PDA

View Full Version : Wasn't part of the reason Duke played NCCU in football to build bonds with Durham?



Kewlswim
10-27-2009, 01:10 PM
Hi,

I know there have been a lot of posts (ad naseum) about how much the win against NCCU counts toward bowl eligibility. However, I thought the whole reason for playing them had to do with building better relations with Durham and not so much about football? After the LAX fiasco weren't Duke officials looking for more ways to get Duke and Durham back together in positive ways? Did that have nothing to do with the scheduling of this game?

GO DUKE!

Devil in the Blue Dress
10-27-2009, 01:13 PM
Hi,

I know there have been a lot of posts (ad naseum) about how much the win against NCCU counts toward bowl eligibility. However, I thought the whole reason for playing them had to do with building better relations with Durham and not so much about football? After the LAX fiasco weren't Duke officials looking for more ways to get Duke and Durham back together in positive ways? Did that have nothing to do with the scheduling of this game?

GO DUKE!

You are correct. The two football coaches are friends. Their wives work together for various causes in Durham. Despite the weather that day, there was some great interaction among fans from both schools.

sagegrouse
10-27-2009, 01:14 PM
Hi,

I know there have been a lot of posts (ad naseum) about how much the win against NCCU counts toward bowl eligibility. However, I thought the whole reason for playing them had to do with building better relations with Durham and not so much about football? After the LAX fiasco weren't Duke officials looking for more ways to get Duke and Durham back together in positive ways? Did that have nothing to do with the scheduling of this game?

GO DUKE!

You are right about the altruistic motives. I also believe the Duke folks thought they could sell a whole lot more tickets for NCCU than for The Citadel or JMU (which, as everyone in Virginia knows, stands for "Just Missed UVa").

sagegrouse

allenmurray
10-27-2009, 01:25 PM
Correct.

It was also a lot of fun, and I enjoyed sitting next to a couple of NCCU fans during the game. For those of us folks for whom Durham is our permanant home, the game may have had even higher meaning than for those folks for whom Durham is simply the town where their alma mater is located. Given the small student body and small local alumni base "locals" are an important part of the duke football community - we probably apreciated the most. Had the weather been better it may have been a really geat community event (as it was I felt it a success). However, as a Duke football fan I am torn - it was a game that did nothing for our football program - a game that would have counted toward bowl eligibility would have been great. But it served an imortant purpose - I certainly won't complain.

calltheobvious
10-27-2009, 01:41 PM
In the long run, isn't it (much) more important for the university that the school's relationship with Durham be strengthened than for the 2009 football team to go to a bowl? I'm not ready to concede a bowl-less season, but the momentum that the program has built isn't going to suffer dramatically if the team doesn't finish 7-5. Cut is building for the long term here, and it seems to me that he signed off on this game with that fact in mind. To whine about what a DII opponent might have cost the team seems at best short-sighted, and at worst petulant.

allenmurray
10-27-2009, 01:54 PM
In the long run, isn't it (much) more important for the university that the school's relationship with Durham be strengthened than for the 2009 football team to go to a bowl? I'm not ready to concede a bowl-less season, but the momentum that the program has built isn't going to suffer dramatically if the team doesn't finish 7-5. Cut is building for the long term here, and it seems to me that he signed off on this game with that fact in mind. To whine about what a DII opponent might have cost the team seems at best short-sighted, and at worst petulant.

I agree. In general I'd rather not see us ever schedule more than one DII opponent. But if I had to choose I'd choose NCCU over Richmond because of the positives it brought.

SupaDave
10-27-2009, 02:58 PM
I agree. In general I'd rather not see us ever schedule more than one DII opponent. But if I had to choose I'd choose NCCU over Richmond because of the positives it brought.

Well for the future NCCU will be a DI (non-bowl) opponent and WILL count. So getting that rivalry off the ground is a good thing right now.

What's funny is that I can definitely remember a time when NCCU scheduling Duke would have been perceived the other way around. So to see both teams on the field is truly like a Durham fantasy.

