaching that level herself and once you do that in wbball it's easier to sustain than in football because there are fewer competitors at or near the top.

Attendance figures are regularly quoted as evidence of a lack of appeal for the program but take a look at how far they have come. Big games now draw decent crowds. When G started, NOBODY went to any women's, ever. At least, nobody went to the 1 a year i would catch a highlight of on espn.

This is not to suggest that football should be banned and that wbball is going to turn into a money machine. The point is to say that w-bball CAN'T make money at Duke because it hasn't to this point is wrong. In fact, I think it is very likely more accurate to say that Duke's women's bball program will make money before it's football program does (again, admittedly not much) provided it continues in the direction Coach G had it going. And despite that distinct possibility, and the money lost on fball, some on this board and elsewhere claim that the answer to the athletic department's money problems is to be frugal WRT women's bball. That is potentially short-sighted, IMO, and perhaps has a lot to do with emotion.

And of course w-bball could be a loss leader. For all the talk about how little exposure the women's bball team gets, it's a heckuva lot easier for alumni to see it perform in high-stakes competition on national television than any sport besides men's bball and football. And if you take raw numbers the women's team was probably on nationally MORE than the football team was this year. If that program did win two or three national championship over the next four years (not at all far-fectched) I dare speculate that a large percentage of alumni who care about sports enough to contribute financially to athletic success would start to view the program with an immense amount of pride and augment their contributions accordingly.

Hi,

A team, such as one outside a major conference, has a harder team elevating itself in football than one in a major conference. Take, Cal for example. Cal was a doormat of the Pac-10. Now, five or so years after Tedford took over it is in the hunt for Rose Bowls and national championships. Did Cal start spending more on football? Well, yes and no, they started paying Tedford more. What makes the difference is that when they got "good" they were able to play top flight competition such as UCLA and USC on a year in and year out basis. Along with its ascent has come increased revenues.

Duke, I truly believe, is two good years away from earning its keep in football and adding to the coffers in a constructive manner. Just by getting its butt kicked by Miami in Miami it earns lots of money--just not enough. I don't want to start a rant on the quality of the coaching being the difference, but if you had an occassion to see Cal play the year before Tedford arrived, under Coach Holmoe (now AD at Utah or BYU or somewhere in Utah) and the year after, it was like night and day. False starts, off-sides, mental mistakes that plagued the old team (sound familiar), were practically eradicated and the team looked much crisper on the field. I have said it, and will say it again, Coach Walt Harris is available, he was not given a chance at Stanford. He could turn Duke around if Coach Roof can't.

GO DUKE!

Kewlswim

04-06-2007, 02:19 PM

Hi,

It is my understanding that Coach G was under contract for two more years. I know this is going to sound strange, but I think the Duke department of athletics should not have given permission to Texas to speak with Coach G because I think Texas did things that, for lack of a better word, weren't "kosher." OK, the season ends Duke is out then start talking about who you want as your next Coach, but while Duke's season was still in play they should have said, "No comment about any coach, until the WBB season ends." They act like this was a "professional" and measured search, why couldn't their decisions and wants be held to the same standard? That was, in my opinion, the right way to do things because I think they influenced in a negative manner the out-come of the Duke women's basketball season. This is NOT sour grapes. I don't think any coach should have their name associated with another school until that particular season is over.

Granted, the Gators were able to fight through such issues. However, every team is different. I think the Elton Brand led Devils lost the NC game because they were thinking too much about the NBA and not enough about UCONN, perhaps if they had been able to be more focused it would have been a different outcome. So, focus and distractions play a role in a teams success.

GO DUKE!

chris13

04-06-2007, 02:55 PM

Why do athletic departments even seek permission to speak with a coach anyway? Does this act have any actual meaning, or is it just some formality?

For example, when Tubby Smith left UK for Minnesota, I recall reading that Minnesota asked the Kentucky AD for permission to speak with Tubby a day or two before Tubby left. Of course, IIRC, in the weeks leading up to this date, Tubby's agent had been discussing the job with the Minnesota AD so 90% of the work was done before the "permission to speak" was even sought?

And even if Kentucky or Duke hadn't granted permission to Minnesota and Texas, respectively, would that have actually hindered the process of Tubby and G moving to their new jobs?

In other words can someone explain what this permission to speak really means?

greybeard

04-06-2007, 03:47 PM

Whether her decision might reflect some fall out from those committee reports that Brodhead commissioned and all the talk from the likes of Wood and Starns regarding the need to deemphasize athletics. She seemed to emphasize so much the commitment that Texas had to athletics. And, then there was the grief that the women LAX players took for supporting the LAX men. I was just wondering, is all.

bluey

04-06-2007, 06:20 PM

Kewlswim

04-06-2007, 06:51 PM

I'd like to know what the permission really means too. What if Duke had not granted it?

UT AD Plonsky said in the press conference that "this" has been a 5 year plan (I read that to mean the timing of when Conradt retired and when they thought they could get their top pick). I think G was well aware of the plan. She is now in her dream job and I don't think you can blame anyone (UT or G) for waiting for the "right" time to make the move.

Hi,

It was my understanding they put together a search group that only recently decided Coach G was their top pick. I think they were aware that their other coach would retrie at some point, but they didn't know exactly when.

