Fixing Duke Football

[Uncle Drew]

While reading another post I read the following comment by a member, "If you think Carl Franks, Ted Roof, the numerous baseball coaches are best qualified you are kidding yourself." Okay I laughed too, especially in regard to Franks. But aside from firing the AD, what needs to be done to fix Duke football? A lot of people dislike Coach Roof due to the fact he hasn't won much and they think Duke had better options out there. (For the record I'm in favor of keeping him a while if for no other reason that constant turnover is one of the main things that got us where we are.) A lot of it obviously has to do with recruiting though we did haul in our first 5 star recruit in Oghobaase. But how does Duke recruit better? Do they need better practice / workout facilities? Aside of doing something crooked under the table how do we get better recruits in the fold? Does anyone at Duke or in the community even care about Duke football anymore? (My dad was at the 41 Rose Bowl, so I grew up going to every game.) Aside from dropping to a lower level (Which I don't think would even help at this point.) what does Duke need to do? And is there any hope for a few wins this up comming season?

[Bob Green]

IMO, we will win four or five games this fall. As far as recruiting, my understanding is that Coach Roof is attempting to improve the national exposure of the program by scheduling games against top flight programs: Alabama last year and Notre Dame this year. The key to turning the program around is to win a few games and build off of the success. Four or five wins this year followed by a winning season in 2008 is not an unreasonable goal.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[BlueDevilBaby]

I'd be happy with one or two wins, jeesh.

[Wander]

This is more short-term, but we need a kicking game.

With even just an average kicking game, Duke beats Wake Forest and UNC this past year for sure, and maybe Richmond and Alabama as well. That's still only a 4-8 team, but that's a lot better than 0-12.

It also wouldn't hurt if Duke students/fans gave the team more support. Duke fans' attitude towards the football team is pathetic.

[FireOgilvie]

This is more short-term, but we need a kicking game.

With even just an average kicking game, Duke beats Wake Forest and UNC this past year for sure, and maybe Richmond and Alabama as well. That's still only a 4-8 team, but that's a lot better than 0-12.

It also wouldn't hurt if Duke students/fans gave the team more support. Duke fans' attitude towards the football team is pathetic.

I completely agree. I think the problem was not only in the kicker but the line in front of the kicker... there was always too much defensive penetration that allowed for blocked field goals.

As far as the fan support goes, it wasn't that bad from a lot of students. However, as soon as the team got down by 14+ there was always a mass exodus to the exits. It's really really hard to get excited for a team that loses every game it plays... especially when the first game is a shutout to a Div-1AA team.

[Kewlswim]

Hi,

Besides the kicking game, we need discipline. From what I have seen we need:

Less off-sides.
Less false-starts.
Less STUPID penalties.

Just cutting out those things will do amazing things for our program. I have not watched every game or even a majority of games so I welcome posters who believe what I have stated is incorrect.

GO DUKE!

[ChrisP]

Hi,

Besides the kicking game, we need discipline. From what I have seen we need:

Less off-sides.
Less false-starts.
Less STUPID penalties.

Just cutting out those things will do amazing things for our program. I have not watched every game or even a majority of games so I welcome posters who believe what I have stated is incorrect.

GO DUKE!


Certainly, cutting out dumb penalties like the ones you've listed is always a good thing for any football team, but I don't recall those things being major problems for Duke's team (at least not last year). I did attend the majority of the games and that's my impression. I'm willing to admit, however, I have forgotten more than I remember about last year's disappointing season, so I could be wrong about that. My recollection is that while Duke was committing too many of these types of penalties early in the year, we did cut down on them as the season wore on. Of course, it did seem like we got a false start at the WORST possible time in a drive many times throughout the year.

In reference to some other posts on this thread - I simply cannot recall a team (Duke's or anyone for that matter) having so many FG and PAT's blocked. As someone mentioned earlier, we certainly could have won at least a FEW games last year had our kicking game been better...or even "good".

[wilson]

The kicking game indeed was a problem, and it seemed to me to be in large part the product of inordinate commitment to established (but inferior) players. Alex Feinberg, a friend of mine, came into the program as a top-25 kicking prospect, and yet he has seen precious little placekicking action. He has punted, but he did so in rather mediocre fashion (punting has never been his primary function). I don't know if there was any real intrasquad competition for the job, but I can about guarantee that on any other squad, the PK would have lost his job at some point in the season. I agree with the previous poster who said that offensive line deficiencies contributed to the problem, but that certainly was not the extent of the issue.

[Wander]

I completely agree. I think the problem was not only in the kicker but the line in front of the kicker... there was always too much defensive penetration that allowed for blocked field goals.


Yeah, definately. I don't know how much of it is the kicker's fault, how much is the line's fault, and how much is the coaches' fault, but I know that our kicking game is terrible and it HAS to improve if we're going to win games this year.



As far as the fan support goes, it wasn't that bad from a lot of students. However, as soon as the team got down by 14+ there was always a mass exodus to the exits. It's really really hard to get excited for a team that loses every game it plays... especially when the first game is a shutout to a Div-1AA team.


Not including the band, cheerleaders, etc, there are maybe 30 students who stay the entire game. I actually did the count once - against Georgia Tech in 2005, there were 23 of us left at the end. That's awful.

I know it sucks when your team loses every game, but Duke fans are supposedly some of the best fans in sports, or at least that's what Duke fans tell themselves. Shouldn't the "best fans" stay for the entire game? The team needs the support.

[phaedrus]

there are a dozen or more other teams at duke that win things. i would be more upset at lackluster attendance at tennis matches or field hockey games.

[Classof06]

Duke football hasn't done much since Spurrier was here. My suggestion is fork out the cash and get a big-time coach who can recruit. As of right now, you have a first-time head coach who is learning on the job. You're in a big-time conference at an all-around excellent school with great facilities. Who wouldn't want to come here if they knew they had a legitimate chance to win some football games? I realize we're more academically competitive, but if Wake Forest can win a conference title, I don't see why Duke can't (in time).

And as far as the fans go, if you build it, they will come. You can't expect fans to come out when you go 0-12.

[Wander]

And as far as the fans go, if you build it, they will come. You can't expect fans to come out when you go 0-12.

Duke fans pretty frequently proclaim themselves as being some of the best fans in the country. I don't expect average fans to come out and support an 0-12 team but I do expect it from some of the best fans in the country.

[duke98]

Not including the band, cheerleaders, etc, there are maybe 30 students who stay the entire game. I actually did the count once - against Georgia Tech in 2005, there were 23 of us left at the end. That's awful.

One of the great things about technology re: Duke football is the rise of cell phones. After year after year of losses and blowouts, it's almost expected that the student section will have some attrition during the game, especially at those brutally hot 1 pm games in September. (Bring back the 6 pm game!) But when Duke is winning, and especially as the game ends, you can always count on the student crowd growing b/c people use their cell phones to call their friends and have them come over to the game.

It's not everything, but hey, it's a start. If we win a few games, and people have fun at them (even if they're only there for the 4th quarter), that's got to help attendance in the future. Really, though, it's all about winning. The Baltimore Orioles used to sell out every single game in the early 1990s when Camden Yards was first built...now they're lucky to draw 25,000 on a nice spring day. The fact that I can't tell you the last time the O's had a winning season is no coincidence.

[tux]

Hi,

Besides the kicking game, we need discipline. From what I have seen we need:

Less off-sides.
Less false-starts.
Less STUPID penalties.

Just cutting out those things will do amazing things for our program. I have not watched every game or even a majority of games so I welcome posters who believe what I have stated is incorrect.

GO DUKE!

The stupid penalties has been a bone of contention among many fans, and for good reason. We're Duke, and a Duke team if nothing else should play smarter than the other team. However, I would guess that the disparity in talent also plays a part in the number of penalties. Just like in BB where a talented team will draw more fouls from a less talented team...

The obvious problem / catch-22 is that Duke probably needs to win some before it can really start to recruit the sort of depth needed to win consistently; and like Wake, we need to red-shirt some guys and build toward a situation where we have some 5-year players. But it seems like in the past, several guys have left Duke with eligibility remaining... I guess they get tired of losing.

There seem to be no easy solutions.

[johnb]

"Stupid" penalties and mistakes often reflect a team that is outmanned and tired. While we (like anyone) could get more disciplined, we also don't stack up too well with teams like Miami and Florida State.

Hard to get a coach would could also go to an Oklahoma or USC. There is not enough money available to entice a coach who views the Duke job as the first step to coaching high school. I guess we could go after the 32 year olds, but they are risky and will leave as soon as they win 6 games.

If Roof can win 3 or 4 games next year, develops an offense, and starts to get some 4 or 5 star recruits, the tide could turn.

[pamtar]

I really think that its all about personel. After a conversation I had with ex o-lineman Austin Smithwick about the state of Duke football I tried to think of the great player at Duke fro the past seven years. Granted, I am a Wolfpack football fan (my father played there, but basketball - entirely different story) I still could not think of any names. As an avid ACC fan you would think that I could atleast name one guy (besides Austin).
Roof is going to have to get his act together on the recruiting end of things. But can he? Although many may disliked Amato, he was probably the best thing to happen to State. Though he may not have been the best coach, I reguard him as the best recruiter in the ACC. I'll guarentee that with him back at FSU two years from now they will win the conference. So what did that do for State? It gave them national recognition. Now players know what to expect when being recruited by the Pack, even if Amato is gone.
That is what Duke needs - a little national recognition. Wake will get players they never dreamed of with an ACC title on their resume. Can coach Roof offer this? I hope so, but unforunately the outlook is bleak.

[CMS2478]

I'd be happy with one or two wins, jeesh.

What are these so-called "wins" you speak of? I am not sure we have had any of those have we? ;)

[Raleighfan]

One of the great things about technology re: Duke football is the rise of cell phones. After year after year of losses and blowouts, it's almost expected that the student section will have some attrition during the game, especially at those brutally hot 1 pm games in September. (Bring back the 6 pm game!) But when Duke is winning, and especially as the game ends, you can always count on the student crowd growing b/c people use their cell phones to call their friends and have them come over to the game.



Bring back 6 PM games? Ha, make that 7 PM games! What are those lights for anyway??? When Duke plays at noon and 1 PM on hot August/September days, it's a good thing that games aren't well-attended---more room to spread out on the bleachers! Can you imagine sitting shoulder-to-shoulder for 3+ hours on even an 80 degree day with the sun beaming down on you?!

[Raleighfan]

This is more short-term, but we need a kicking game.

With even just an average kicking game, Duke beats Wake Forest and UNC this past year for sure, and maybe Richmond and Alabama as well. That's still only a 4-8 team, but that's a lot better than 0-12.

It also wouldn't hurt if Duke students/fans gave the team more support. Duke fans' attitude towards the football team is pathetic.

Hub and I have had football season tix since '82 and during that time have missed maybe 5 home games (out of the country, death in the family). Altho he's the Duke grad, I'm the one who tries to be hopeful and optimistic at the start of every season, the one who insists we stay a little longer at the games when he wants to leave early. I'm always reminding him about the 1988 (?) Clemson game when Duke was down 14-0 at the half, rain was pouring, people were leaving....but then Randy Cuthbert took charge in the 3rd quarter and Duke came back for a great win. Hard to believe that was close to 20 years ago! We've been pretty loyal for 25(!) years but it's tough to keep coming to games and seeing the same old same old, even though the coaches'/players' names change. Give us a sign that there's gonna be light at the end of this tunnel....