Seriously, everyone wins in this situation and it could only get bigger as both programs begin new phases.

HBCUs end up with some big time players from JUCOs and transfers so I wouldn't be surprised to see NCCU start digging around those areas a little more.

throatybeard
10-27-2009, 03:07 PM
I agree. In general I'd rather not see us ever schedule more than one DII opponent. But if I had to choose I'd choose NCCU over Richmond because of the positives it brought.

We haven't scheduled any D-II opponents. Central used to be D-II but is transitioning to I-AA. Richmond is the best I-AA team in the country. We aren't playing any D-IIs

I don't mind the opportunity cost of playing NCCU instead of a I-A, because I feel that if anyone bowl-eligible at 6-6 ever gets left out of the bowls, it's going to be the worst-traveling school in the country. Not many I-A schools have smaller enrollments than we do (Rice and WFU are the only two I can think of). In most years, Duke is going to have to go 7-5 to get into a bowl anyway, because the bowls will exhaust every other ACC option at 6-6 before they mess with us.

At the HOF bowl in Tampa, in our one winning season in the 90s and 00s, when we should have been sky-high excited, we had only about 4K fans there. If I were operating a bowl, I'd rather invite directional Michigan or Fresno State than Duke.

We should have beaten Richmond. That's the problem, not scheduling NCCU.

Bluedog
10-27-2009, 03:12 PM
Yes, these are all true reasons that we scheduled NCCU. But, if we're honest with ourselves about the situation, another large reason we scheduled NCCU was because they were one of the few teams that hadn't filled out their schedules yet. When we pulled out of the series with Louisville (and they sued us - but lost), we scrambled to find a replacement. Since NCCU is in a transition phrase, they luckily didn't have their schedule in stone unlike most schools where the out-of-conference schedules are determined years in advance. Thus, there were hardly any schools to choose from for the Louisville game replacement and NCCU seemed like a good choice for all the other reasons people already explained.

throatybeard
10-27-2009, 03:14 PM
What's really frustrating is UL is sooooo beatable nowadays.

RelativeWays
10-27-2009, 03:24 PM
We haven't scheduled any D-II opponents. Central used to be D-II but is transitioning to I-AA. Richmond is the best I-AA team in the country. We aren't playing any D-IIs

I don't mind the opportunity cost of playing NCCU instead of a I-A, because I feel that if anyone bowl-eligible at 6-6 ever gets left out of the bowls, it's going to be the worst-traveling school in the country. Not many I-A schools have smaller enrollments than we do (Rice and WFU are the only two I can think of). In most years, Duke is going to have to go 7-5 to get into a bowl anyway, because the bowls will exhaust every other ACC option at 6-6 before they mess with us.

At the HOF bowl in Tampa, in our one winning season in the 90s and 00s, when we should have been sky-high excited, we had only about 4K fans there. If I were operating a bowl, I'd rather invite directional Michigan or Fresno State than Duke.

We should have beaten Richmond. That's the problem, not scheduling NCCU.

+1,000,000 Duke should have beaten Richmond plain and simple. Richmond is a very good team but too many costly mistakes ruined Duke's chances in that game. The NCCU game was a fun atmosphere, everyone seemed to enjoy the crosstown rivalry. NCCU has a ways to go transitioning to the MEAC and they will become a bit more of a competitive opponent. This is a good gesture by Duke, instead of saying "Oh, NCCU, we forgot you existed" it says "NCCU and its team and fans are worth inviting to WW and playing a game of football" everyone seemed to enjoy it. They should do it again in 2011 or 2012 and hopefully it won't rain. The stadium was packed, despite the weather so the game had to be an economic success.

Duvall
10-27-2009, 03:25 PM
I don't mind the opportunity cost of playing NCCU instead of a I-A, because I feel that if anyone bowl-eligible at 6-6 ever gets left out of the bowls, it's going to be the worst-traveling school in the country. Not many I-A schools have smaller enrollments than we do (Rice and WFU are the only two I can think of). In most years, Duke is going to have to go 7-5 to get into a bowl anyway, because the bowls will exhaust every other ACC option at 6-6 before they mess with us.