GO DUKE!

dukie8

04-06-2007, 07:45 PM

Costs are extremely high for football and it would be extremely difficult to elevate the program's longterm status. In fact, given the places football and w bball occupy, I'd say that women's basketball has a better shot of consistenly making money in the near future (though not much of it) than the football program. Connecticut and Tennessee weren't always where they are now but they have gotten to that point and sustained it. Coach G was on the verge of reaching that level herself and once you do that in wbball it's easier to sustain than in football because there are fewer competitors at or near the top.

Attendance figures are regularly quoted as evidence of a lack of appeal for the program but take a look at how far they have come. Big games now draw decent crowds. When G started, NOBODY went to any women's, ever. At least, nobody went to the 1 a year i would catch a highlight of on espn.

This is not to suggest that football should be banned and that wbball is going to turn into a money machine. The point is to say that w-bball CAN'T make money at Duke because it hasn't to this point is wrong. In fact, I think it is very likely more accurate to say that Duke's women's bball program will make money before it's football program does (again, admittedly not much) provided it continues in the direction Coach G had it going. And despite that distinct possibility, and the money lost on fball, some on this board and elsewhere claim that the answer to the athletic department's money problems is to be frugal WRT women's bball. That is potentially short-sighted, IMO, and perhaps has a lot to do with emotion.

And of course w-bball could be a loss leader. For all the talk about how little exposure the women's bball team gets, it's a heckuva lot easier for alumni to see it perform in high-stakes competition on national television than any sport besides men's bball and football. And if you take raw numbers the women's team was probably on nationally MORE than the football team was this year. If that program did win two or three national championship over the next four years (not at all far-fectched) I dare speculate that a large percentage of alumni who care about sports enough to contribute financially to athletic success would start to view the program with an immense amount of pride and augment their contributions accordingly.

you are absolutely delusional about women's basketball. TWO schools in the whole country make money in it -- tennessee and uconn -- one of which makes a grand total of $50K. both of those 2 teams play in gigantic arenas that more or less sell out their games and both of those schools reside in states that have about as little competition with other sports as can be (the state of connecticut has no pro football, baseball or basketball teams, has 1 men's college basketball team that is good and has no college football teams that are even as good as duke's; the state of tennessee doesn't have a pro baseball team but does have pro basketball and football, has good men's basketball but vandy and memphis are not close and has 1 good college football team). compare that to durham -- you have 3 big time college sports schools within 45 minutes of each other (duke, unc and nc st) and a 4th that is just over an hour away (wake). so that is 4 men's basketball teams, 4 football teams and 3 other women's teams that you are competing with right off the bat. then toss in a pro football team, a pro basketball team and a minor league baseball team that draws very well and you can see that there is A LOT more competition for the attention of sportsminded people in the research triangle area than in storrs or knoxville. i haven't even tossed in the fact that women's basketball isn't popular nationally either.

there is zero chance that duke ever is going to make money in women's basketball so why do you continue making statement like "I'd say that women's basketball has a better shot of consistenly making money in the near future (though not much of it) than the football program?" the beauty of football is that the acc has profit sharing so duke makes more money if fsu plays in the bcs championship game. last year happened to have been a particularly bad year for acc football so duke actually can make a lot more in football next year by doing absolutely nothing better but reaping the riches of an improved miami, va tech and fsu.

then you continue with statements like "And of course w-bball could be a loss leader." do you even know what that terms means? here's a hint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

by running a $2MM loss in women's basketball, where is duke making that up elsewhere? women's basketball is just a loss -- there is nothing loss leader like about it. that's fine and that's how every other sport is at duke, except men's basketball and football, but people need to get a grip on reality and stop comparing women's basketball with men's basketball and football and realize that it is no different than the tennis or lax team in terms of generating money (or lack thereof) for the school.

Indoor66

04-06-2007, 11:40 PM

You might consider tortuous interference with contract.

devildownunder

04-07-2007, 08:11 AM

you are absolutely delusional about women's basketball. TWO schools in the whole country make money in it -- tennessee and uconn -- one of which makes a grand total of $50K. both of those 2 teams play in gigantic arenas that more or less sell out their games and both of those schools reside in states that have about as little competition with other sports as can be (the state of connecticut has no pro football, baseball or basketball teams, has 1 men's college basketball team that is good and has no college football teams that are even as good as duke's; the state of tennessee doesn't have a pro baseball team but does have pro basketball and football, has good men's basketball but vandy and memphis are not close and has 1 good college football team). compare that to durham -- you have 3 big time college sports schools within 45 minutes of each other (duke, unc and nc st) and a 4th that is just over an hour away (wake). so that is 4 men's basketball teams, 4 football teams and 3 other women's teams that you are competing with right off the bat. then toss in a pro football team, a pro basketball team and a minor league baseball team that draws very well and you can see that there is A LOT more competition for the attention of sportsminded people in the research triangle area than in storrs or knoxville. i haven't even tossed in the fact that women's basketball isn't popular nationally either.

there is zero chance that duke ever is going to make money in women's basketball so why do you continue making statement like "I'd say that women's basketball has a better shot of consistenly making money in the near future (though not much of it) than the football program?" the beauty of football is that the acc has profit sharing so duke makes more money if fsu plays in the bcs championship game. last year happened to have been a particularly bad year for acc football so duke actually can make a lot more in football next year by doing absolutely nothing better but reaping the riches of an improved miami, va tech and fsu.

then you continue with statements like "And of course w-bball could be a loss leader." do you even know what that terms means? here's a hint:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

by running a $2MM loss in women's basketball, where is duke making that up elsewhere? women's basketball is just a loss -- there is nothing loss leader like about it. that's fine and that's how every other sport is at duke, except men's basketball and football, but people need to get a grip on reality and stop comparing women's basketball with men's basketball and football and realize that it is no different than the tennis or lax team in terms of generating money (or lack thereof) for the school.