[Uncle Drew]

So we need a better kicking game. We need better recruits? And to get people to attend we need to have night games and include things like "Coach K bobble head night". I honestly think Coach Roof is doing the best possible job he can as far as recruiting. (Then again Franks best was adding a few nails in the coffin.) But does Duke EVER have the chance to get some bigtime recruits in the Key positions? We all check in every day for the latest Patrick Patterson news. When it comes to football when we do sign a decent recruit it's like, "oh, by the way". Someone PLEASE tell me the positives a potential recruit sees when evaluating Duke as well as the negatives when compared to other schools. Please omit Colorado type trips to the local strip club so to avoid another scandal.

And for those who are always optomistic at the start of each season you are not alone. I'm just tired of having my hopes crushed by the second game.

[DevilnTX]

Hub and I have had football season tix since '82 and during that time have missed maybe 5 home games (out of the country, death in the family). Altho he's the Duke grad, I'm the one who tries to be hopeful and optimistic at the start of every season, the one who insists we stay a little longer at the games when he wants to leave early. I'm always reminding him about the 1988 (?) Clemson game when Duke was down 14-0 at the half, rain was pouring, people were leaving....but then Randy Cuthbert took charge in the 3rd quarter and Duke came back for a great win. Hard to believe that was close to 20 years ago! We've been pretty loyal for 25(!) years but it's tough to keep coming to games and seeing the same old same old, even though the coaches'/players' names change. Give us a sign that there's gonna be light at the end of this tunnel....

enjoyed the post raleighfan.

[RPS]

Someone PLEASE tell me the positives a potential recruit sees when evaluating Duke as well as the negatives when compared to other schools. Please omit Colorado type trips to the local strip club so to avoid another scandal.As it happens, my youngest is a high school junior and a potential D1 player. I can't tell you what works across the board, but I can tell you what's important to my son and our family.
Academics. Academics are very high on my son's list (though that's obviously not the case for every recruit). It's why he's still considering Ivy schools. Clearly, this is a huge selling point for Duke.
Facilities. Facilities matter. On a trip to Stanford, my son was very impressed with the new stadium (though less so with attendance) and the training (great staff) and locker room facilities (big HDTV and leather couches). I haven't seen the Duke training and locker room facilities, but Wallace Wade is a real negative.
Coaching Staff. Every player wants to play for a coach that they think can win, is charismatic, and allows the players to have some fun. I don't know how Duke's staff factors in here.
Fan Support. Every player wants to play in front of big crowds. Visits to places like USC were incredible, obviously. The glitz factor is unbeatable. But visits to places like Cal and Harvard, with loyal and vocal fan support, were also very impressive. This is a negative for Duke.
Student Support. This is a huge point and very underrated in my opinion. Players want to be appreciated by their peers. Wake is very impressive in this area. A huge percentage of students go to games and did so even when the team was far less successful. This is a real problem for Duke. Students don't go to games and don't care.
Faculty Support. Every D1 program has pockets of faculty that resent big-times sports. But this is a far bigger problem at Duke than at many other places (88 anyone?).
Attention. Kids love attention. At a recent spring game, when a head coach spotted my son, ended his conversation and came right over to greet him by name without being prompted, it meant a lot. Form letters are fine, but handwritten notes are really effective. Texts (just now outlawed) were a good way to communiate. Bumps and (especially) personal visits are huge. Listening to the player and his parents and being responsive to the questions and concerns expressed is crucial. Persistence pays off (Oregon and Utah are really good, for example), and programs that have struggled or which have other disadvantages must really focus here (Stanford, Harvard and San Diego State have worked really hard).
Tradition. Even mail from places like USC and Florida State is impressive (gold embossed national championship listings, for example). This is a problem for Duke. Stanford deals with this issue by highlighting overall athletic success (Olympic and NCAA); Harvard deals with it by emphasizing the scope of the athletic program (over 40 varsity sports plus JV sports).
Being Competitive. Players want to win, obviously. But even more than that, they want to be competitive. Yuck for Duke.
Other Good Talent. This is related, but players want their recruiting class to be a good one.
Fun. Pete Carroll is a master at this. For some without this skill, paternal kindness can work (think Jim Grobe or Bobby Bowden).
Playing on Sundays. Every recruited player thinks the NFL is a very real possibility (most probably think they're entitled). Schools with this tradition make the most of it. It's easy for Pete Carroll and Bobby Bowden, but everybody that can focuses here (Stanford has John Elway; Jeff Tedford is really effective here, for example). Success breeds success and Duke hasn't had much. Mike Curtis was a long time ago.

[Classof06]

I think RPS hit it right on the head and touched every single base.

[Uncle Drew]

RPS

Academics. I've been told Duke has lowered it's academic standards somewhat over the last few years to get borderline athletes in that wouldn't have been able to get in otherwise. No one concerned about Duke football wants the standards so low that someone such as myself could get in. But since that point has this action gotten any players to suit up for Duke that would have ended up elsewhere? In Vince Oghobaase's decission to come to Duke I know academics played a huge role, but since the average recruit honestly thinks he'll be making NFL money some day (though we know the odds are against them.) is a Duke degree that big of a selling point these days?

Facilities In some ways I love Wallace Wade stadium, if for no other reason the history behind it long forgotten by most. Over the years since I was a kid they have made some improvements, I remember the wood plank seats that gave you splinters in your gluteus maximus. But there are certainly very little perks for the fans, not that I'd want recliners around the horseshoe. As for facilities for players such as workout rooms, practice facilities and locker rooms how badly does Duke need to upgrade, what would be the approximate cost of such a project and does Duke have the cash to get it done? Let's face it there aren't a lot of Duke football alums making or who have made NFL money, so does anyone have an idea how Duke could raise money to improve their facilities? Raising ticket prices won't do it as they don't even sell out the seats they have.

Coaching Staff As stated for right now I am in favor of keeping Coach Roof if for no other reason than the constant turnover at head coach the last 17 years is one of the things that has gotten Duke football into the state it's in. God knows Duke has made some VERY bad selections since Spurrier left, but I can't help but also notice there has been and still is a lot of turnover at the coordinator positions. That being said I've heard people saying Duke needs to go out and get a big name coach and pay him the big bucks to attract recuits. Others have said you could hire Pete Carroll and it wouldn't make a difference when it comes to Duke football because the whole situation is a no win proposition. I think Duke has gone the cheaper route the last few football hires and tried to get a diamond in the rough for as little as possible as they did with Coach K. That being said if Roof or anyone else were able to turn things around, would Duke do their best to try and keep them?

Fan Support I agree whole heartedly about fan / student support. While I make it a point to attend at least two Duke home games a year if I'm paying to see Duke get man handled by Miami, FSU, VT etc. it really makes me feel like I've wasted my time and money. I can't fault people not sticking around when Duke is down four touchdowns. But we so called fans and students need to actually show up to the games to let the team and school know we actually care. I can't figure out if the University doesn't care about how bad the football program has been because the fans don't seem to care, or if the fans don't care because their university hasn't made football a focal point. One thing is for sure, when you do make it to a Duke game and there is a three to one ratio of opposing fans to Duke fans, it's sickening.

Student Support Amen, amen and amen. Can you imagine just one section of students acting "crazy" at a football game like they do for basketball? Okay sure it wouldn't have the same intimidating affect as in Cameron. But it seems some time the students who do show up are just congregating to see what parties are going on that night. I fully realize there ARE students who attend and care about the games. But the passion isn't there like it is for basketball. Is there passion for soccer, lacrosse, golf, tennis at Duke or is it ONLY a basketball school and people have come to accept that?

Faculty Support Duke has had conflicts over academics versus athletics from way back. For those who don't know at one time Duke was thinking of doing away with school sponsored athletic teams because they wanted to be known for academics. I can fully understand some genius professor resenting higher paid coaches and spoiled players who they have to make special accomodations to. God knows no one wants to see Duke send out graduates in basket weaving and canine retrieval. But have these faculty members ever considered that by actually teaching some of these athletes instead of resenting them they make things better for themselves, their university AND their community? I think the LAX incident didn't just show a lot of racial bitterness, but it also displayed resentment by many faculty members at Duke.

Attention I know every recruit likes to feel like he / she is top prority for a particular school, or all their prospective schools for that matter. I just heard about the text messaging being banned which from everything I've heard is a good thing. But my question is this, is this a personel issue that's Duke doesn't have the number of staff members to suck up to potential recruits as for example Ohio State? Or is it a case of potential recruits see / hear anything associated with Duke football and it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes? Are assistants allowed to make personal visits as well or do they count towards the head coaches allotment of visits? In basketball when you go after four or five recruits the travel expenses aren't cheap. But I'm guessing trying to go see thirty potential recruits play and have an in home visit is not only expensive but time consuming. Anyone have a Winnebago Coach Roof and staff can borrow?

Tradition While people such as myself know about Duke's football tradition, most people think Duke has always had a team of scrubs. You are right in saying this is a huge problem. It's even hard to show footage and list All-Americans when they are wearing leather helmets and there is no forward pass. My father used to tell me stories about how great Duke was in football before WWII, but like so many things the war changed all that. No I don't want WWIII even if it meant Duke would win a national title. But at this point there is very little Duke football can point to in the last ten years and say, "hey look at this". (Aside from graduation rates of course.)

Being Competitive This is one area that frustrates fans, players and coaches. Because There have been so many games Duke has been close in and couldn't pull out a win in the last three years. Whether it's falling behind early to have a valiant comeback fall short, staying close but not being able to take the lead or making a late mistake that enables the other team to pull out the win. A few people have suggested Duke drop down a level which would allow them to be a little more competitive. But the Richmond loss (a shut out no less) makes that seem irrational at this point. I have seen a few Duke teams borderline dominant, seeing them borderline pathetic really hurts.

Other Good Talent I can understand good players wanting to be in the same class as other good players, especially in football where you need several difference makers. But trying to get fifteen plus good players to sign up and be that class that turns it around is a HUGE job.

Fun Football is brutal in itself, from the practices to the games themselves. The fun in any sport is winning. As a wise man once said, "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." I have noticed the entire team get down on itself the last few years and I know full well they haven't had fun losing. To be frank there are times when I think players don't need a father figure urging them on, they need a drill sergeant kicking their butts every step of the way.

Playing on Sundays Who was the last Duke player to play in the NFL? Ray Farmer? I'm glad to see Coach Roof going out of state to land recruits even if it is by necessity. This state doesn't produce the football horses that Texas, Florida, Georgia do. But if were taking the players Notre Dame, Nebraska and USC don't want that's not a good thing. And if a recuit is trying to decide whether he wants to play for Elon, Catawba or Duke that's even worse.

[SoCalDukeFan]

My understanding is that Duke lost all of its returning qbs to transfer or suspension for plagarism. Duke also lost 2 games because of a weak kicking game, and one of those was to Wake Forest who went to the Orange Bowl.

If you took all of the qbs off of any team, they will struggle. I think that rebuilding teams concentrate so much of offense and defense that special teams suffer.

What Duke needs this year is some luck, ie no injuries to key players and some good bounces in close games. A few wins will help attendance immensely.

SoCal

[Kewlswim]

My understanding is that Duke lost all of its returning qbs to transfer or suspension for plagarism. Duke also lost 2 games because of a weak kicking game, and one of those was to Wake Forest who went to the Orange Bowl.

If you took all of the qbs off of any team, they will struggle. I think that rebuilding teams concentrate so much of offense and defense that special teams suffer.

What Duke needs this year is some luck, ie no injuries to key players and some good bounces in close games. A few wins will help attendance immensely.

SoCal

Hi,

Look at Cal Berkeley. The year before Coach Tedford arrived they were awful. Two years later they are on their way toward being very good. Three years later they could have gone to the Rose Bowl. I think a good coach could turn this program around very quickly. I seem to be in the minority though.