In most years this might be a concern, but this year it appears that the ACC might have more bowl affiliations than bowl eligible teams, which could leave some poor bowl stuck with a 6-6 Duke squad due to its contract with the league. And Webster's defines a contract as an agreement under the law which is unbreakable.

Acymetric
10-27-2009, 03:26 PM
What's really frustrating is UL is sooooo beatable nowadays.

Not only are they beatable, which would have been nice, but we would have gotten paid to play them on top of that!

That said, like others have said we just should have beat Richmond. I have no problem with scheduling NCCU as our FCS team in the future so long as they're the only one. I'm not sure if I would want them to be our FCS team every year, I guess it would depend on how much of an event it turned out to be when we do it again in the future.

sagegrouse
10-27-2009, 03:32 PM
What's really frustrating is UL is sooooo beatable nowadays.

The other irony: no sooner does UNC dump Duke into early November to schedule a rivalry game with State at the end of the season, then Duke beats State by 21 points.

sagegrouse
'Hoping to see UNC get some more punishment anon'

Devil in the Blue Dress
10-27-2009, 03:37 PM
The other irony: no sooner does UNC dump Duke into early November to schedule a rivalry game with State at the end of the season, then Duke beats State by 21 points.

sagegrouse
'Hoping to see UNC get some more punishment anon'

And the rest of the irony is that neither team in that final game of the season (State and Carolina) is having much of a season so far. In light of that trend, I'm happy to pass the "Toilet Bowl" designation to another "rival" for Carolina.

uh_no
10-27-2009, 03:41 PM
The other irony: no sooner does UNC dump Duke into early November to schedule a rivalry game with State at the end of the season, then Duke beats State by 21 points.

sagegrouse
'Hoping to see UNC get some more punishment anon'


i'm pretty sure that a) cutcliffe also didn't want the game over thanksgiving break, especially when its at home and b) i don't think the coaches make the conference schedule anyway....the league does

RelativeWays
10-27-2009, 03:57 PM
As I understood it, Duke requested the change because the game kept falling on the thanksgiving weekend when a lot of Duke students go home. The game was at Kenan this year, UNC had no reason to ask for the change.

-bdbd
10-27-2009, 06:33 PM
In most years this might be a concern, but this year it appears that the ACC might have more bowl affiliations than bowl eligible teams, which could leave some poor bowl stuck with a 6-6 Duke squad due to its contract with the league. And Webster's defines a contract as an agreement under the law which is unbreakable.

As we established on another FB string, Duke Must Win 7 to be Bowl-eligible. That's b/c the NCCU game does not count towards eligibility for the 6-win minimum for bowls. 6-6 won't get us in. That's the puzzling part. Not that I dislike the community aspects here, but why not wait until a NCCU win actually COULD count towards bowl eligibility, in another year or two I think. Having them on the slate this year just made it a defacto LOSS as far as qualifying for a bowl.

The loss to U of R is really irrelevant to the discussion about why one would schedule a game that cannot help us (and just eliminates one of our 12 opportunities to get to 6 countable wins). There are ways to accomplish both goals, but it appears very possible that losing that one opportunity for an additional countable win may well cost us a bowl appearance. (Of course, a bowl appearance aren't the only goal for our FB program, but its up there...)

Best regards,

-BDBD :confused:

Duvall
10-27-2009, 06:38 PM
As we established on another FB string, Duke Must Win 7 to be Bowl-eligible.

Yes. I know that. I was talking about the hypothetical scenario in which Duke could be overlooked at 6-6. Obviously that is not possible this year.

El_Diablo
10-27-2009, 07:21 PM
And Webster's defines a contract as an agreement under the law which is unbreakable.

