PDA

View Full Version : K on Cut



CameronBornAndBred
10-26-2009, 08:45 PM
I just think he’s really smart, and our school, our athletic department, it was all aligned to finally do it the right away.

Some nice statements about Cutcliffe from Coach K on WRAL's site.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blog/5192119/#blogpost_id_6286809

I think you have to take that statement as an approval of Kevin White as well, if not even dissaproval of Alleva. I don't think he was being backhanded, but he recognizes the support was a long time coming.

Newton_14
10-26-2009, 08:52 PM
Some nice statements about Cutcliffe from Coach K on WRAL's site.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blog/5192119/#blogpost_id_6286809

I think you have to take that statement as an approval of Kevin White as well, if not even dissaproval of Aleva. I don't think he was being backhanded, but he recognizes the support was a long time coming.

Very cool! Thanks for sharing. To me it is very important for K to support the Football team and do it loudly and clearly. This is great and I hope he speaks up more often on the subject.

Indoor66
10-26-2009, 09:03 PM
Some nice statements about Cutcliffe from Coach K on WRAL's site.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blog/5192119/#blogpost_id_6286809

I think you have to take that statement as an approval of Kevin White as well, if not even dissaproval of Alleva. I don't think he was being backhanded, but he recognizes the support was a long time coming.

I fail to understand your statement re Alleva. Joe was AD when Cutcliffe was hired. K's statement: “And our school, our athletic department, it was all aligned to finally do it the right away." is a complement to the school administration and the athletic department, to wit the Council and AD. This was not a slap at anyone.

CameronBornAndBred
10-26-2009, 09:19 PM
I fail to understand your statement re Alleva. Joe was AD when Cutcliffe was hired. K's statement: “And our school, our athletic department, it was all aligned to finally do it the right away." is a complement to the school administration and the athletic department, to wit the Council and AD. This was not a slap at anyone.
I said I don't think he was being backhanded, but I think Kevin White and Cutcliffe are more of a team than Alleva and football ever would have been. We had Alleva for years, and got the support that Franks and Roof enjoyed. I was crying for Alleva to be fired along with Roof, and was very happy when he left. I think K's statement "finally do it the right way" is more about White and what his administration has accompished. Yes..Alleva hired Cutcliffe, but I don't think he would have been behind the same growth we've seen from White's administration. If you are ever at the Devil Walk, what you see walking down that sidewalk is the personifcation of the support White gives. He is always at the end of the line, with a smile on his face. He was on the field in the rain at the end of the Maryland game, handing out high fives and hand shakes as the team hit the tunnel. It's just a different attitude top to bottom, and he is a very visible part of it.

dyedwab
10-26-2009, 09:21 PM
was this.

"He’s passionate; he loves Duke. He sees its strengths, where [in the past] when someone has taken over our football program, they’ve seen its weaknesses."

First, this sounds a lot like Coach K describing his philosophy of running the Duke basketball program...

...it also suggests that we might have the right guide to build a long term success for our football program.

That's awesome!

Devil in the Blue Dress
10-26-2009, 09:38 PM
I said I don't think he was being backhanded, but I think Kevin White and Cutcliffe are more of a team than Alleva and football ever would have been. We had Alleva for years, and got the support that Franks and Roof enjoyed. I was crying for Alleva to be fired along with Roof, and was very happy when he left. I think K's statement "finally do it the right way" is more about White and what his administration has accompished. Yes..Alleva hired Cutcliffe, but I don't think he would have been behind the same growth we've seen from White's administration. If you are ever at the Devil Walk, what you see walking down that sidewalk is the personifcation of the support White gives. He is always at the end of the line, with a smile on his face. He was on the field in the rain at the end of the Maryland game, handing out high fives and hand shakes as the team hit the tunnel. It's just a different attitude top to bottom, and he is a very visible part of it.

In addition to what you've observed about Kevin White, he also is accessible and talks with the common folk.

CameronBornAndBred
10-26-2009, 09:52 PM
In addition to what you've observed about Kevin White, he also is accessible and talks with the common folk.
yeah no kidding. I asked on his way back from the Devil's walk if he would pose for a picture with me and he was very gracious. We both laughed when the guy behind the camera said "the memory card is full". I thanked him for at least trying, and he said we'll give it a shot next game. I appreciate that he is that approachable of a person on a busy game day.