GO DUKE!

[Bob Green]

Hi,

Look at Cal Berkeley. The year before Coach Tedford arrived they were awful. Two years later they are on their way toward being very good. Three years later they could have gone to the Rose Bowl. I think a good coach could turn this program around very quickly. I seem to be in the minority though.

GO DUKE!

I do not disagree with you, in regard to the impact a good coach could have, but I'm firmly in the camp of those who believe Coach Roof deserves two more years to transform the program. My rationale is that a significant contributing factor to the current sad state of Duke football is the frequent coaching changes that have occurred since 1965. Starting in 1966, we have had nine head coaches with an average tenure of 4.55 years. Of those nine coaches, eight had a losing record. Only Steve Spurrier managed to win at Duke going 20-13-1 over three seasons. Coach Roof needs to win at least four or five games this year followed by a winning season in 2008.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[RelativeWays]

I think fan support is essential. Changing the attitude of the Duke student body and Duke fans in general is key to changing some of the other problems. I don't know how much Duke University cares to invest in football (which is terribly expensive) if Duke fans just don't care. Its also hard for the team to weather a bad losing season if they feel the school and the fans they represent are indifferent. I know some will suggest that once Duke Football starts to win, fan support will come back. The problem is when the football team hits an inevitable rough stretch, the fans will disappear again. Duke fans need to understand that cheering for the basketball team just isn't good enough, the football team desperately needs support from all Duke fans as well.

[RPS]

RPSI've been told Duke has lowered it's academic standards somewhat over the last few years to get borderline athletes in that wouldn't have been able to get in otherwise.The official literature from Harvard (no athletic scholarships) says that a minimum SAT of only 1750 is required for football players. Fine academic schools like Michigan, Stanford, Cal Berkeley, Northwestern and Wake have been competitive in football. Heck, Duke was competitive during the ol' ball coach's two stints here. I don't think that's a valid excuse.


But since that point has this action gotten any players to suit up for Duke that would have ended up elsewhere?I don't know, but I would assume so.


In Vince Oghobaase's decission to come to Duke I know academics played a huge role, but since the average recruit honestly thinks he'll be making NFL money some day (though we know the odds are against them.) is a Duke degree that big of a selling point these days?To some kids, like my son, it's hugely important. Those players, though small in number, have to get special focus from Duke I think.


As for facilities for players such as workout rooms, practice facilities and locker rooms how badly does Duke need to upgrade, what would be the approximate cost of such a project and does Duke have the cash to get it done?I've been careful in my posts to speak of programs I know and, frankly, even as an alum, I don't know much about the inner workings of the Duke program.


Let's face it there aren't a lot of Duke football alums making or who have made NFL money, so does anyone have an idea how Duke could raise money to improve their facilities? Raising ticket prices won't do it as they don't even sell out the seats they have.Major college sports are crucial to schools from a marketing perspective. It isn't coincidence that Duke's rise up the various rankings charts coincided with basketball success. Athletic success, especially in the big-time sports, bring in a school's lifeblood -- more and better applications and more and bigger alumni donations. Duke has the money. If football became successful or even competitive, the money spent would be more than worthwhile.


That being said if Roof or anyone else were able to turn things around, would Duke do their best to try and keep them?Great question (Coach G, Exhibit A).


I can't fault people not sticking around when Duke is down four touchdowns.I do. We're talking about college sports and supporting our school. In my view, the lack of support, especially among students, is inexcusable. Plus, the real issue isn't fans leaving early, its folks (and especially students) showing up at all.


One thing is for sure, when you do make it to a Duke game and there is a three to one ratio of opposing fans to Duke fans, it's sickening.It's a point of ridicule from students at other schools that they will go to a Duke home game and outnumber Duke students. That's very sad and plays into the stereotype that the Crazies are simply posers.


I fully realize there ARE students who attend and care about the games. But the passion isn't there like it is for basketball. Is there passion for soccer, lacrosse, golf, tennis at Duke or is it ONLY a basketball school and people have come to accept that?Football and basketball, due in large part to the level of national attention, are in an entirely different category from the other sports. Even if there isn't passion, there needs to be support.


Duke has had conflicts over academics versus athletics from way back.My working hypothesis is that the Duke anti-sports faculty lobby knows that hoops are sacred and spends its energy trying to limit Duke's athletic success beyond that. Since football is #2 in exposure at Duke, it is a real target.


I can fully understand some genius professor resenting higher paid coaches and spoiled players who they have to make special accomodations to.I understand it from a gut-level, but it's stupid. Without K and Duke's basketball legacy of success, Duke's academic ranking isn't nearly as high as it currently is, and professors benefit directly from that. I don't see any professors arguing that we should de-emphasize sports and accept significantly lower rankings over time.


But have these faculty members ever considered that by actually teaching some of these athletes instead of resenting them they make things better for themselves, their university AND their community?What a concept -- teachers caring about teaching (instead of football players having to hide their athlete status from some teachers in order to succeed).


I think the LAX incident didn't just show a lot of racial bitterness, but it also displayed resentment by many faculty members at Duke.Yup, and it's U-G-L-Y.


But my question is this, is this a personel issue that's Duke doesn't have the number of staff members to suck up to potential recruits as for example Ohio State?I don't know (remember, I don't know much about the Duke program behind-the-scenes).


Or is it a case of potential recruits see / hear anything associated with Duke football and it falls on deaf ears and blind eyes?It should be no surprise that Duke football has enormous hurdles to overcome.


Are assistants allowed to make personal visits as well or do they count towards the head coaches allotment of visits?Assistants can and do bump and visit.


But I'm guessing trying to go see thirty potential recruits play and have an in home visit is not only expensive but time consuming.It's a problem. However, among our scheduled home visits here on the West Coast are Harvard and Princeton. If the Ivies can do it, Duke surely can.


This is one area that frustrates fans, players and coaches. Because There have been so many games Duke has been close in and couldn't pull out a win in the last three years.Perhaps unfortunately, losing every game in OT wouldn't be seen as being competitive. Records matter.


But trying to get fifteen plus good players to sign up and be that class that turns it around is a HUGE job.That's true. But Wake has turned it around, Cal-Berkeley went from way down to being a power, UCLA is competitive, Michigan has long been a power and I expect Harbaugh to bring Stanford back (the kind of hire I think Duke should emulate). Even Notre Dame and USC are very good schools. It's possible, even at schools with substantive academic standards.


To be frank there are times when I think players don't need a father figure urging them on, they need a drill sergeant kicking their butts every step of the way.Football staffs are big enough and the position coaches and coordinators are hands-on enough for teams to have all types of leadership, and the best teams do.


But if were taking the players Notre Dame, Nebraska and USC don't want that's not a good thing. And if a recuit is trying to decide whether he wants to play for Elon, Catawba or Duke that's even worse.Just down the road Wake has shown that five-star recruits aren't necessary to be competitive (I assume last season to be an aberration for them). Two and three star players, well-selected, smart, red-shirted and well-coached, are more than good enough.

[Kewlswim]

I do not disagree with you, in regard to the impact a good coach could have, but I'm firmly in the camp of those who believe Coach Roof deserves two more years to transform the program. My rationale is that a significant contributing factor to the current sad state of Duke football is the frequent coaching changes that have occurred since 1965. Starting in 1966, we have had nine head coaches with an average tenure of 4.55 years. Of those nine coaches, eight had a losing record. Only Steve Spurrier managed to win at Duke going 20-13-1 over three seasons. Coach Roof needs to win at least four or five games this year followed by a winning season in 2008.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan


Hi Bob,

I give Roof one more year to show he can win at Duke, then I go look for a dynamic head coach to take the reigns. I am sorry, I want to see success NOW and the time for saying, "Wait 'till next year," is not in my vocabulary. Then again, I have a passion for Duke football that few people have.

GO DUKE!
GO DUKE FOOTBALL!

[jimsumner]

"Who was the last Duke player to play in the NFL? Ray Farmer"

Duke isn't exactly been an NFL farm team the last few years but it's not that bad. Ryan Fowler, Lennie Friedman, Patrick Mannelly, Drew Strojny, Kevin Lewis, probably some others have suited up over the last few seasons. What Duke needs is a high-profile, skill player.

[Uncle Drew]

RPS,


You made excelent points and answered a lot of my questions. A big time thank you or taking time fom your schedule to shed some light on the aspects you know about and be bluntly honest you don't know all the answers. Truth be told no one does. I think things like the Duke alum banquet Roof hosted are a step in the right direction. But it's going to take dilligent work and most likely a lot of cold hard cash to turn it around. You da man!

[RPS]

You made excelent points and answered a lot of my questions. A big time thank you or taking time fom your schedule to shed some light on the aspects you know about and be bluntly honest you don't know all the answers.You're welcome. It's close to my heart. In fact, my son just called to say that his coach told him that USC made another contact about him just this morning (though I tend to doubt he'll be a Trojan). It's an exciting yet difficult time for us and increasingly hard as a parent to keep junior focused and his head on straight.


Truth be told no one does. I think things like the Duke alum banquet Roof hosted are a step in the right direction. But it's going to take dilligent work and most likely a lot of cold hard cash to turn it around.I think you're right.


You da man!Oh that my kids thought so at least occaisionally!

[SilkyJ]

Ryan Fowler, Lennie Friedman, Patrick Mannelly, Drew Strojny, Kevin Lewis, probably some others have suited up over the last few seasons

Just to expand a little: Ryan Fowler actually had a breakout season on special teams last year for Dallas and signed a big contract (for a dukie) with the Titans worth $11+million over 4 years. Not bad...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2801734

[DevilAlumna]

RPS said:
It's a point of ridicule from students at other schools that they will go to a Duke home game and outnumber Duke students. That's very sad and plays into the stereotype that the Crazies are simply posers.

I think it's important to note that football and basketball are indeed, two very different sports, and can garner very different types of fans. I was proud to be a Cameron Crazy, because I *Love* college basketball, particularly Duke. Love it. I cry watching "One Shining Moment," every single year, and once tried my hardest to break a gender barrier at the tender age of 10, b/c I wanted to be a ball-boy for the University of Nebraska basketball team. (Around the time of Bill Jackman -- guess my Duke bball ties started early!)

As for football, ehhh. I was raised in Lincoln, Nebraska, where the football stadium becomes the state's third largest city on game days; I used to think that cars had red tail lights and white headlights because they were being driven by Nebraska football fans. I like football, but do I want to spend 3+ hours in a football stadium, deal with traffic and crowds, and suffer with a limited view of the game action, when I could watch my team at home on TV, with a beer in hand? Maybe, if the seats were cheap and the weather was decent. That's why I went to a few games while at Duke. (okay, and maybe I had a bourbon & coke in hand instead of beer.)

Crazies are awesome fans - BASKETBALL fans. Fans who are die-hard for cheering on a great football game each and every weekend probably aren't even putting Duke on their application list. To denigrate the Crazies because of this difference seems, well, silly.

[Uncle Drew]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimsumner
Ryan Fowler, Lennie Friedman, Patrick Mannelly, Drew Strojny, Kevin Lewis, probably some others have suited up over the last few seasons

Just to expand a little: Ryan Fowler actually had a breakout season on special teams last year for Dallas and signed a big contract (for a dukie) with the Titans worth $11+million over 4 years. Not bad...


I stand corrected guys about recent Duke NFL players. But I'm sure we'd all love to see a couple more ex-Duke football players. To make matters even worse I'm a Dallas fan and I forgot about Fowler.