We're just going to disagree. Duke's women's basketball program, if it becomes a juggernaut on a par with Uconn or Tennessee can make money. It's not going to make tons of money but it can sustain itself. It's relatively inexpensive and can turn a profit if it gets to the point where all of the home games sell out and the women play a big-time tv game a few times a year. And with the way attendance and attention have grown in recent years without actually even winning the tournament yet, I don't think sellouts at CIS would be all that far-fetched if the program brought home a string of NCs.

Also, I took great pains to say that I wasn't comparing Wbball to football, men's bball or anything else, yet you accuse me of somehow confusing one sport's circumstances with some others. I think the nature of your response suggests that there may be some merit to my earlier claims about the emotion factor because you have fired off some very angry retorts that don't seem to even take into account what I have actually said. I made no statements about women's basketball being able to make huge dollars the way the fball team possibly could in one isolated year. I also made no comparisons to men's basketball's profitability.

Finally, the only thing that I was delusional about was the notion that I'd get a civil response from you. I wrote more about that but I'm sending the rest to you in a PM.

devildownunder

04-07-2007, 08:18 AM

Hi,

A team, such as one outside a major conference, has a harder team elevating itself in football than one in a major conference. Take, Cal for example. Cal was a doormat of the Pac-10. Now, five or so years after Tedford took over it is in the hunt for Rose Bowls and national championships. Did Cal start spending more on football? Well, yes and no, they started paying Tedford more. What makes the difference is that when they got "good" they were able to play top flight competition such as UCLA and USC on a year in and year out basis. Along with its ascent has come increased revenues.

Duke, I truly believe, is two good years away from earning its keep in football and adding to the coffers in a constructive manner. Just by getting its butt kicked by Miami in Miami it earns lots of money--just not enough. I don't want to start a rant on the quality of the coaching being the difference, but if you had an occassion to see Cal play the year before Tedford arrived, under Coach Holmoe (now AD at Utah or BYU or somewhere in Utah) and the year after, it was like night and day. False starts, off-sides, mental mistakes that plagued the old team (sound familiar), were practically eradicated and the team looked much crisper on the field. I have said it, and will say it again, Coach Walt Harris is available, he was not given a chance at Stanford. He could turn Duke around if Coach Roof can't.

GO DUKE!

Yes, football coaches have come along and won at schools that were big-conference doormats prior to their arrival. It may happen at Duke, too. That doesn't have much to do with what I said about women's basketball, though. I mentioned football for two reasons. 1) To point out that just because a program is losing money now doesn't mean it always has to do so. People easily see the potential for making money in football. It's there in women's bball, too, (though, again, there is MUCH less to be made ultimately) but people can't see that possibility as easily. 2) To touch on how keen interest in one sport (fball) and apathy wrt another (w-bball) leads people to be somewhat irrational in evaluating how they should be handled.

dukie8

04-07-2007, 08:40 AM

Duke's women's basketball program, if it becomes a juggernaut on a par with Uconn or Tennessee can make money. It's not going to make tons of money but it can sustain itself. It's relatively inexpensive and can turn a profit if it gets to the point where all of the home games sell out and the women play a big-time tv game a few times a year.

you continue making statements like these with little to no support. there are TWO women's basketball teams that make money (and one barely makes a profit at that). in both of those cases, as i previously cited, they play in 20K arenas that sell out and they have very little other sports competition. unlike tenn and uconn, durham is smack dab in the middle of 4 top level men's basketball programs and offers people many more sports options than tenn or conn do combined. moreover, even if they do sell out, it's 9K -- not 20K. i'm not sure what you mean about playing a "big-time tv game a few times a year." they had multiple games on national tv this year when they were 1 and the opponent was top 5. based on the lack of total revenue, the networks don't pay very much for those matchups.

Also, I took great pains to say that I wasn't comparing Wbball to football, men's bball or anything else, yet you accuse me of somehow confusing one sport's circumstances with some others.

then why did you write a 4-paragraph post that spends as much time talking about football as wb and make statements like "I think it is very likely more accurate to say that Duke's women's bball program will make money before it's football program does" and "the women's team was probably on nationally MORE than the football team was this year?"

Kewlswim

04-07-2007, 01:21 PM

Yes, football coaches have come along and won at schools that were big-conference doormats prior to their arrival. It may happen at Duke, too. That doesn't have much to do with what I said about women's basketball, though. I mentioned football for two reasons. 1) To point out that just because a program is losing money now doesn't mean it always has to do so. People easily see the potential for making money in football. It's there in women's bball, too, (though, again, there is MUCH less to be made ultimately) but people can't see that possibility as easily. 2) To touch on how keen interest in one sport (fball) and apathy wrt another (w-bball) leads people to be somewhat irrational in evaluating how they should be handled.

Hi,

I would like to see both sports make money. However, I think that we should realize that WBB is a harder sell. If Duke football started to have seasons comparible to what Coach G had in WBB, I think WW would be filled and there would be lots of money flowing into the Duke coffers.