DukeSean
10-26-2009, 10:35 PM
I think you have to take that statement as an approval of Kevin White as well, if not even dissaproval of Alleva. I don't think he was being backhanded, but he recognizes the support was a long time coming.

I will say that I don't think Alleva gave a fart about some of Duke's sports (especially the team I was a part of), and seeing some of the changes that has happened to my former team has been really encouraging. Don't know how much I can attribute it to Kevin White, but I'm still pretty sure I like him more.

brianl
10-27-2009, 09:01 AM
yeah no kidding. I asked on his way back from the Devil's walk if he would pose for a picture with me and he was very gracious. We both laughed when the guy behind the camera said "the memory card is full". I thanked him for at least trying, and he said we'll give it a shot next game. I appreciate that he is that approachable of a person on a busy game day.

I think this point needs to be mentioned again. Cut is very approachable. I've met him on two different occasions and he's been great to deal with and he genuinely appears to appreciate that you're there supporting the program.

I know the basketball program is a smaller group of people; have enjoyed much more success and have a much larger fanbase but in the last few years they have become more and more out of reach for the everyday fan.

I guess that's the price of success.

Devil in the Blue Dress
10-27-2009, 09:38 AM
I think this point needs to be mentioned again. Cut is very approachable. I've met him on two different occasions and he's been great to deal with and he genuinely appears to appreciate that you're there supporting the program.

I know the basketball program is a smaller group of people; have enjoyed much more success and have a much larger fanbase but in the last few years they have become more and more out of reach for the everyday fan.

I guess that's the price of success.

The accessibility of Duke football coaches and players is very attractive to fans. A few more wins and the fan base grows more numerous, a little stronger, a little less fragile. Anyone who meets Coach Cutcliffe comes away saying what a great guy he is. His passion for Duke and football is infectious!

formerdukeathlete
10-27-2009, 10:34 AM
I will say that I don't think Alleva gave a fart about some of Duke's sports (especially the team I was a part of), and seeing some of the changes that has happened to my former team has been really encouraging. Don't know how much I can attribute it to Kevin White, but I'm still pretty sure I like him more.

When Duke became willing to write the check for Football, we may have to thank the selection committee on that one because i understand Alleva was set to hire the former UCLA coach who may not have turned out as well. Then, there is that law of unintended consequences. White may have been a bit more interested in the Duke job because Cutcliffe had decided to come here.

In fairness to Alleva, he presided over some very successful showings in the Sears Cup, and he may have been hampered by admins. who were non-committal about how important a role or what role Athletics at Duke should play in the scheme of things. The lax hoax exposed bias. Not just the matter of the Group of 88, but a faculty committee recommended cutting practice times, essentially de-emphasis of Athletics all over again, 4 decades after the faculty voted to de-emphasize Football in the 60s. Trustees rejected the faculty committee's recomendation. This, plus Swofford's concerns may have gotten us to where we are today. With White, there is a commitment to fund more athletic scholarships - to offer the NCAA allotment in every sport where we field a varsity team. Stanford's recruiting in Football shows us top 20 recruting classes are possible with 1200 math verbal averages. Stanford offers close to the NCAA allotment in every mens and womens varsity sport. And Brodhead can pretty well out-academic a number of folks who reject this as an appropriate direction for the University.

Ultimately, of course, we have to thank K's success in providing financial and "institutional" underpinnings of support for Athletics at Duke.

hughgs
10-27-2009, 11:29 AM
... but a faculty committee recommended cutting practice times, essentially de-emphasis of Athletics all over again, 4 decades after the faculty voted to de-emphasize Football in the 60s.

Do you have a link to this statement?

Duvall
10-27-2009, 11:31 AM
Do you have a link to this statement?

I can only assume this is a rhetorical question.

DevilWolf
10-27-2009, 01:02 PM
[QUOTE=dyedwab;324302]was this.

"He’s passionate; he loves Duke. He sees its strengths, where [in the past] when someone has taken over our football program, they’ve seen its weaknesses."