[dukemomLA]

I LOVE football. BUT if Duke can't get it together to compete in the ACC, then let's fish or cut bait! Duke needs to give-its-all to this program or drop it. 0-12 seasons are NOT acceptable. A good kicker (who's coming) will help, but with no seasoned QB..... tough.

[Uncle Drew]

I LOVE football. BUT if Duke can't get it together to compete in the ACC, then let's fish or cut bait! Duke needs to give-its-all to this program or drop it. 0-12 seasons are NOT acceptable. A good kicker (who's coming) will help, but with no seasoned QB..... tough.


Okay I'm tired of 0-12 or even 1-11 seasons too, but are you saying drop football all together if they don't turn it around? I've heard the suggestion they drop a level where the opponents won't be as good. But I have to say this is the first I've heard of anyone saying to possibly drop football all together. I agree Duke needs to give its all to the program. But to me just dropping the sport totally is like running away with your tail between your legs. (Even worse than dropping a level IMO.)

Is that the over all sentiment of the average Duke fan? Has Duke football been such a source of shame some of us would rather do away with it than keep trying to fix it? Granted it will be a chore for years to come, but give up?

[Bob Green]

I LOVE football. BUT if Duke can't get it together to compete in the ACC, then let's fish or cut bait! Duke needs to give-its-all to this program or drop it. 0-12 seasons are NOT acceptable. A good kicker (who's coming) will help, but with no seasoned QB..... tough.

DukemomLA,

Wow! I'm not sure where you are coming from with this post? QB is one position that I am happy with heading into the season. Thad Lewis performed quite well as a true freshman and we have three seasons to look forward to him becoming better and better. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me!

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[throatybeard]

Guys who came here and then transferred have also made the NFL. Patrick just got drafted and I think Watson a year or two ago.

[jimsumner]

Duke is not even remotely considering dropping football or dropping down in football. Not an option.

You do realize that Duke would have to leave the ACC should Duke drop football? That will happen about the same time the Sun goes nova and reduces the planet to cinders.

[SilkyJ]

I stand corrected guys about recent Duke NFL players. But I'm sure we'd all love to see a couple more ex-Duke football players. To make matters even worse I'm a Dallas fan and I forgot about Fowler.

I agree. I am optimistic that Talley will make a roster. The guy holds a ton of duke records and a few ACC records. He's gotta land somewhere.

[Devildog]

It seems to me that we would have a better chance for success by utilizing either more option plays a la WFU or throwing the ball frequently for short quick hits to both backs and receivers as opposed to running a more traditional system. Personally I favor the passing choice as it may entice some skill players. I don't see us landing personnel consistently to allow us to go head to head but either of those schemes can improve your chances for success against stronger and deeper teams if you can land a few solid skill players.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

DukemomLA,

Wow! I'm not sure where you are coming from with this post? QB is one position that I am happy with heading into the season. Thad Lewis performed quite well as a true freshman and we have three seasons to look forward to him becoming better and better. If I'm missing something, please enlighten me!

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Don't forget that Zack Asack will also be back in the fall, and he was our freshman starting QB for the last half of 2005. He has a little rust to knock off, but we're starting the season with two experienced QBs.

We also have several quality running backs, most of whom played hurt for most of last year. If they can stay healthy it will take a lot of pressure off the QBs because defenses will have to respect the run first.

[SilkyJ]

Don't forget that Zack Asack will also be back in the fall, and he was our freshman starting QB for the last half of 2005. He has a little rust to knock off, but we're starting the season with two experienced QBs.

I agree we are much, MUCH better shape than we have been in a while at the QB position, but between Zack and Thad we have 1.5 seasons of experience, so I wouldnt say we are starting the season with two experienced QBs.

Although its going to be interesting to see who wins the starting job. Thad is a combo QB who can scramble, which is not something we have been used to in recent years. But apparently Zack is even faster than Thad, AND has a better arm (I really have no idea, this is what I am told). I really liked Thad last year, so if Zack is able to win the job from him then I'd be pretty excited about the upcoming year.

[mapei]

I remain endlessly impressed with the optimism of this board re Duke football. I am completely unable to share it, but it is indeed remarkable. May our wishes come true!

[Schleimer24]

I really think that what happens with Vince Oghobaase can lead to a transition period for Duke football. As has been stated in countless other posts and is known all too well, our recruiting often ranks at or near the bottom of the conference year after year. While recruiting 17-18 year olds is not an exact science (as we've seen with basketball), typically a poor recruiting class will lead to similar results on the field.

Getting back to Oghobaase, his success at Duke, and more importantly, status in the draft he decides to enter could swing things around. Think about it - what 5-star recruit would want to come to Duke if they ruin their draft prospects by playing for a perennial bottom feeder with little fanfare. I know that we like to make the "Academics" argument, but its not like Michigan, USC and Texas aren't strong academic schools with NFL pedigrees. If Oghobaase can prove that coming to Duke can gtet you drafted on Day 1 of the draft (and possibly in the 1st 2 rounds), this could be a strong recruiting tactic used by Roof or whomever is coaching this team when the time comes to lure top talent to Durham.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I remain endlessly impressed with the optimism of this board re Duke football. I am completely unable to share it, but it is indeed remarkable. May our wishes come true!

You are surprised that I am optimistic about Duke football? My, my. My sig says it all.

[mapei]

Ozzie, note my use of the word "impressed," not "surprised." It was carefully chosen. :)

[dukemomLA]

As a major sports fan, who loves most sports (except car racing -- cars going round and round-- who cares?). Anyway, as someone who follows BB, football, baseball, golf, Lax, real wrestling, skating, X-games, surfing, etc. etc. etc. PLEASE, I'd love thoughts about what we can do about Duke football.

It's reaching the point of absurdity. Thoughts: Should Duke abandon the sport (...it's an expensive sport and seems to bring derision). Is there a "fix" which can be accomplished with a 3-5 year span? Thoughts on TR as coach?

I'd love to hear ideas. I'm perplexed as to year after year we are no longer competitive on ANY level.

[Bob Green]

The number one problem with Duke Football over the past 41 years has been the number of coaching changes. Since 1965 (after William Murray lead the team to a 93-51-9 mark over 15 seasons), Duke has had nine head coaches with an average tenure of 4.6 seasons. The longest has been Mike McGee with eight seasons, while the shortest has been Steve Spurrier with three seasons. Of those nine coaches, eight have losing records. Steve Spurrier is the exception going 20-13-1 over three seasons:

Tom Harp (66-70) 22-28-1
Mike McGee (71-78) 37-47-1
Red Wilson (79-82) 16-27-1
Steve Sloan (83-86) 13-30-1
Steve Spurrier (87-89) 20-13-1
Barry Wilson (90-93) 13-30-1
Fred Goldsmith (94-98) 17-39
Carl Franks (99-03) 7-45
Ted Roof (03-??) Not doing so good to date

Therefore, we must believe in Ted Roof and give him the opportunity to succeed! I honestly believe that we are capable of winning four or five games this year. Hopefully more. The last thing Duke football needs is another change in leadership. Dropping football is out of the question because we will not quit! Ted Roof can lead our program to success. The recruits are coming into the program and success will follow.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[gus]

The number one problem with Duke Football over the past 41 years has been the number of coaching changes. Since 1965 (after William Murray lead the team to a 93-51-9 mark over 15 seasons), Duke has had nine head coaches with an average tenure of 4.6 seasons. The longest has been Mike McGee with eight seasons, while the shortest has been Steve Spurrier with three seasons. Of those nine coaches, eight have losing records. Steve Spurrier is the exception going 20-13-1 over three seasons:

Tom Harp (66-70) 22-28-1
Mike McGee (71-78) 37-47-1
Red Wilson (79-82) 16-27-1
Steve Sloan (83-86) 13-30-1
Steve Spurrier (87-89) 20-13-1
Barry Wilson (90-93) 13-30-1
Fred Goldsmith (94-98) 17-39
Carl Franks (99-03) 7-45
Ted Roof (03-??) Not doing so good to date

Therefore, we must believe in Ted Roof and give him the opportunity to succeed! I honestly believe that we are capable of winning four or five games this year. Hopefully more. The last thing Duke football needs is another change in leadership. Dropping football is out of the question because we will not quit! Ted Roof can lead our program to success. The recruits are coming into the program and success will follow.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

I agree with you (with reservation). I don't anticipate Duke ever returning to football glory, but stabilizing the head coaching position can at least help restore it to mediocrity.

Dropping the football program is not an option, as it is (iirc) a requirement for members of the ACC.

[Jarhead]

Thoughts: Should Duke abandon the sport (...it's an expensive sport and seems to bring derision). Is there a "fix" which can be accomplished with a 3-5 year span? Thoughts on TR as coach?

This board has discussed this topic too much. Should we abandon the sport? Not without also abandoning the ACC, a remarkable source of funds. That is an ACC rule. For the fix, read Bob Green's post. He nails it. I won't predict that Ted Roof is the answer, but he is the coach we have, he has not been given a fair chance, and he is a pretty good recruiter.

[CameronBlue]

TR HAS been given a fair chance, and irrespective of any measure of success he should have produced more wins than he has. Period. To say that he has not been given a fair chance is not accurate IMHO. It's just that when you talk Duke Football, most comparisons are inherently unfair, in other words, Duke Football has no peers. Fair Duke fans recognize the monumental challenge at hand for TR and so instead of treading in the venacular of elusive wins and losses, we've entered this sort of alternate reality where "success" is redefined, distorted and illusory--a hall of mirrors. The range of interpretation makes for some interesting threads and a lot of gallows humor as we watch the slow-motion wreck that is Duke Football; it's a god-awful mess. But one thing that does seem evident is that the turnover at the HC position has impacted the program as much as any other influence. We've had coaches--and not just Spurrier--who've won at Duke, and they were let go, either because they didn't fit the Duke image, or because they posed a PR challenge for the administration (Pressler, you weren't the first my friend.) So standing by TR is really our only option. Time for a little faith, um, a little more faith. Hopefully he can do the job.

[ikiru36]

This board has discussed this topic too much. Should we abandon the sport? Not without also abandoning the ACC, a remarkable source of funds. That is an ACC rule. For the fix, read Bob Green's post. He nails it. I won't predict that Ted Roof is the answer, but he is the coach we have, he has not been given a fair chance, and he is a pretty good recruiter.

I fully agree with Jarhead and Bob Green, with two caveats. While I both respect it and understand it is a money-making/visibility issue too, Duke's schedule seems to be getting, if anything, more difficult by the year. That's just to say that even with our own improvement, we're getting further and further from a Bowl contending team due to other teams improvements within the ACC and our increasingly challenging out of conference scheduling. While we should and must beat U Conn this year, there's nothing else approaching an easy game for even a decent team this year.

2007, after opening against U Conn:
Virginia
Northwestern
Navy
Miami
Wake Forest
Virginia Tech
Florida State
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Notre Dame
UNC

That's got to be one of the more difficult schedules in the nation!

That being said, both based on the importance of continuity and on Roof's off-field strengths (recruiting, facilities improvements, likeable, seemingly hard working and very dedicated to Duke, still stressing academics sufficiently...etc.), we must give him a bit more time.

Of course, continuity be damned, we really, really, REALLY do need a new special teams coach! ;0)

While I agree that 4 to 5+ games are winnable this year (look at Wake last year), I'd settle for 2-3 (and being competitive in quite a few more) as indicating sufficient improvement, given our schedule.

Given last year's red-shirting of a quality Freshman class, this is a very important year for the program to demonstrate whether it is at least able to be competitive when Roof fully has his own players. Give him that chance at least!

Go Coach Roof!!!! Go Gridiron Devils!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!