GO DUKE!

bluedevil

04-07-2007, 04:31 PM

i have never heard of a single person who chose duke over another school because of women's basketball. however, i knew A LOT of people who chose duke over other schools with men's basketball being a deciding, if not the key, factor. i also have never heard of big alum donations coming in because of women's basketball. women's basketball is no different than baseball, men's/women's xc, men's/women's golf or men's/women's tennis -- nonrevenue sports that make duke look good when they do well but only in the eyes of a tiny fraction of the public.

You keep saying womens basketball is no different from cross country or tennis, ignoring the fact that Duke womens hoops is on TV 15 times a year and rising. The only way Duke alums connect with the school is when they watch hoops on TV, and they donate hundreds of millions largely because they like to watch championship caliber hoops, and get upset and withhold donations when they find out Duke has been disrespecting and pushing out the #1 national coach of the year. Alleva has made 3 of the top 4 sports worse or dead last in the ACC, womens hoops, football, and baseball, Duke is basically becoming a one sport school like Kentucky, Kansas, Virginia Tech, or Nebraska. The mens team was 7th in the ACC and some even think they may have a losing season next year without a good center and that the program is in decline, which could get even worse with Dawkins. If Duke's one sport becomes mediocre or worse, what then?

Every sport at Duke except mens hoops loses money, so by your logic all sports need to cut spending by paying less for coaches. Since coaches are everything in college sports and you get what you pay for, that means Duke sports would become mediocre at best or dead last like football and baseball.

Duke paid Gail about $400,000 as the 5th or 6th highest paid coach at Duke, and lost her to Texas which pays $1 million/yr. Top candidate Boyle made more than $400,000 at Cal and was courted by 3 schools unlike Gail who only had 2 schools after her. Florida wanted Boyle and went after Geno for $1.5-2 million/yr, so obviously Boyle is going to be extremely well paid wherever she goes. If Duke refuses to pay $800-900,000 or whatever Boyle requires, then Duke could very well sign another Duke alum Meier who heads one of the worst programs in the ACC or Gale Valley who supposedly doesn't even want to be a head coach. If Duke followed your advice and paid coaches less or refused to give them raises or pay market value, then womens hoops would be unranked and one of the worst in the ACC along with every other sport in the ACC. So for savings of about half a million a year Duke would basically have no womens hoops program worth following with no TV games, and Duke would lose far more than the half a million it saved with cheaper or underpaid coaches just from ticket sales alone. And alums would get upset at Duke's outright hostility towards athletics and especially womens athletics and withhold millions in donations per year and even vow to never contribute to Duke again.

The real question is why on earth do you or any other fan care whether Duke loses money in any sports program? Don't fans just want to win, why on earth would ANY fan advocate getting rid of a national coach of the year and hiring a cheaper coach or refusing to pay market value? Do they just want to agree with Alleva since K likes and controls him and you're desperate to keep K satisfied and in control of Duke? Duke probably pays all its 20 or so head coaches other than K less than $5 million combined. If Duke slashed all their salaries in half, it would save a couple million a year and basically have no sports program except mens basketball. Alumni would become upset that Duke was hellbent on getting worse and Duke would lose maybe $100 million in donations per year along with a lot of positive press and reasons for students and alumni to come to Duke. Would it be worth it?

throatybeard

04-07-2007, 04:33 PM

Guys:

This thread is getting a little wild and wooly. Could we all simmer down a little, please. Thanks.

dukie8

04-07-2007, 04:57 PM

You keep saying womens basketball is no different from cross country or tennis, ignoring the fact that Duke womens hoops is on TV 15 times a year and rising. The only way Duke alums connect with the school is when they watch hoops on TV, and they donate hundreds of millions largely because they like to watch championship caliber hoops, and get upset and withhold donations when they find out Duke has been disrespecting and pushing out the #1 national coach of the year. Alleva has made 3 of the top 4 sports worse or dead last in the ACC, womens hoops, football, and baseball, Duke is basically becoming a one sport school like Kentucky, Kansas, Virginia Tech, or Nebraska. The mens team was 7th in the ACC and some even think they may have a losing season next year without a good center and that the program is in decline, which could get even worse with Dawkins. If Duke's one sport becomes mediocre or worse, what then?

yes, wbb is the same as every other nonrevenue sport at duke in that nationally, nobody cares about them, only a tiny de minimus part of current students and alums care about them and they lose money. it's simply reality. if you can't recognize that, then i don't know what to say.

The only way Duke alums connect with the school is when they watch hoops on TV.

really? so class reunions, duke alum events throughout the country every year, alumni interviews, recruiting for work at duke and having lifelong friends who also went to duke have no bearing on how alums connect with duke? interesting.

Duke is basically becoming a one sport school like Kentucky, Kansas, Virginia Tech, or Nebraska.

do you just completely ignore what every other sport has done at duke in recent years or do you just make things up. duke was THIRD in the directors' cup after the fall semester (an all time high):

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=745410&SPID=1841&SPSID=22634

contrary to what you want to believe, many other sports at duke actually are exceling and your continued bashing of duke athletics really is starting to get tiring.

Every sport at Duke except mens hoops loses money, so by your logic all sports need to cut spending by paying less for coaches.

no. it means that duke should not be paying $1MM a year for a coach in a nonrevenue sport. name one other coach at duke from a nonrevenue sports who makes within $500K of $1MM. if the soccer or tennis coach wanted $1MM a year, i would want him to take a hike as well.