QUOTE]

Coach Luke recently spoke to the Blue Devil Club, and while the topics of those meetings should continue to remain a secret :-) there was one thing he said that really needs to be passed on.

When asked about the difference of recruiting at Duke vesus recruiting at Tennessee or Ole Miss, he said it's EASIER to compete against the Ohio States and Michigans of the world because all they have to sell is football, and he can sell Duke University. How many times in the past had we heard our staff automatically making concessions about which kids we wouldn't be able to get? Especially when it came to getting in-state kids.

I was expecting him to make a comment about it being different, and I wouldn't have been shocked if he said it was more difficult. But I wasn't expecting to hear him say it was easier.

walras
10-27-2009, 01:48 PM
a poster said: "but I think Kevin White and Cutcliffe are more of a team than Alleva and football ever would have been. We had Alleva for years, and got the support that Franks and Roof enjoyed. I was crying for Alleva to be fired along with Roof, and was very happy when he left. I think K's statement "finally do it the right way" is more about White and what his administration has accompished. Yes..Alleva hired Cutcliffe, but I don't think he would have been behind the same growth we've seen from White's administration."

I think this comment is very incorrect on the facts. Butters was AD when Keohane came in, and he persuaded her, before she had a clue, to hire Rice's coach and to provide money and support. She then got a clue about how Butters was her enemy, and started the whole backpedal from testosterone sports, moving to womens sports and nonrevenue sports. Butters was openly hostile to her in public gatherings (I witnessed this twice). She refused to let the BoT put more money into football. When Butters retired, she was strongly against Alleva, but K prevailed, and Alleva never had any support from her aside from vicarious support as K was too important to Duke, more so than Keohane, and Alleva's friend.

I realize that this board might not like to hear it, but it has been Broadhead who has put the money and the BoT into football, and who hired White to make it happen. Brodhead actually likes football, unlike Keohane who loathed it.

Devil in the Blue Dress
10-27-2009, 02:00 PM
a poster said: "but I think Kevin White and Cutcliffe are more of a team than Alleva and football ever would have been. We had Alleva for years, and got the support that Franks and Roof enjoyed. I was crying for Alleva to be fired along with Roof, and was very happy when he left. I think K's statement "finally do it the right way" is more about White and what his administration has accompished. Yes..Alleva hired Cutcliffe, but I don't think he would have been behind the same growth we've seen from White's administration."

I think this comment is very incorrect on the facts. Butters was AD when Keohane came in, and he persuaded her, before she had a clue, to hire Rice's coach and to provide money and support. She then got a clue about how Butters was her enemy, and started the whole backpedal from testosterone sports, moving to womens sports and nonrevenue sports. Butters was openly hostile to her in public gatherings (I witnessed this twice). She refused to let the BoT put more money into football. When Butters retired, she was strongly against Alleva, but K prevailed, and Alleva never had any support from her aside from vicarious support as K was too important to Duke, more so than Keohane, and Alleva's friend.

I realize that this board might not like to hear it, but it has been Broadhead who has put the money and the BoT into football, and who hired White to make it happen. Brodhead actually likes football, unlike Keohane who loathed it.
Joe Alleva was never as friendly and accessible to the "common folk" as either Tom Butters or Kevin White. As for Brodhead's support of athletics, that didn't surface until after the lacrosse fiasco.

hughgs
10-27-2009, 02:08 PM
Do you have a link to this statement?

No, I want to know where FDA got his information from.

sagegrouse
10-27-2009, 02:40 PM
Not just the matter of the Group of 88, but a faculty committee recommended cutting practice times, essentially de-emphasis of Athletics all over again, 4 decades after the faculty voted to de-emphasize Football in the 60s. Trustees rejected the faculty committee's recomendation.

The faculty, as a group, has no authority over athletics. The AD reports directly to the President. Any action by a faculty "committee" is, at best, a petition to the University but most likely a "hobby horse" for a few faculty members with some opinions to vent. After all, faculty members are hired on the basis of their ability to speak and write prolifically, so why should it be surprising that they do so on a whole host of subjects outside of their fields of expertise? So, if FDA is right, then basically, [yawn].