[RelativeWays]

If you want a way to help Duke football improve, here's a simple exercise you can engage in. If you live in the triangle area, buy a ticket and go to a game. We need to improve fan support. Once the AD sees that Duke fans do care about the team, this may prompt them to invest more attention to the team. Its the least we can do.

[SilkyJ]

If you want a way to help Duke football improve, here's a simple exercise you can engage in. If you live in the triangle area, buy a ticket and go to a game. We need to improve fan support. Once the AD sees that Duke fans do care about the team, this may prompt them to invest more attention to the team. Its the least we can do.

Absolutely true. The school had to instigate a mandatory end to tailgate the last couple of years b/c students would just skip the game to stay and drink more, which was ridiculous that they had to do that. Of course, I am just as guilty as anyone of doing that...but think about it, its a little chicken/egg: why do I wanna go sit in 100 degree weather when I know we're gonna lose anyway? Of course the entire undergrad is only 6,500, so we can make only so much of an impact...

LA Mom, you have got to stop bringing up cancelling the sport. It is NOT an option, nor will it be for quite some time. The last time Clemson won an ACC title in b-ball (regular season, which doesn't count, I know) was 1990...same time we last won the conference in football, and I don't think they are talking about cancelling the program. Also, I think that was the last time they made the field of 64...we made a bowl game in '95 at least...

Anyway, its beyond ridiculous to even suggest it

[Classof06]

This board has discussed this topic too much. Should we abandon the sport? Not without also abandoning the ACC, a remarkable source of funds. That is an ACC rule. For the fix, read Bob Green's post. He nails it. I won't predict that Ted Roof is the answer, but he is the coach we have, he has not been given a fair chance, and he is a pretty good recruiter.

I don't have any kind of vendetta against Roof, and I do believe he has some cards stacked against him, but if you can't win one game, you shouldn't be the coach. I'm sorry, that is just inexcusable IMHO, especially when you're playing I-AA opponents. University of Richmond should never beat Duke in football. Ever.

I do agree that changes in the head coaching spot have hurt the program, but I don't think Roof is the answer. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Duke currently has a head coach that is learning on the job. If you want to stick with him until the light bulb goes off and he figures it out, then that's cool. But at this point, I think the program needs to cough up the dough and get a big-time recruiting head coach to turn this thing around. My $0.02...

[RPS]

Since this thread seems to have been resurrected, I'll re-visit this unanswered post.
I think it's important to note that football and basketball are indeed, two very different sports, and can garner very different types of fans.I agree.


As for football, ehhh.Until my son, me too.


Crazies are awesome fans - BASKETBALL fans. Fans who are die-hard for cheering on a great football game each and every weekend probably aren't even putting Duke on their application list. To denigrate the Crazies because of this difference seems, well, silly.What we need aren't basketball fans. We need Duke fans. A Duke fan supports his/her team and his/her peers (if a student) period, especially since being a Duke football fan (but for the losing) is so much easier than being a Crazy -- many fewer games, all on Saturdays, no waiting (much less camping out), better weather, tailgating, etc. I blame locals for not attending more but the lack of student support is inexcusable as well as a very big (and underappreciated) drag on recruiting.

Being a Duke football player must be incredibly discouraging. A scholarship and a Duke education are terrific perks, but we need to offer more if we want to become competitive again in football. Fan support, especially among students, is one area where some very significant benefit can be had right away, especially with proper leadership among the Athletics Department and the students themselves. I really hope we get it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[unexpected]

Duke Pros:

New training facilities
ACC competition
great academics (for the kid who knows he's not going to the NFL)

Duke Cons:

constant losing
terrible stadium
lack of tradition
no solid, local fan base.
no national exposure
constant coaching turnover
more away fans than home fans (i exaggerate, but not by that much)
poor student attendance
will never be the BMOC (the bball players have that).
tough academic standards.


A lot of these suggestions seem to be circular propositions. We say we need to recruit better, but that'll happen when we win more. We can't win more unless we recruit better. We can't get national exposure unless we win more, and so forth.

I honestly think the easiest, positive change that Duke can make is in its philosophy. For as long as I can remember we've been running the same conservative offenses- the plays and sets that Florida State, Clemson, and Miami run.

If we had superior athletes, we could expect to win with these plays, but we don't. We have to admit that we're going to come into every game as the underdog, and that the other team is probably better than us. So how are we going to beat them? With our minds.

You could argue that with the tougher academic standards, the Duke Football team has a higher IQ than their opponents- so let's use that to our advantage. Let's run creative schemes, with trick plays - think Boise State/Texas Tech/Air Force - all teams that have had recent success.

We need to stop trying to win athletically, and start winning with hustle and brains. This is why I don't think Roof is a good fit. He seems to be a nice guy, and a decent recruiter, and I think he'd be a decent-good DC for a top-level program..but he's not a miracle worker.

We need a mad scientist, not the worker bee. Someone with a lot of personality that can attract attention to the team and is willing to be totally out of the box and think differently.

[Indoor66]

that we ought to emphasize our rich football history and traditions. I know that it is "ancient" history; but it is quite outstanding.

Duke has played in the Rose Bowl (twice - hosting it in Jan, 1942), the Orange Bowl (twice), the Sugar Bowl and most recently, the Cotton Bowl. How many schools can claim that? No others in the ACC. I am not sure which other schools have done this, if any (too lazy to research and not necessary to my point.)

We must be positive. I go to games when I am in the area. As others have said, we must be Duke fans - fans of all Duke sports. Those that are down need our backing more than any.

I believe we must sweat it out. Allow our coach to have a sufficient time to build the program. IMO, a change every 4 - 6 years can never be successful. It takes time to build a team and a winning mindset. Last year we had some great efforts. Let's build on that.

I think that Duke can succeed at football, again! Success might be defined by 6-5 and occasionally 7 - 4 or 8-3. We must be the support and fans that help to build to that success. OUR team needs a 12th man.

Next play.

[Capn Poptart]

A couple of posters have suggested that Duke get a coach who can recruit. To my mind, this has been one of Coach Roof's strongest points. When you look at our record over the past ten years (yeah, this phrase doesn't exactly bolster my argument), Roof's recruits have been at the low end of the ACC, but sometimes better, and our national recruiting rankings have been a real upgrade over the past two staffs. That's amazing to me. With our perpetual bottom-feeder position, I often find myself asking, "How the heck did he get THAT kid?" I never said that with Franks' recruits or Goldsmith's guys, who rarely seemed to have other decent offers (don't mean to insult those players, but that's my general impression).

I often ask myself, if Roof can recruit decent talent to 0-12 teams, I'd love to see what he could do on the recruiting trail if we ever won any games (of course, that's the rub).

This year, ACC champion Wake Forest's class was ranked 63rd by Scout.com. 0-12 Duke's class was ranked tied for 64th. So while recruiting could be better, I'd say this has been a relatively bright point for Coach Roof.

[JDSBlueDevl]

You can only stand by a guy with a pop-gun brain for so long. Either Roof develops a brain and cuts the conservative crap or he gets outta Dodge. Sticking with him would only make sense if he made adequate yearly progress, which he really hasn't yet.

[SoCalDukeFan]

It is ancient history.

Do you think a 17 year old recruit is going to be impressed because the Rose Bowl was held at Duke before his grandfather was born?

I agree that we have to be patient. I also think that Duke football got a bad break last year when the projected starting qb was suspended from school and the qbs with any experience had already transferred. Better special teams and we probably beat Wake (who went to the Rose Bowl) and UNC-CH.

Having said that, Roof must bear some of the blame. I don't understand why there were so many transfers. Was the right guy coaching special teams?

Basically I think that the team needs to show it in the win column this year for Roof to keep his job.

SoCal

[formerdukeathlete]

Duke Pros:

New training facilities
ACC competition
great academics (for the kid who knows he's not going to the NFL)

Duke Cons:

constant losing
terrible stadium
lack of tradition
no solid, local fan base.
no national exposure
constant coaching turnover
more away fans than home fans (i exaggerate, but not by that much)
poor student attendance
will never be the BMOC (the bball players have that).
tough academic standards.


A lot of these suggestions seem to be circular propositions. We say we need to recruit better, but that'll happen when we win more. We can't win more unless we recruit better. We can't get national exposure unless we win more, and so forth.

I honestly think the easiest, positive change that Duke can make is in its philosophy. For as long as I can remember we've been running the same conservative offenses- the plays and sets that Florida State, Clemson, and Miami run.

If we had superior athletes, we could expect to win with these plays, but we don't. We have to admit that we're going to come into every game as the underdog, and that the other team is probably better than us. So how are we going to beat them? With our minds.

You could argue that with the tougher academic standards, the Duke Football team has a higher IQ than their opponents- so let's use that to our advantage. Let's run creative schemes, with trick plays - think Boise State/Texas Tech/Air Force - all teams that have had recent success.

We need to stop trying to win athletically, and start winning with hustle and brains. This is why I don't think Roof is a good fit. He seems to be a nice guy, and a decent recruiter, and I think he'd be a decent-good DC for a top-level program..but he's not a miracle worker.

We need a mad scientist, not the worker bee. Someone with a lot of personality that can attract attention to the team and is willing to be totally out of the box and think differently.

I don't think attending Duke because of academics rules out or needs to rule out playing in the NFL. Playing in the ACC is excellent preparation, no matter at which school. On the other hand, deciding to play at Princeton, for example, pretty much discounts the probability of playing at the next level due to the lack of on the field competition in college.

Wade Stadium is in need of some serious help such as, for example, putting a building on the President's box side, and other renovations. It just does not look like a division 1 stadium. Re Stadium renovations I think "Build it and they (recruits and fans) will come (enroll at Duke and fans attend games)."

Re Roof, I think the reason he was hired was partly because he made no demands in terms of additional commitment by the University to the Football Program. Bring in a bigger name, and Duke is looking at needing to do more than pay someone $2 million a year.

Were I a Trustee, I would make the bigger commitment to Football, regardless of whether Roof is replaced. The alternative of a continuing slide may be Division 1-AA, leaving the ACC. Then the costs to the Universty, net-net, without ACC revenue sharing will be more, perhaps much more, than whatever deficit the Athletic Department runs now as a member of the ACC. Add the costs of scholarships (now paid by Iron Dukes) for students who would otherwise require financial aid (for example, many athletes of Division 1-AA schools attend on general financial aid) and leaving the ACC because of inept Football costs much more.

[Highlander]

Let me start off by saying I like Roof. I think he is a great motivator, a good family man, and cares deeply about the team.

However, he isn't hired to be a great guy or dad; he was hired to win football games. The past two years we have failed to win a single game against D1-A teams. Last year was especially tough in that we had some winnable games early that we were either completely unprepared for (Richmond) or let slip away due to poor execution in the clutch (Wake). Win one or both, and I'm looking forward to this season rather than dreading it.

Over the past two seasons, I have been willing to cut him some slack. His cupboard was bare, and it takes years to build up a decent stable. Roof now has his guys in the system, as members of his first recruiting class are now either redshirt sophs or juniors. He has two starting quarterbacks with a full season of experience under their belts. He also lost very few upperclassmen, so most starters are back. We actually redshirted players last year for the first time in I don't know how long. In short, the pieces are all there, and we get to see whether Roof can put them together.

Failure to show improvement this year should doom Roof, because if it doesn't it will doom our recruiting. The "come here and be the start of something" line only works for awhile. Once people see you're not building anything, they stop listening. What makes it even more difficult is our brutal schedule this year. I'm all for maintaining consistency at the helm, but not for maintaining consistently bad.