If Duke followed your advice and paid coaches less or refused to give them raises or pay market value, then womens hoops would be unranked and one of the worst in the ACC along with every other sport in the ACC.

market value for an acc wbb coach WITH a nc is about $300K -- not $1MM.

The real question is why on earth do you or any other fan care whether Duke loses money in any sports program? Don't fans just want to win, why on earth would ANY fan advocate getting rid of a national coach of the year and hiring a cheaper coach or refusing to pay market value? Do they just want to agree with Alleva since K likes and controls him and you're desperate to keep K satisfied and in control of Duke? Duke probably pays all its 20 or so head coaches other than K less than $5 million combined. If Duke slashed all their salaries in half, it would save a couple million a year and basically have no sports program except mens basketball. Alumni would become upset that Duke was hellbent on getting worse and Duke would lose maybe $100 million in donations per year along with a lot of positive press and reasons for students and alumni to come to Duke. Would it be worth it?

like it or not, duke could stink it up in every sport but go to the final 4 in basketball and 99% of the alums would be happy. it's what gtown did all through the 80s (excluding xc and t&f) and their alums were extremely happy. why is it such a difficult concept for you to grasp that most alums do not care about any sport other than men's bb? i was on one of the other nonrevenue sports and am fully aware that if duke did away with it, the school wouldn't miss a beat and 99.9% of high school prospects and alums wouldn't care in the least -- which is no different than wbb.

Kewlswim

04-07-2007, 06:52 PM

Hi,

Now that Coach G is single, if I wanted to court her I would have to move to Texas to do it. Ick. Sorry to all my Blue Devil bretheren who live in the Lone Star State. I am a closet North Carolina snob, although I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Yes, Gail we could have even lived in Chapel Hill and you could have commuted over to Duke if that made you happy. However, I draw the line at living in Texas. You are on your own. May some other lucky soul have your heart and be kind to it. :D

GO DUKE!

wcbbfan

04-08-2007, 06:12 PM

Women's Basketball is the #1 Women's Sport at the collegiate level. Texas instituted financial support for Women's sports in the 1980s with Donna Lopiano whereas Duke waited until GG's arrival in 1991. Texas Women's AD is highly regarded and respected in their Athletic Department and is not treated as a 2nd class citizen. She also carries responsibilities for both Men's & Women's Programs. Texas approaches their Women's BB coach to see what they need to better their program. Their legacy already exists as the perennial pioneer in women's athletics.

devildownunder

04-09-2007, 11:59 AM

Hi,

I would like to see both sports make money. However, I think that we should realize that WBB is a harder sell. If Duke football started to have seasons comparible to what Coach G had in WBB, I think WW would be filled and there would be lots of money flowing into the Duke coffers.

GO DUKE!

I really am trying hard to be clear on precisely this point but apparently I'm not succeeding. I will try again.

I know football has a much higher ceiling than women's basketball. I am not, have never, will never argue that women's basketball will ever have the POTENTIAL to generate revenue that football does; however, taking into account the current status of both programs, I think there is a good chance that wbball will post a year in the black sooner than fball. Not a big megamoney year, mind you, like fball is capable of if it EVER has a decent season, but a year in which it takes in more money than it puts out. Simple as that.

devildownunder

04-09-2007, 12:06 PM

you continue making statements like these with little to no support. there are TWO women's basketball teams that make money (and one barely makes a profit at that). in both of those cases, as i previously cited, they play in 20K arenas that sell out and they have very little other sports competition. unlike tenn and uconn, durham is smack dab in the middle of 4 top level men's basketball programs and offers people many more sports options than tenn or conn do combined. moreover, even if they do sell out, it's 9K -- not 20K. i'm not sure what you mean about playing a "big-time tv game a few times a year." they had multiple games on national tv this year when they were 1 and the opponent was top 5. based on the lack of total revenue, the networks don't pay very much for those matchups.

then why did you write a 4-paragraph post that spends as much time talking about football as wb and make statements like "I think it is very likely more accurate to say that Duke's women's bball program will make money before it's football program does" and "the women's team was probably on nationally MORE than the football team was this year?"

1. Who said this year had to represent the ceiling for wbball's moneymaking potential?

2. Just because I mentioned football doesn't mean I'm stating that wbball's circumstances are the same as -- or even comparable to -- football's.

Kewlswim

04-09-2007, 01:00 PM

I really am trying hard to be clear on precisely this point but apparently I'm not succeeding. I will try again.

I know football has a much higher ceiling than women's basketball. I am not, have never, will never argue that women's basketball will ever have the POTENTIAL to generate revenue that football does; however, taking into account the current status of both programs, I think there is a good chance that wbball will post a year in the black sooner than men's hoops. Not a big megamoney year, mind you, like fball is capable of if it EVER has a decent season, but a year in which it takes in more money than it puts out. Simple as that.

Hi,

You wrote, "I think there is a good chance that wbball will post a year in the black sooner than men's hoops." I think you meant football not men's hoops. If that was the case, you can go back in the post and edit it, there is an edit feature. If it was what you meant, I am not sure I understand.