OTOH the Trustees can be deeply involved in athletics, although they do not appear to be so at Duke.



sagegrouse

OldPhiKap
10-27-2009, 02:48 PM
I think we're getting kind of far afield if we are parsing K's words for slights of certain individuals. The big picture is that the school is committed to football now and that it was sort of okay with mediocrity for the last X number of years.

To my mind, three things brought this about:

1. Wake got good. In the past, it was fine that we stunk because Wake did too, and therefore "small private schools cannot seriously compete in conference football." When Wake stepped it up, we had to step it up.

2. Lacrosse scandal -- forced the admin. to take a real look at how committed it was to sports, and the perception of all non-Coach-K-led teams.

3. Keohane out, Broadhead in. If this "change" has to do with any individuals, I think it is here and not with the AD.


In any event, the take-away here is K's positive comments on the direction of the football program, not pointing fingers in the rear view mirror. We're on to the next play.

Indoor66
10-27-2009, 04:03 PM
3. Keohane out, Broadhead in. If this "change" has to do with any individuals, I think it is here and not with the AD.

I fully agree. That change and all that followed have been good for Duke sports.

formerdukeathlete
10-27-2009, 05:01 PM
The faculty, as a group, has no authority over athletics. The AD reports directly to the President. Any action by a faculty "committee" is, at best, a petition to the University but most likely a "hobby horse" for a few faculty members with some opinions to vent. After all, faculty members are hired on the basis of their ability to speak and write prolifically, so why should it be surprising that they do so on a whole host of subjects outside of their fields of expertise? So, if FDA is right, then basically, [yawn].
OTOH the Trustees can be deeply involved in athletics, although they do not appear to be so at Duke.



sagegrouse

This was not a yawning matter at the time. In fact, the University's support of Athletics was a bit up in the air; certainly it was uncertain whether we would have a Lacrosse program. In the midst of the hoax, Brodhead appointed five committees of faculty, students and outsiders. One of those, "Duke Campus Culture Initiative," examined among other things the role of Athletics at Duke.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/02/CCI_report.html

Among its findings and recommendations:

" says “strong and persistent forces” nationally are making it ever harder to balance academics and athletics. The report recommends that Duke should decrease practice and travel time demands on its student-athletes and ensure they receive appropriate academic support. The committee also calls for stronger ties between athletic programs and other parts of the university, and for the admissions office to reduce the number of athletes admitted near the low end of Duke’s academic standards."

I agreed with reducing the number admitted on the low end of Duke standards - as this is not necessary.

Yes, you are right, faculty do not control Athletics, but they influence our administration, and maneuvered defacto de-emphasis in the 60s. Had not it become very clear that the Lax players were going to be exonerated by Feb., 2007, Brodhead's response to the parts of this report, including recommending de-emphasis through limiting travel and practice times, may have been different. And, the increased levels of funding and support of Athletics including the Football program which followed the exoneration may not have happened.

hughgs
10-27-2009, 07:42 PM
" says “strong and persistent forces” nationally are making it ever harder to balance academics and athletics. The report recommends that Duke should decrease practice and travel time demands on its student-athletes and ensure they receive appropriate academic support. The committee also calls for stronger ties between athletic programs and other parts of the university, and for the admissions office to reduce the number of athletes admitted near the low end of Duke’s academic standards."

So based on a committee recommendation of decreased practice and travel time you extrapolated that the University wanted to:

"... essentially de-emphasis of Athletics all over again, 4 decades after the faculty voted to de-emphasize Football in the 60s".

I'm not sure how you figured that the committee represented the University nor am I sure how decreased practice and travel time equate to the debacle that followed the '60s, but I await your explanation.

sagegrouse
10-27-2009, 08:20 PM
This was not a yawning matter at the time. In fact, the University's support of Athletics was a bit up in the air; certainly it was uncertain whether we would have a Lacrosse program. In the midst of the hoax, Brodhead appointed five committees of faculty, students and outsiders. One of those, "Duke Campus Culture Initiative," examined among other things the role of Athletics at Duke.