We've all given Roof ample time to put something together, and this year he has all the pieces he needs to do so. I hope he can do it, but if we go winless again this season, I'm done hoping he can.

[hughgs]

... I'm sorry, that is just inexcusable IMHO, especially when you're playing I-AA opponents. University of Richmond should never beat Duke in football. Ever.

Why is it true that Duke should never be beaten by a I-AA football opponent? Are you trying to say that Marshall, at the height of their I-AA glory, shouldn't be able to beat Duke? Especially, given that most people here would settle for Duke to be a mediocre I-A football team? What's your basis for this argument?

[SilkyJ]

Why is it true that Duke should never be beaten by a I-AA football opponent? Are you trying to say that Marshall, at the height of their I-AA glory, shouldn't be able to beat Duke? Especially, given that most people here would settle for Duke to be a mediocre I-A football team? What's your basis for this argument?

The caliber of players that play 1-AA is well below the quality of players at the 1-A level. Marshall was certainly an exception to the rule at the time, but in general, the overwhelming majority of players who go to 1-AA schools are less talented than those that play 1-A. Its also true that many (not all) 1-AA players simply could not earn a scholarship to a 1-A school.

[hughgs]

The caliber of players that play 1-AA is well below the quality of players at the 1-A level. Marshall was certainly an exception to the rule at the time, but in general, the overwhelming majority of players who go to 1-AA schools are less talented than those that play 1-A. Its also true that many (not all) 1-AA players simply could not earn a scholarship to a 1-A school.

That's all well and good, but your statement does nothing to address the quality of the teams that play I-AA. Are you saying that because the majority of players are less skilled (which I'm willing to grant) that therefore the majority of teams should be less talented? If so, then you've nothing to address the statement that ALL I-AA teams should be less talented than Duke.

Like everyone else I think you underestimate the abilities of the I-AA teams by making these types of statements. Here's an idea, how about looking at some unbiased rating and comparing the top I-AA schools with the worst BCS team. I'd be more willing to listen to your argument if you would include some measure of the talent of the team rather than some average talent of individuals.

[mapei]

As a general rule, most 1-A teams beat most 1-AA teams the vast majority of the time. Everybody knows that, and one can probably look it up. To try to make a finer point about the distinction between the two divisions than than that is to miss the real point and argue a tangent.

What I'd like to know - as a very casual fan when it comes to Duke sports other than basketball - is why people have so much confidence in a winless coach? Did he have success at a smaller college before coming to Duke? Was he a successful assistant at a big-time program? I'm not being rhetorical; I honestly don't know and am curious. So many people are saying that he deserves time: what is it in his football history (other than being a good family man) that merits this level of confidence?

[SilkyJ]

That's all well and good, but your statement does nothing to address the quality of the teams that play I-AA. Are you saying that because the majority of players are less skilled (which I'm willing to grant) that therefore the majority of teams should be less talented? If so, then you've nothing to address the statement that ALL I-AA teams should be less talented than Duke.


Was that a serious question? Yes, teams with more talent are generally better.

I think the superlative of "never should lose" is just used as a figure of speech. So no, not ALL 1-AA teams are less talented than EVERY 1-A team, EVERY Year. But each year the overwhelming majority of 1-A teams could beat EVERY 1-AA team.

If you don't know that you just don't know much about college football. You can look up the stats if you want, its a waste of my time.

[hughgs]

Was that a serious question? Yes, teams with more talent are generally better.

I think the superlative of "never should lose" is just used as a figure of speech. So no, not ALL 1-AA teams are less talented than EVERY 1-A team, EVERY Year. But each year the overwhelming majority of 1-A teams could beat EVERY 1-AA team.

If you don't know that you just don't know much about college football. You can look up the stats if you want, its a waste of my time.

The question you highlighted was a semi-serious question. I was trying to make sure I understood your point. To that end, then, you can use individual statistics all you like but it doesn't say anything about how the team performs. If it did, then we could simply rate each of the players and never have to play the game.

I'm addressing the statement that Duke should never lose to Richmond (and by extension any I-AA squad). I think you're stuck in the same trap that I mentioned above. While it would make sense that the majority of I-A teams could beat ALL 1-AA teams you have yet to show anyone that it is true. All you've done is posted your belief as if it was fact. And, that's fine if you don't want to look up the facts to verify your beliefs. However, I don't think it's fair that you should get to post things as facts just because you believe them.

[hughgs]

As a general rule, most 1-A teams beat most 1-AA teams the vast majority of the time. Everybody knows that, and one can probably look it up. To try to make a finer point about the distinction between the two divisions than than that is to miss the real point and argue a tangent.

What I'd like to know - as a very casual fan when it comes to Duke sports other than basketball - is why people have so much confidence in a winless coach? Did he have success at a smaller college before coming to Duke? Was he a successful assistant at a big-time program? I'm not being rhetorical; I honestly don't know and am curious. So many people are saying that he deserves time: what is it in his football history (other than being a good family man) that merits this level of confidence?

I agree that the majority of I-A squads should beat the majority of I-AA squads. However, one of the major reasons given by Classof06 for firing Roof is that he lost to Richmond. He didn't make it as a tangential statement, it's the primary example. My question, and I brought this up last year, is why should Duke be expected to beat every I-AA teams they face? The thing that people forget is that Richmond was a very good I-AA squad last year. They were pre-season top 10 and I believe they made the play-offs (though I willing to retract that).

As for people's confidence in Roof, I suspect that it's more of a glass half-full mentality versus a glass half-empty mentality. People are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for his first five full years. What I find interesting and amusing is the difference between those people who want a quick fix and those who are willing to wait. "We haven't won a game, we need to give him more time, etc." No movement between the sides and lots of repetition in the arguments.

[SilkyJ]

I'm addressing the statement that Duke should never lose to Richmond (and by extension any I-AA squad). I think you're stuck in the same trap that I mentioned above. While it would make sense that the majority of I-A teams could beat ALL 1-AA teams you have yet to show anyone that it is true. All you've done is posted your belief as if it was fact. And, that's fine if you don't want to look up the facts to verify your beliefs. However, I don't think it's fair that you should get to post things as facts just because you believe them.

Your knowledge of college football is clearly limited, which is why so few people are even addressing your post.

Life isn't fair.

[Chard]

Duke has played in the Rose Bowl (twice - hosting it in Jan, 1942), the Orange Bowl (twice), the Sugar Bowl and most recently, the Cotton Bowl. How many schools can claim that? No others in the ACC. I am not sure which other schools have done this, if any (too lazy to research and not necessary to my point.)


Not so fast my friend!

Duke is the only ACC team to play in the Rose Bowl twice. However, they are not the only ACC team to play there and in the other bowls that you referenced. Miami defeated Nebraska 37 - 14 during the January 3, 2002 Rose Bowl. Miami has also played in the 1991 Cotton Bowl defeating Texas 46 - 3. They have played in the Orange Bowl 9 times and the Sugar Bowl 4 times.

Georgia Tech is the only other ACC team to play in the Rose Bowl. They defeated California by the score of 8 - 7.


Why is it true that Duke should never be beaten by an I-AA football opponent? Are you trying to say that Marshall, at the height of their I-AA glory, shouldn't be able to beat Duke? Especially, given that most people here would settle for Duke to be a mediocre I-A football team? What's your basis for this argument?

Regarding the I-A and I-AA argument: There isn't an I-AA anymore. It is now I-A Bowl and I-A Championship subdivisions. That is an entirely different conversation.


The caliber of players that play 1-AA is well below the quality of players at the 1-A level. Marshall was certainly an exception to the rule at the time, but in general, the overwhelming majority of players who go to 1-AA schools are less talented than those that play 1-A. Its also true that many (not all) 1-AA players simply could not earn a scholarship to a 1-A school.

Marshall, Marshall, Marshall. What about App State the past two years? What about Montana or UMass from last year?

The "caliber" of players at the Championship subdivision isn't so far below the quality of Bowl subdivision players as you may think. I wouldn't agree with the assumption that those Bowl subdivision players are more talented either unless size is a talent. Size is what hurts a lot of Championship subdivision player when college recruiters are looking them at. Most of the skill players go to the Bowl subdivision schools. They get most of the press and exposure. Also, there is a scholarship advantage for the Bowl Subdivision teams. I do agree that most Bowl subdivision schools will defeat Championship subdivision school but not just because of a lack of talent.

Now regarding the current state of Duke football.

I see a lot of dread, gloom and doom regarding Duke football. It is a tough thing to watch your team dwell at the bottom for so long. There is a comparison that may give you a bit of faith. I'll let you decide how this story favors some of the opinions expressed in this thread.

http://tinyurl.com/34eng6

The current situation of Duke football is not unique. One of the current members of the ACC went through just such a situation. It is completely possible to have success at Duke. There just needs to be an attitude adjustment on many levels.



Your knowledge of college football is clearly limited, which is why so few people are even addressing your post.

Life isn't fair.

That's not very nice.

[RPS]

I agree that the majority of I-A squads should beat the majority of I-AA squads. However, one of the major reasons given by Classof06 for firing Roof is that he lost to Richmond. He didn't make it as a tangential statement, it's the primary example. My question, and I brought this up last year, is why should Duke be expected to beat every I-AA teams they face?So we're clear, what used to be I-AA has been renamed the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (still I-AA for short). Those teams may give up to 63 scholarships (vs. I-A's 85), though some do not (e.g., the Ivies). The last time I saw some stats, I-A teams won over 90% of games vs. I-AA opponents, but I'm not aware of any available compilation. Note, though, that I-A wins vs. I-AA teams don't count toward bowl eligibility. Of course, it's big news when a BCS team loses to a I-AA school (e.g., Colorado losing to Montana State last year).


The thing that people forget is that Richmond was a very good I-AA squad last year. They were pre-season top 10 and I believe they made the play-offs (though I willing to retract that).Richmond finished 6-5 in 2006, 3-5 in league play and did not make the play-offs. The Spiders lost to New Hampshire, Delaware, James Madison, Villanova and Towson. See here (http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/rich/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/cumulative-stats).

[Indoor66]

[QUOTE=Chard;23939]Not so fast my friend!

Duke is the only ACC team to play in the Rose Bowl twice. However, they are not the only ACC team to play there and in the other bowls that you referenced. Miami defeated Nebraska 37 - 14 during the January 3, 2002 Rose Bowl. Miami has also played in the 1991 Cotton Bowl defeating Texas 46 - 3. They have played in the Orange Bowl 9 times and the Sugar Bowl 4 times.

Georgia Tech is the only other ACC team to play in the Rose Bowl. They defeated California by the score of 8 - 7.



Point taken. I am so old I have a hard time including Miami in my ACC football thinking. My apologies to my neighbors to the south in Coral Gables.

[throatybeard]

Say what you will about Sagarin, but we've he's ranked us below as many as 20-25 I-AA teams at times. There are usually at least ten or so above us by late in the season as we approach 0-for or 1-for the year. (2003 excluded).

[Chard]

"Point taken. I am so old I have a hard time including Miami in my ACC football thinking. My apologies to my neighbors to the south in Coral Gables"

Your point was taken as well. Duke should capitalize on the tradition it has. Just because it is down now doesn't mean it can't rise again. This should be hammered home to the Iron Dukes. The boosters need to get behind this. I fear they won't unless Roff starts winning or he is ousted. He has one more year at least. There are six possible W's in the 2007 schedule. That is good enough for a bowl.

[mapei]

What was Roof's background before becoming HC at Duke? Was he a head coach at a smaller school? Assistant at a BCS school?

I think people would be more willing to give him five years to build a winning program if he could win at least five games - heck, three games - in his first two years. And, if he isn't part of the problem, that's even more depressing. I agree that it's not practical to shut the program down or change divisions, given the importance of the ACC, but I wish we could.