Going on the edit I made as what I thought you did mean. I thought I said somewhere in this thread that I would like football to be enough in the black to help out the rest of our sports more. I thought, perhaps I am mistaken, that it is actually in the black given the pooled ACC revenues, ie getting our butts kicked on tv in a full stadium in Miami actually makes money for the athletic department. If the team plays somewhere, win or lose does not seem to be the main issue, it is how filled is the stadium and if it is on tv so much the better. Furthermore, if VaTech, for example, goes to a great bowl game Duke gets part of that money, so there are pooled resources there too. Since the money making mechanism is already in place and important to the conference as a whole, I would think it is easier to tap into it. WBB is somewhat charting new territory given that only three or four programs in the whole nation, even those with full stadiums and often on tv, are in the black. It does not mean that in the future it will always be that way.

Bottom line. I woud like to see WBB get the best coach for the program. However, I want it to be fiscally responsible. Paying a million dollars, for example, for a coach, any coach, is not warranted yet. In football, given its possible revenue stream--just ask Cal and other schools that are back to having good teams from years of mediocrity--I would advocate paying whatever we can, even if it is over a million dollars for the best coach we can get and if he leaves after a few years, so what, he has hopefully moved the team forward. Then hire the next coach with the same ideals in mind, and so and so forth. I wrote a thread about how Duke seems to look at coaches as people who should be there for a career, I don't think that is the way to do it at all. Coach K is a special case. I think it is a bad idea to keep looking for the next Coach K, in terms of longevity at a program, because he is probably not out there anymore.

GO DUKE!

RPS

04-09-2007, 03:28 PM

yes, wbb is the same as every other nonrevenue sport at duke in that nationally, nobody cares about them, only a tiny de minimus part of current students and alums care about them and they lose money. it's simply reality. if you can't recognize that, then i don't know what to say.I think you're missing some significant points. Sports at major universities is not primarily about money, even for the so-called "revenue" sports. The primary purpose of intercollegiate sports is branding, marketing, publicity and recruiting. The object is (a) alums and the money they can give, and (b) prospective students. Alumni giving goes up when Duke teams do well and it isn't coincidental that Duke's rise up the rankings charts (e.g., US News) correlated with the growing success of men's hoops.

So far, I don't expect much disagreement. But WBB is a special case in comparison to other "non-revenue" sports. Firstly, the success of both men's and women's BB has given Duke a real and valuable basketball "franchise." Secondly, consistent exposure on ESPN gives WBB much more impact than other non-revenue sports. Thirdly, basketball is the leading women's sport at the collegiate level, giving it extra importance. Moreover, for a school which aspires to overall greatness along with diversity and equality, being perceived as not willing or able to keep its own top-flight coach in the highest profile women's sport sends a very negative message.

These problems aren't insurmountable. A great hire should minimize the damage and could conceivably be a long-term benefit (JA's track record in this area notwithstanding). But Duke had the clear #1 college hoops franchise overall. That status is in jeopardy now (and in a year the men's program is down a bit to boot). I don't think that's at all a good thing and should have been avoided if at all possible, even at the cost of some red ink (since the value of sports programs is intangible and exceedingly difficult to measure anyway).

it means that duke should not be paying $1MM a year for a coach in a nonrevenue sport. name one other coach at duke from a nonrevenue sports who makes within $500K of $1MM. if the soccer or tennis coach wanted $1MM a year, i would want him to take a hike as well.If those sports had the exposure or the prominence of WBB you'd have a point.

market value for an acc wbb coach WITH a nc is about $300K -- not $1MM.That's not the relevant market, especially for a school which aspires to be #1 overall.

devildownunder

04-09-2007, 09:01 PM

Hi,

You wrote, "I think there is a good chance that wbball will post a year in the black sooner than men's hoops." I think you meant football not men's hoops. If that was the case, you can go back in the post and edit it, there is an edit feature. If it was what you meant, I am not sure I understand.

Going on the edit I made as what I thought you did mean. I thought I said somewhere in this thread that I would like football to be enough in the black to help out the rest of our sports more. I thought, perhaps I am mistaken, that it is actually in the black given the pooled ACC revenues, ie getting our butts kicked on tv in a full stadium in Miami actually makes money for the athletic department. If the team plays somewhere, win or lose does not seem to be the main issue, it is how filled is the stadium and if it is on tv so much the better. Furthermore, if VaTech, for example, goes to a great bowl game Duke gets part of that money, so there are pooled resources there too. Since the money making mechanism is already in place and important to the conference as a whole, I would think it is easier to tap into it. WBB is somewhat charting new territory given that only three or four programs in the whole nation, even those with full stadiums and often on tv, are in the black. It does not mean that in the future it will always be that way.

Bottom line. I woud like to see WBB get the best coach for the program. However, I want it to be fiscally responsible. Paying a million dollars, for example, for a coach, any coach, is not warranted yet. In football, given its possible revenue stream--just ask Cal and other schools that are back to having good teams from years of mediocrity--I would advocate paying whatever we can, even if it is over a million dollars for the best coach we can get and if he leaves after a few years, so what, he has hopefully moved the team forward. Then hire the next coach with the same ideals in mind, and so and so forth. I wrote a thread about how Duke seems to look at coaches as people who should be there for a career, I don't think that is the way to do it at all. Coach K is a special case. I think it is a bad idea to keep looking for the next Coach K, in terms of longevity at a program, because he is probably not out there anymore.

GO DUKE!

Kewlswim,

First, thanks for pionting out my mistake in the earlier post. My bad! That was a big gaffe that must have confused a lot of people. It's fixed now.