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/02/CCI_report.html

Among its findings and recommendations:

" says “strong and persistent forces” nationally are making it ever harder to balance academics and athletics. The report recommends that Duke should decrease practice and travel time demands on its student-athletes and ensure they receive appropriate academic support. The committee also calls for stronger ties between athletic programs and other parts of the university, and for the admissions office to reduce the number of athletes admitted near the low end of Duke’s academic standards."

I agreed with reducing the number admitted on the low end of Duke standards - as this is not necessary.

Yes, you are right, faculty do not control Athletics, but they influence our administration, and maneuvered defacto de-emphasis in the 60s. Had not it become very clear that the Lax players were going to be exonerated by Feb., 2007, Brodhead's response to the parts of this report, including recommending de-emphasis through limiting travel and practice times, may have been different. And, the increased levels of funding and support of Athletics including the Football program which followed the exoneration may not have happened.

At the time a number of us recognized that the formation of the five committees by Brodhead was straight out of the textbook for the course, University President 101. Start a lot of studies to assess the political environment and see if some sensible ideas merge, but basically buy time until the solutions are more obvious. Clearly there was a lot of heat (and little light) among the faculty in those days.

To say that the recommendations of one of those five panels represented a threat to athletics at Duke is a wild overstatement IMHO.

And to give the faculty the blame for tightening the recruiting capabilities of football is the 1960s is also suspect.

Pres. Knight, whom I knew fairly well, was hired by the trustees to raise the academic standards at Duke to be on a par with the Ivy League. Although he had been President of Lawrence U. in Wisconsin, his background (like Brodhead's) was as an English professor at Yale (classical literature not American literature). Thomas Perkins (who told me) and the other trustees were jubilant that they were able to attract Knight, who apparently was being pursued by Cornell. He was the first Duke President with that kind of academic background. Deryl Hart, who is Julio's direct forebear, was an interim President for three years and had been chairman of the Dept. of Surgery in the medical school since 1930 (1930!). His predecessor, Hollis Edens, was hapless, not truly having an academic background, and was basically run out of town by the faculty. The Provost, Paul Gross (of Gross Chem fame), who led the charge, was then fired from his administrative position by the Trustees. The Trustees went through their own upheaval, resulting in the grandfather of my freshman room-mate becoming Trustee chairman shortly before we both enrolled at Duke.

Anyway, the prevailing wisdom at the time was that Ivy League academics meant Ivy League athletics. The path Duke took was a compromise, but one that apparently depreciated the Blue Devil currency from the strongest football program in the ACC to an also-ran. In more recent times, people have come to understand that Ivy League athletics is about as hypocritical a concept as any in higher education. Moreover, thanks to Stanford, a program that FDA admires, we now see that championship athletic programs are not inconsistent with a strong academic reputation.

Duke's de-emphasis should not be personalized with Knight, who had other shortcomings, but it was very real and much more permanent than it needed to be.

sagegrouse

formerdukeathlete
10-27-2009, 10:30 PM
So based on a committee recommendation of decreased practice and travel time you extrapolated that the University wanted to:

"... essentially de-emphasis of Athletics all over again, 4 decades after the faculty voted to de-emphasize Football in the 60s".

I'm not sure how you figured that the committee represented the University nor am I sure how decreased practice and travel time equate to the debacle that followed the '60s, but I await your explanation.

Decreased practice time = not playing D-1a Football or Basketball = de-emphasis.

March Madness, start of hoops practice - cant start before then; x days of fall camp Football, x days of spring practice Football, its all highly regulated. Were the University to say to a head Football coach, no more spring practice, that means he cannot compete and needs to go elsewhere, that means no one else wants the job, that means we are no longer committed to high level basketball or football, that means no more ACC. Restrict travel, and you have sealed the deal.

formerdukeathlete
10-27-2009, 10:54 PM
Decreased practice time = not playing D-1a Football or Basketball = de-emphasis.

March Madness, start of hoops practice - cant start before then; x days of fall camp Football, x days of spring practice Football, its all highly regulated. Were the University to say to a head Football coach, no more spring practice, that means he cannot compete and needs to go elsewhere, that means no one else wants the job, that means we are no longer committed to high level basketball or football, that means no more ACC. Restrict travel, and you have sealed the deal.

its midnight

hughgs
10-28-2009, 03:21 PM
Decreased practice time = not playing D-1a Football or Basketball = de-emphasis.