[gvtucker]

What was Roof's background before becoming HC at Duke? Was he a head coach at a smaller school? Assistant at a BCS school?

I think people would be more willing to give him five years to build a winning program if he could win at least five games - heck, three games - in his first two years. And, if he isn't part of the problem, that's even more depressing. I agree that it's not practical to shut the program down or change divisions, given the importance of the ACC, but I wish we could.

Immediately prior to being the head coach and interim head coach at Duke, Ted was the DC at Duke. Most people felt that Duke was supremely lucky to get Ted as DC. Previous to Duke, he was the DC at Georgia Tech. The head coach at Tech, George O'Leary, was hired as HC at Notre Dame, and he hired Roof to be DC at Notre Dame. O'Leary was fired as HC before he ever coached a game because he was found to have lied on his resume. That left Roof without a job. Duke scooped him up.

[Classof06]

Why is it true that Duke should never be beaten by a I-AA football opponent? Are you trying to say that Marshall, at the height of their I-AA glory, shouldn't be able to beat Duke? Especially, given that most people here would settle for Duke to be a mediocre I-A football team? What's your basis for this argument?

I'm not here to talk about Marshall at its height, in fact Marshall is no longer a I-AA school; I'm sure that had something to do with the talent level of the players or the amount of money going into the program. That's my point. I-A schools get better recruits, have better facilities, have more cash going into their program than I-AA schools. I think we all agree that in sports, money often equals success. If I-AA kids were supposed to be as good as I-A kids, they'd be going to I-A schools, getting scholarships, not getting half scholarships at schools you or I have never even heard of.

Furthermore, not only is Duke a I-A team, they're in a power conference; that nickname didn't come from nowhere. We're not in the MAC or in the Big Sky conference. Being in this conference means your players should be playing at a certain level; and yes, that level is, or should be, above that of I-AA players. Whether you agree or not, to most people Richmond beating Duke says more about Duke than it does Richmond. If Duke lost to San Jose State last December, would you say "Wow, look out of SJSU in March Madness" or "Wow, Duke is going to suck this year"? Though I'll concede CBB is different from CFB, I'm guessing most people on these boards would pick the latter statement.

All the props in the world to Richmond, but I-AA football teams should not be beating I-A teams, especially on the I-A team's field. Not a chance. I have nothing against I-AA football, and if they do win, then I think that's great, but they make divisions for a reason.

[mapei]

Thanks, gv. I just didn't know the history.

[hughgs]

So we're clear, what used to be I-AA has been renamed the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (still I-AA for short). Those teams may give up to 63 scholarships (vs. I-A's 85), though some do not (e.g., the Ivies). The last time I saw some stats, I-A teams won over 90% of games vs. I-AA opponents, but I'm not aware of any available compilation. Note, though, that I-A wins vs. I-AA teams don't count toward bowl eligibility. Of course, it's big news when a BCS team loses to a I-AA school (e.g., Colorado losing to Montana State last year).

Richmond finished 6-5 in 2006, 3-5 in league play and did not make the play-offs. The Spiders lost to New Hampshire, Delaware, James Madison, Villanova and Towson. See here (http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/rich/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/cumulative-stats).

Thanks for the update on the Spiders. I definitely remembered they were quite highly ranked at the beginning of the year, but couldn't quite remember if they made the playoffs.

The rest I knew but didn't include since that wasn't the point of the post.

[hughgs]

Your knowledge of college football is clearly limited, which is why so few people are even addressing your post.

Life isn't fair.

So, rather than address my points you personally attack me as having limited knowledge of college football. And I have limited knowledge because I don't take your opinion, and as long as you don't give any supporting data it is opinion, as God given fact? Do you debate everyone like that, or just people who ask you for data to support your opinions?

So, do us a favor and provide some data as to why Duke should never lose to a I-AA team. And leave your personal opinions out of it.

[hughgs]

Not so fast my friend!

Regarding the I-A and I-AA argument: There isn't an I-AA anymore. It is now I-A Bowl and I-A Championship subdivisions. That is an entirely different conversation.


I actually knew that, but I'm too lazy and old to switch from I-AA to I-A Championship. More typing and doesn't really change the point. If you're making a point about the exactness in my posts then your point is taken and you are correct to point it out. However, I will say that it doesn't change the argument.

Heck, I still say "side-out" versus "point" in volleyball. Let the scorer keep track of things :)

[mapei]

hughgs, suppose the poster you're feuding with was using "never" in a rhetorical sense. And if he had used more precise and literal language, he might have said "rarely," or, "it's particularly embarrassing to lose to a I-AA team because good football programs almost never do." Would that satisfy you?

That's certainly the way I took it. I grant people a certain leeway in the way they phrase things to make a point. I don't think his real point was "never" in a literal sense, and I don't understand why it bothers you so much.

[The Dude]

Just wanted to jump in and clear up a few minor things about the subdivisions in Division I football.


Regarding the I-A and I-AA argument: There isn't an I-AA anymore. It is now I-A Bowl and I-A Championship subdivisions. That is an entirely different conversation.

The "A's" have been entirely dropped. It's now Division I-FBS (football bowl subdivision) and Division I-FCS (football championship subdivision).


Note, though, that I-A wins vs. I-AA teams don't count toward bowl eligibility.

The previous rule was that a I-A could only count a win over a I-AA team every 4 years. A few years ago, the NCAA changed the rule so that a FBS team could count a win over an FCS team every year. This is the reason you are seeing a lot more FBS v. FCS games than you have in the past.

I know these are minor points, but I just wanted to make sure that we Dukies are informed of these things.

[hughgs]

hughgs, suppose the poster you're feuding with was using "never" in a rhetorical sense. And if he had used more precise and literal language, he might have said "rarely," or, "it's particularly embarrassing to lose to a I-AA team because good football programs almost never do." Would that satisfy you?

That's certainly the way I took it. I grant people a certain leeway in the way they phrase things to make a point. I don't think his real point was "never" in a literal sense, and I don't understand why it bothers you so much.

In the way of clarification, I'm not actually feuding with the person who made the original post, ClassOf06, rather with another poster.

That said, I have no problem with your statement. My problem with viewing the original posting by ClassOf06 as rhetorical is that the statement sounds elitist. "We're a I-A squad and should never lose to a I-AA squad" is similar, to me, to the statement "Duke is a tougher school to get into and is therefore better than school X". I have a hard time letting statements like that go.

As for whether ClassOf06 meant his posting as rhetorical we'll never know since he never responded to my questioning of his statement. If he had simply said that he was being rhetorical then none of this would've occurred. The majority of this sub-thread are responses to SilkyJ and his thoughts. And given the number of times I've asked for clarification of his remarks I don't think that he believes them to be rhetorical.

[throatybeard]

I think in casual discussion, people are going to keep calling them IA and IAA instead of using the clunky new designations.

[ikiru36]

So we're clear, what used to be I-AA has been renamed the NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (still I-AA for short). Those teams may give up to 63 scholarships (vs. I-A's 85), though some do not (e.g., the Ivies). The last time I saw some stats, I-A teams won over 90% of games vs. I-AA opponents, but I'm not aware of any available compilation. Note, though, that I-A wins vs. I-AA teams don't count toward bowl eligibility. Of course, it's big news when a BCS team loses to a I-AA school (e.g., Colorado losing to Montana State last year).

Richmond finished 6-5 in 2006, 3-5 in league play and did not make the play-offs. The Spiders lost to New Hampshire, Delaware, James Madison, Villanova and Towson. See here (http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/rich/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/cumulative-stats).

Perhaps they became overconfident after beating a D-I/Championship Division/blahblahblah squad?! ;0)

[Chard]

Just wanted to jump in and clear up a few minor things about the subdivisions in Division I football.



The "A's" have been entirely dropped. It's now Division I-FBS (football bowl subdivision) and Division I-FCS (football championship subdivision).



The previous rule was that a I-A could only count a win over a I-AA team every 4 years. A few years ago, the NCAA changed the rule so that a FBS team could count a win over an FCS team every year. This is the reason you are seeing a lot more FBS v. FCS games than you have in the past.

I know these are minor points, but I just wanted to make sure that we Dukies are informed of these things.

What were you thinking?

[SilkyJ]

So, rather than address my points you personally attack me as having limited knowledge of college football. And I have limited knowledge because I don't take your opinion, and as long as you don't give any supporting data it is opinion, as God given fact? Do you debate everyone like that, or just people who ask you for data to support your opinions?

So, do us a favor and provide some data as to why Duke should never lose to a I-AA team. And leave your personal opinions out of it.

you are the only one asking for data because, I hope, you are the only one who doesn't understand why 1-A teams are so much better than 1-AA teams. So I would be doing YOU a favor. Anyway, I did ask a friend who played for UPenn in the last couple years (a 1-AA school or whatever the official name is) about this and he sent me an email with the below link and claims that the BCS conferences were 42-4 against 1-AA teams this year, and he claimed that was considered a remarkable accomplishment for the 1-AA schools. I didn't have the time to look at it, but he says its in there somewhere.

He also laughed when I told him about this conversation, which, as of now, I am no longer participating in.

http://lsuphootball.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/which-college-football-conference-is-best/

[hughgs]

you are the only one asking for data because, I hope, you are the only one who doesn't understand why 1-A teams are so much better than 1-AA teams. So I would be doing YOU a favor. Anyway, I did ask a friend who played for UPenn in the last couple years (a 1-AA school or whatever the official name is) about this and he sent me an email with the below link and claims that the BCS conferences were 42-4 against 1-AA teams this year, and he claimed that was considered a remarkable accomplishment for the 1-AA schools. I didn't have the time to look at it, but he says its in there somewhere.

He also laughed when I told him about this conversation, which, as of now, I am no longer participating in.

http://lsuphootball.wordpress.com/2006/11/30/which-college-football-conference-is-best/

No, I didn't ask for data because of my understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of I-A versus I-AA. I asked for data because you made an unsubstantiated statement that was purely based on your belief of the relative strengths of I-A versus I-AA. You made the statement so it's incumbent on you to show us why you're right. The fact that you know someone else who agrees with you is immaterial to this conversation. Wow, what a surprise two people on the planet have the same opinion.

Since, you obviously can't understand the difference between your opinion and the presentation of facts to back up your opinion, I agree it would be useless for you to continue in this conversation.

[g4orce]

First, let me say that I haven't read all the posts here b/c of time, so if I repeat something that someone has already said, please forgive me.

I've been a long time fan, first attending games w/my father back in the 70's (when we still had bleachers above/behind the stadium wall), and something that continually comes to my mind is - where's the swagger?

My daughter has just learned to walk, but you can just see the joy in her eyes as she runs through the house - forgetting all the times that she falls, stumbles, etc... She still gets up and walks.

Compare that to our beloved fball team: For whatever reason, it seems that they always (well, the last 12 years or so) come out playing not to lose. They seem to carry the weight of the last game (or last several years) as baggage that they cannot forget. What does K say: NEXT PLAY.

They go out there and let one bad play become several bad plays and, VOILA, the game is done and we've lost again. Case in point was Richmond last year. EVERYONE expected them to win to the point that I believe that they had psyched themselves out. When Richmond made several good plays in a row, we just gave up.

I don't think Roof is a give-up kind of guy, so where is this coming from? Well, aside from internal haunts, it is the fan support. I HATE showing up to a game and finding thousands of empty seats all around the stadium. It is depressing. I compare it to being a child in a play or a recital: You get all excited and jazzed and then your parents or family or friends don't show up. No matter how well you do, you can't shake that feeling, which ultimately takes your mind off of the subject at hand.