Louisville might disagree with this definition... :)

hughgs
10-27-2009, 07:46 PM
As we established on another FB string, Duke Must Win 7 to be Bowl-eligible. That's b/c the NCCU game does not count towards eligibility for the 6-win minimum for bowls. 6-6 won't get us in. That's the puzzling part. Not that I dislike the community aspects here, but why not wait until a NCCU win actually COULD count towards bowl eligibility, in another year or two I think. Having them on the slate this year just made it a defacto LOSS as far as qualifying for a bowl.

The loss to U of R is really irrelevant to the discussion about why one would schedule a game that cannot help us (and just eliminates one of our 12 opportunities to get to 6 countable wins). There are ways to accomplish both goals, but it appears very possible that losing that one opportunity for an additional countable win may well cost us a bowl appearance. (Of course, a bowl appearance aren't the only goal for our FB program, but its up there...)

Best regards,

-BDBD :confused:

You are correct if the only thing that Duke is concerned about is this year. But, as has been pointed out above, the scheduling of NCCU isn't a decision that only affects this year. Obviously the powers that be were willing to sacrifice one of the 12 opportunities for the long-term gains of scheduling NCCU this year. I don't understand why that's so hard to believe.

JaMarcus Russell
10-27-2009, 08:29 PM
Does anyone know how much longer NC Central won't count as a win towards bowl eligibility?

Wander
10-27-2009, 08:29 PM
The other irony: no sooner does UNC dump Duke into early November to schedule a rivalry game with State at the end of the season, then Duke beats State by 21 points.


It's not probable but it's also not completely out of the realm of possibility that UNC and NC State enter that game with matching 0-7 conference records. That would be hilarious... it's mainly up to us (winning at UNC) and Maryland (winning at State) to make it happen.

throatybeard
10-27-2009, 08:39 PM
And Webster's defines a contract as an agreement under the law which is unbreakable.

That's why you're the law-talkin guy, not me.


I have no problem with scheduling NCCU as our FCS team in the future so long as they're the only one. I'm not sure if I would want them to be our FCS team every year, I guess it would depend on how much of an event it turned out to be when we do it again in the future.

I strongly believe sports will have to get more local/regional in the future. Having NCCU next door 20 years from now when Oil is $350/barrel (or whatever) could be a real boon.

Jim3k
10-27-2009, 10:34 PM
At the HOF bowl in Tampa, in our one winning season in the 90s and 00s, when we should have been sky-high excited, we had only about 4K fans there.


4001. I left my wife and family on the Coast to go see this one. The best thing about it were the Johnsonville Brats outside the stadium. My wife has yet to forget. Forgive, yes. Forget? No. (Now if we had won...)

rasputin
10-28-2009, 12:30 PM
That's why you're the law-talkin guy, not me.





Your Honor, I move for a bad . . . court . . . thingy.

Thurber Whyte
10-29-2009, 12:02 AM
In most years this might be a concern, but this year it appears that the ACC might have more bowl affiliations than bowl eligible teams, which could leave some poor bowl stuck with a 6-6 Duke squad due to its contract with the league. And Webster's defines a contract as an agreement under the law which is unbreakable.


Louisville might disagree with this definition... :)

Oliver Wendell Holmes defined a contract as an option by either party to perform or pay damages. That is because the remedy for breach is usually monetary damages equal to the nonbreaching party’s expected gain rather than specific performance. The law today explicitly recognizes the "efficient breach" where it is cheaper or more advantageous for one party to just pay the other the appropriate damages.

That is what Duke did with Louisville. As the court in Kentucky found, Louisville’s damages from having to replace Duke with any other school were zero (or perhaps less than zero).

Let’s hope that one of the bowls does not decide that it is more profitable to simply cut the ACC and a 6-6 Duke with its 4,000 fans a check.

hurleyfor3
10-29-2009, 11:05 AM
Your Honor, I move for a bad . . . court . . . thingy.

Before some other Simpsons dork corrects you, it's bad...trial... thingy.