I'm not seeing how decreased practice time is the same thing as not playing D1 football or basketball. Simply saying a thing doesn't make it so. How about an explanation of why they are the same?

If I take your "equation" and apply it to Duke academics then I could easily write:

Loss of major = removal of college = de-emphasis on education.

But, the loss of one major doesn't mean that Duke is removing a college, in the same way that decreases in practice time doesn't mean that Duke is removing football or basketball. So, explain to me how your logic.

formerdukeathlete
10-28-2009, 04:50 PM
I'm not seeing how decreased practice time is the same thing as not playing D1 football or basketball. Simply saying a thing doesn't make it so. How about an explanation of why they are the same?

......

The explanation is in my prior answer. Have a quick chat with Cutcliffe as to what would happen were he required to reduce prctice times by say 20%. His response would be that he could not run a competitive Program handicapped in that fashion. Ask K the same question as Cut. With less practice, less preparation, fewer wins, attrition, conference changes, de-emphasis. It would be worse than what happened when Doug Knight hired Harp. CCI findings had it partly right. To reduce academic strain, increase somewhat admissions criteria of student athletes. This need not hinder recruiting with a national focus - check Stanford Football's relative standing for the 2010 class
http://duke.scout.com/a.z?s=167&p=9&c=14&yr=2010
and for the 2009 class
http://duke.scout.com/a.z?s=167&p=9&c=14&yr=2009

A word about Knight's and Nan's mandate to up academics at Duke.

From 10 years on the DAAAC in the heart of Ivy League country, what attracted very top students to Duke were:

weather

social scene, parties, proximity to Chapel Hill

top division athletics.

Knight de-emphasizes Football by hiring a medicre Ivy League Coach. Guess what?, we weaken one the the three reasons why an Ivy admitted kid might choose Duke over say Penn.

Nan is hired and she attacked head on the work hard play hard scene. Guess what?, our yield went down versus Harvard admitted applicants in New England where, when I served on the Committee.

hughgs
10-28-2009, 07:33 PM
The explanation is in my prior answer.

Here's the quote on which you hang your reasoning:

"... no more spring practice ..."

So reduced practice and travel time are the same as no more spring practice? Not sure how you got to that point but I'm sure you have perfectly good reasons for it. Not sure what they could be ...


Have a quick chat with Cutcliffe as to what would happen were he required to reduce prctice times by say 20%.

OK, so now reduced practice and travel time mean 20% reduction? And somehow you know exactly how Coach Cut and Coach K will respond. Maybe they would adjust their current practice schedule and still perform the same. But, once again, I'm sure you'll adequately explain your reasoning to us.

buddy
10-28-2009, 11:44 PM
I think some underplay the significance of the actual innocence of the lacrosse players on the various campus committees. Had the players actually been guilty, I believe the initial momentum of CCI, the 88, etc., would have led to a significant deemphasis of sports at Duke, as well as many other changes. When it became obvious to all but the willfully blind that there was no rape, the entire rationale for the various "reform" movements fell apart. JMOO.

Back to the original subject of the post. Cut (and his coaches) are amazingly accessible to ordinary fans. I have talked with Cut personally several times, had my picture taken with him at a volleyball game, and he could not have been more gracious. Both Mark McIntyre and Matt Luke have engaged me in conversations, instead of blowbys, when I have seen them at campus events. And Kevin White is such an improvement over Joe Alleva. In my one encounter with Joe, he couldn't be bothered to talk to me (despite my Iron Duke status, and the fact that I was a parent of a Duke athlete). I have run into Kevin several times, and he is very gracious and approachable. Regardless of who did what, I think Duke athletics are in the best hands they have been in for years.

CameronBornAndBred
10-29-2009, 12:22 PM
I asked on his way back from the Devil's walk if he (Kevin White) would pose for a picture with me and he was very gracious.
Yay! One of the Brunchgaters didn't have their memory card full...here's Dr. White, Ozzie and myself...I'd call that approachable!

868