Second, after seeing the post from you that I have quoted and several from dukie8 I think the major difference in the points of view is priority. My priority is winning in the department's programs that I care most about (basketball - men's and women's, football would be nice but don't really care). By contrast, you and dukie8 seem to be more concerned about fiscal responsibility.

My question to you both, then, is how important is fiscal responsibility for the athletic program? How much would the nonrevenue programs suffer if duke did pour money into w-bball and it never became self-sustaining? If it operated at a small loss but were highly successful on the court would the prestige and alumni appeal eventually outweigh the losses and result in more funds for the more obscure sports? Does the athletic program as a whole need to make money to remain strong or is it pretty much accepted that it must be subsidized in some way?

I don't have answers to these questions and I don't know who around DBR does. I hope there is someone here who can speak intelligently on these topics; I'd like to hear what they'd have to say.

The question of whether it's worth it to spend top dollar on women's hoops is a slam-dunk for me. I'm a fan of the team and don't care what it costs as long as they win. But the question of whether it's smart of Duke athletics, as a whole, to spend that kind of money on w-bball is a different one. If it's true that Duke has to show restraint on women's bball for the sake of the entire athletic program (a notion I'm not sold on in any sense) then I can at least understand why others here support the move. However, if w-bball's balance sheet doesn't really matter to the success of the department as a whole then the fiscal side of things is probably just a rationalisation for the bashing of w-bball by people who can't stand it anyway.

That would be unfortunate.

Btw, for the record, I have no animosity toward football. the game was my first love in sports and I am still a huge fan. I simply have allengiances to other teams in that sport that pre-date any interest I had in Duke athletics. Plus, the pro game has always been more my focus. Go Redskins!

dukie8

04-10-2007, 12:18 AM

I think you're missing some significant points. Sports at major universities is not primarily about money, even for the so-called "revenue" sports. The primary purpose of intercollegiate sports is branding, marketing, publicity and recruiting. The object is (a) alums and the money they can give, and (b) prospective students. Alumni giving goes up when Duke teams do well and it isn't coincidental that Duke's rise up the rankings charts (e.g., US News) correlated with the growing success of men's hoops.

i really beg to differ with what your own belief of what the purpose of an athletic department is at a university. here is the mission statement from duke's athletic department:

The University endeavors to provide a program of intercollegiate athletics from which participating students can derive all the benefits that participation in competitive sport confers. The goal of the intercollegiate program is the same as that of the University's academic programs: excellence. In this context, excellence includes commitment to the physical and emotional well-being, and social development of student-athletes as well as to the development of their sense of citizenship, dedication to sportsmanship and fair play, the development of individual and team skills, the exertion of best effort, the will to win, and general conduct that brings credit to the University and is a source of pride and enthusiasm for all members of the Duke community.

The measure of "excellence" when applied to intercollegiate athletics means also a level of performance that frequently will produce winning seasons and the realistic opportunity to compete for team or individual championships. It requires that students engaged in intercollegiate athletics be students first, that they be admitted according to this criterion, that they progress satisfactorily towards a degree, and that their attrition and graduation rates as student-athletes not be significantly different from those of non-athletes.

Duke's intercollegiate program shall be composed of nationally or regionally recognized sports that satisfy the following criteria: they meet the needs, interests, and abilities of male and female students; they provide adequate institutional collateral benefits; they reflect due regard for the athletic traditions of Duke University as well as future promise; they fall within Duke's abilities to provide appropriate facilities; they geographically allow Duke to schedule conveniently and competitively; and they fall within financial capabilities of Duke University to fund adequately.

The mission of the athletics program, ultimately, is that of Duke itself: "to engage the mind, to elevate the spirit, and stimulate the best effort of all who are associated with the University."

there is not a single word about branding, marketing, publicity or recruiting. it therefore is unfathomable that you actually believe that colleges across the country run enormous losses in their athletic departments by fielding a wide array of teams that all but a handful of people in this world care about. what is a school like williams doing fielding so many esoteric sports that do absolutely nothing in the endeavors? do you honestly believe that any non-golfer chooses duke over similar schools because the golf team is nationally ranked? if schools really only cared about what you think they care about re athletics, then they would get rid of every sport other than men's bb and football and pour every cent into making them as good as possible.

So far, I don't expect much disagreement. But WBB is a special case in comparison to other "non-revenue" sports. Firstly, the success of both men's and women's BB has given Duke a real and valuable basketball "franchise." Secondly, consistent exposure on ESPN gives WBB much more impact than other non-revenue sports. Thirdly, basketball is the leading women's sport at the collegiate level, giving it extra importance. Moreover, for a school which aspires to overall greatness along with diversity and equality, being perceived as not willing or able to keep its own top-flight coach in the highest profile women's sport sends a very negative message.

i would agree that the men's team has created a valuable basketball franchise but disagree that the women's team has done anything even remotely close to that. right off the bat, it loses $2MM a year. that's not "valuable." it also cannot sell out tiny cis for most of its games so it's safe to assume that a vast majority of the students aren't that interested in it (compare that to uconn or tenn). further, i have never heard of a single person who has attended duke because of wbb but i knew a lot of people when i was there who chose duke over its peer schools primarily because of the men's team. lastly, you may be able to try and make a very weak argument that somehow having a top women's team leads to more donations by alums (like the men's team does) but you would need to provide some hard numbers to prove that.

i'm not sure what you mean by calling wbb "the leading women's sport at the collegiate level." leading what? it definitely is the leading money loser. it isn't the leading sport by participation because it requires relatively few athletes. leading in attendance? it doesn't produce the most famous female athletes. other sports, like track and field, swimming, gymnastics and tennis produce much more famous female athletes than wbb. i'm not even sure what your point is by characterizing it as "the leading" sport. what is "the leading" men's sport? football? basketball? baseball? does it even matter?

These problems aren't insurmountable. A great hire should minimize the damage and could conceivably be a long-term benefit (JA's track record in this area notwithstanding). But Duke had the clear #1 college hoops franchise overall. That status is in jeopardy now (and in a year the men's program is down a bit to boot). I don't think that's at all a good thing and should have been avoided if at all possible, even at the cost of some red ink (since the value of sports programs is intangible and exceedingly difficult to measure anyway).

how is duke's wbb "the clear #1 college hoops franchise overall" when uconn has won multiple men's and women's ncs in the past 10 years and duke doesn't have a single women's nc? you can argue that it is one of the best or maybe even the best but you completely lose me when you proclaim it "the clear #1" one without any support.

If those sports had the exposure or the prominence of WBB you'd have a point.

the nonrevenue sports i listed have similar exposure and prominence of wbb, which is very little for all of them. however, some of the nonrevenue sports, like lax, have very wealthy and influential alums, and their value actually far exceeds that of wbb from an economic standpoint. one of the key reasons why lax was not abolished at duke was because brodhead realized that if duke ever did that it would pay for it severely with lost lax alum donations. if the lax mess had happened to, say the wrestling or track teams, it is not that much of a stretch to believe that brodhead would have completely axed the programs over it (much less powerful alums). show me some data on wbb alums who donate in size or other alums who earmark sizeable money to the wbb team and i will think otherwise. until then, these are just unsubstantiated claims that you are making.

throatybeard

04-10-2007, 01:52 AM

Allow myself to quote myself:

Guys:

This thread is getting a little wild and wooly. Could we all simmer down a little, please. Thanks.

RPS

04-10-2007, 09:00 AM

there is not a single word about branding, marketing, publicity or recruiting.I wouldn't expect my (somewhat cynical) view to appear in a Mission Statement, but the purposes are real and even acknowledged. Take a look here (http://spotlight.encarta.msn.com/Features/encnet_Departments_AdultLearning_default_article_C ollegesTurnAthletic.html?GT1=9279), for example:
Duke, located in Durham, North Carolina, was a well-known regional school at the time but lacked national name recognition. Then its basketball team, under young coach Mike Krzyzewski, made it to the NCAA Final Four six times from 1986 to 1992, including two consecutive national titles. Suddenly the Duke name was all over the national media, and high school students everywhere took notice.

"We've looked at this, and there does seem to be a related pattern between the rise of the basketball program and increasing admissions in the late 1980s," says Duke director of admissions Christoph Guttentag. "It definitely increased our visibility. Now when we go to high schools in North Dakota or Nevada or wherever, the athletic reputation is part of what people know about us."

if schools really only cared about what you think they care about re athletics, then they would get rid of every sport other than men's bb and football and pour every cent into making them as good as possible.Doing so would require that "plausible deniability" be lost. Many think that marketing a major university is unseemly somehow.

i would agree that the men's team has created a valuable basketball franchise but disagree that the women's team has done anything even remotely close to that.I don't claim that they're close to the same level. But the idea that Duke is the basketball school has value and, in my view, a franchise worth having.

right off the bat, it loses $2MM a year. that's not "valuable."That number in no way factors in the value of consistent and positive exposure in the national spotlight, most prominently via ESPN.

i knew a lot of people when i was there who chose duke over its peer schools primarily because of the men's team.So even though it's not mentioned by the Mission Statement, recruiting is important after all?

lastly, you may be able to try and make a very weak argument that somehow having a top women's team leads to more donations by alums (like the men's team does) but you would need to provide some hard numbers to prove that.That's very difficult to do because the value is largely intangible. However, McKinsey research suggests that strong, well-leveraged brands produce higher returns to shareholders than weaker, narrower brands. Business Week looks at global brand value annually (see here (http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006/), for example). Taken together, this more than suggests that brands seriously impact business health and value. The analogy to universities seems obvious to me.

i'm not sure what you mean by calling wbb "the leading women's sport at the collegiate level." leading what?It gets by far the most attention. When is the last time you saw your "other" women's college sports on SportsCenter or saw games/matches broadcast live on ESPN?

what is "the leading" men's sport? football? basketball? baseball?Football or basketball. At Duke, it's obviously hoops.

does it even matter?Based on the money spent and publicity generated, I'd say so.

how is duke's wbb "the clear #1 college hoops franchise overall" when uconn has won multiple men's and women's ncs in the past 10 years and duke doesn't have a single women's nc?I was speaking of BB overall without distinguishing the men's and women's programs. My fan status comes into play, obviously, but the greater importance of the men's game, Duke's much more consistent performance on the men's side, and UConn's slippage on the women's side over the past few year's prompted my conclusion. I concede that one can make a decent case for UConn (as much as I hate the idea).

the nonrevenue sports i listed have similar exposure and prominence of wbb, which is very little for all of them.Again, how many times have you seen a golf team match on ESPN? Highlights on SportsCenter? This can't be a serious claim.