And another thing, give Roof a break: No one wanted this job, so stop dreaming about some huge name being drawn to the campus and breathing life into the team through Top 5 recruiting overnight. It is gonna take hard work. Period. Who would want to leave a top program to start all over? Seriously??? Do you think K rebuilt the bball program overnight? It only takes a small # of players to rebuild a bball team, but several handfuls to do so for a fball team. Roof is bringing in good players who will develop and, in turn will win games. Just give them time. The key players we've brought in are having to play as true freshmen or sophs against experienced seniors and red-shirt seniors. No matter how great you are coming in, a freshmen or soph starter will lose that battle. Plus, we've had more than our fair share of injuries with little or no depth to back those positions up. It is gonna take time.

Lastly, fix the stadium! As much money that has been spent on campus for buildings and repairs, "sow" some love into fball. The Yoh bldg was a good start, but there is more that needs to be done. We've got the space and resources, so do it. Fashion it like Soldier Field, but in the Neo-Gothic fashion of the univ and people will come in droves just to see the place. More fans = more $$$ and more success, not just on the field but in recruiting as well. It is a perpetual cycle.

Then we will have to have the $$$ to keep Roof here. You heard it here first. ;)

[RPS]

An interesting blog piece on college football and academic standards, particularly as they relate to Stanford and Cal ("Feeling Bad for Stanford") is available here (http://www.thebandisoutonthefield.com/).

[killerleft]

If I remember correctly, hasn't it been stated on the board before that Duke was the only Big Four School that hadn't been beaten by a member of the Division Formally Known As 1-AA until the Richmond game?

[killerleft]

LOL-Formerly?

[NYC Duke Fan]

I have 2 questions regarding the up-coming football schedule.

1- In schedling 12 games, why does Duke play 5 home games and 7 road games instead of 6 and 6 ?

2- Why would Duke who is struggling big time, schedule 4 road games in a row to begin the season after its initial home opener against UConn? That means after the UConn game Duke's remaining schedule is 4 home games and 7 road games.Coach Roof will certainly have his work cut out for him in trying to keep his job.

[unexpected]

Duke plays more road games, because it can probably earn more money. Big-name teams will give lots of money to have bad teams come to their stadiums and play.

As a team, Duke can probably earn more money playing a road game at a big name school than scheduling a home game with some bad Division I-AA team.

Couple with the fact that the road games helps us get more exposure (better time, gets Duke's name out there for the coaching vacancy that's going to be there next year).

[OrangeDevil]

I am a longtime reader, but this is my first posting. I would like to begin by offering some general ruminations about the core of the problem that is Duke football and then suggest three practical possibilities for improvement, assuming that the powers that be truly desire a competitive program.

Why is Duke football so horrendous. Why has it submerged to the depths of utter embarrassment and ineptitude that now invites rampant jokes? A variety of reciprocating factors serve to exacerbate the problems but ultimately, it starts at the top, meaning the Duke administration.

It is rather absurd to allege, as some on this board have done, that "the administration wants us to lose." But let me suggest alternately that a question that may have been broached, at least implicitly, within Duke's inner councils, (perhaps even prior to the time of the football driven ACC expansion) is this: at what cost victory? Does Duke want to take the requisite risk and accept the problems that come with attempting to field a nationally competitive football team? And, to be sure, to be competitive in ACC caliber football means being nationally competitive as well. I suspect the answer to this question is "no." And to repeat, this does not mean a desire to lose, but rather a goal of mediocrity that results from a chosen policy of benign neglect. If this is so, then what concerns and considerations were given priority? It is the institutional standards, academic, but also those of self-image that the university wants to protect and preserve.

I don't think I have to remind anyone on this board that over the past 30 or so years, Duke has markedly elevated its already established academic prestige to even loftier heights and become one of the truly great universities not only of the US but internationally as well. Might this be adulterated or even squandered by a headlong attempt to compete with the Miamis, Florida States, Virginia Techs, and the other conferences where the football tail wags the academic dog? Big time football means increased risk: academic standards risk abrogation; cases of academic fraud and cheating tend to occur more frequently. And this is to say nothing about the increased possibility of campus crime, including violent crime. The problem here is primarily one of numbers, not that football players are more prone to these behaviors. To field a truly competitive Division I team, numbers are critical. And the supervision of 95-100 young men, with much free time, and in some cases, a less than stellar commitment to the rigors of academic life, becomes difficult if well nigh impossible.

Is such a concern likely to become manifest and tarnish Duke's well-polished and well-earned reputation? In the minds of some Duke officials, it probably already has with the lacrosse affair. This resembles the concern and scenario I've just laid out. Large numbers of young men with much unsupervised free time find themselves in a situation to be accused and maligned in a way that brings allegations and embarrassment upon not only themselves but the university. And, make no doubt about it, for many of those who rushed to believe the accusations, the real target was not the three players, or even the lacrosse program, but "Duke" itself.

That this episode occurred probably did not come as an absolute surprise to some officials at Duke who were predisposed to believe such allegations. But they probably assumed that if it did happen, it was likely to involve the football players. But this episode may have reaffirmed their worst fears. After all, the lacrosse players were good, even excellent, students from good homes and prep school backgrounds. Their problem was unsupervised time and a surfeit of disposable income. What might ensue if 100 footballers from public high schools, broken homes, of scant academic discipline, and without adequate financial resources, were brought to Duke?

I suspect this is part of the mentality that must be addressed and overcome if Duke is going to restore any sense of competitive integrity to its football program. It starts at the top and there has been little indication to date that those at the top want to allow Duke football to alter the institutional culture or jeopardize a prized academic reputation. But these risks are inflated and obsessive. The football program can and should be reflective of the larger institution. And it can do so and be competitive.

I have three practical possibilities for improvement that I will suggest in a new posting.

[Uncle Drew]

Orange,


Just an added history note to what you already stated in your first post that you and other Duke fans may not be aware of. In the 30's and 40's Duke was a powerhouse in football. Yes I know it sounds like an oxymoron to mention Duke and powerhouse in the same breath. But at the time they were THE athletic school in North Carolina and one of the best in the south. The Iron Dukes take their name from a team that went undefeated and unscored on an entire regular season. (Losing the Rose Bowl in the last 20 something seconds of the game.) Granted they were wearing leather helmets at the time and the forward pass was still a novelty. But Duke does have a football tradition.
I agree with your accessment Duke may have a win at what cost philosophy and I submit that thinking goes back a lot farther than 30 years. I don't know the years and exact details, and this may have even occured when Duke was still Trinity College. But there was a scandal about players possibly recieving special treatment / money way back when. It was at this time the powers that be decided to dedicate Duke to accademics 1st and athletics 2nd or even 3rd. They may have even suspended the football program for a while if memory serves me correct. (I wasn't alive, just remember learning about if from my dad.) This scandal may have been the foundation of Dukes great accademic standards, but it also may have been the foundation for the mindset you describe today. Great initial post, it will be intresting to see your ideas for solution since you clearly have put a lot of thought into this.

[cspan37421]

OrangeDevil,

Kudos on a thoughtul post and an excellent vocabulary (a cynic might say "use of SAT words").

I see the point you're making, and I could be totally wrong, but I don't have the impression that we're holding back our football recruiting any more than Wake Forest, Notre Dame, Stanford, etc. If you're academically decent and a football talent, why choose Duke over those? [because you like basketball too! And gothic wonderlands...]. The supply of football talent that can also succeed at such schools might be quite limited, and when it comes to competing for those kids, maybe we've been the runt of the litter.

Although I wonder about how hard it is to succeed at Duke nowadays. According to a Duke Mag article from way back (and I have no reason to believe the facts have changed much) you've got massive grade inflation and more than a few majors that give out As and Bs for nearly all grades. If that is still true, what is the concern about football players - or anyone - succeeding once they're admitted? Duke has becoming like Harvard in another way - the hardest part is getting in.

[captmojo]

I'm not going to imply that Duke should drop standards to this level, but I can imagine what might go through a football recruit's mind when he stands down on the sidelines at Clemson, looking up at the Tigers jumping and rubbing that dumb rock. Then the gun fires with 80,000 going nuts in the stands and the team flies down that hill. This kind of pageantry is a spectacle that has few equals.

Might this kid stand in awe and tell himself that this is exactly what he wants for himself? I contend that this kind of hype is what makes recruiting easiest. If the nation's best talent line up to get in, you can pick and chose what you want. Maybe the refurbishment of Wallace Wade can be a step in this direction.

[cspan37421]

I too await OrangeDevil's suggestions. But I am skeptical that pregame pageantry or nice stadiums draw recruits. I would not be surprised if the lack of them can hurt, though. But there are so many big time programs out there with those things that I doubt kids pick based on that.

I would make a SWAG that among the top criteria would be a quality coach, a program that will be on TV, a program that is in a place you'd like to live for awhile, and just maybe a place that can prepare you for the next level.

A coach on the hot seat, a noticably inferior stadium, a total lack of excitement and support among fans - I can see how those can hurt you. But I don't think you have to be the best on those counts. You just have to avoid being an outlier on the down side. JMO.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I am a longtime reader, but this is my first posting.

Large numbers of young men with much unsupervised free time find themselves in a situation to be accused and maligned in a way that brings allegations and embarrassment upon not only themselves but the university.

That this episode occurred probably did not come as an absolute surprise to some officials at Duke who were predisposed to believe such allegations. But they probably assumed that if it did happen, it was likely to involve the football players. But this episode may have reaffirmed their worst fears. After all, the lacrosse players were good, even excellent, students from good homes and prep school backgrounds. Their problem was unsupervised time and a surfeit of disposable income. What might ensue if 100 footballers from public high schools, broken homes, of scant academic discipline, and without adequate financial resources, were brought to Duke?

I suspect this is part of the mentality that must be addressed and overcome if Duke is going to restore any sense of competitive integrity to its football program. It starts at the top and there has been little indication to date that those at the top want to allow Duke football to alter the institutional culture or jeopardize a prized academic reputation.

Welcome to the board. An excellent first post and I three anxiously await your proposed solutions. Feel free to use as many "SAT words" as you like; most of us know what they mean ;)

As to the quotes I highlighted above, the "unsupervised time and surfeit of disposable income" sounds like most of the general population of Duke undergrads, or Harvard undergrads, or Yale undergrads, or unc undergrads or, well, you get the idea - most any 4-year college student. Unstructured time is what EVERY undergrad has, regardless of how much money he or she has to spend. Some spend hours in the library or other location buried in their books studying. Far more spend those hours watching TV, going to the mall, or being bored. Some work part or full-time jobs. Scholarship athletes (at Duke) have far less unsupervised time than the general student population (by design) as they have mandatory study halls and tutoring, hours of practice, strength training, film review, "skull" sessions (my term, nothing official) and other team related activities. Athletes today are preached to about staying out of trouble, how to behave in public, what not to do, who do avoid/not associate with, etc. That "things happen" is an unfortunate fact of life, even to good kids. But to think that an athlete is more prone to bad things/bad behavior I think is a wrong assumption; it is just more likely to make the news (see: Tauiliili, Mike).

Again, welcome to the board. Your first post reminds me of another well respected original DBR poster, Stray Gator. It don't get no better than that!

[Bluedawg]

Certainly, cutting out dumb penalties like the ones you've listed is always a good thing for any football team, but I don't recall those things being major problems for Duke's team (at least not last year). I did attend the majority of the games and that's my impression. I'm willing to admit, however, I have forgotten more than I remember about last year's disappointing season, so I could be wrong about that. My recollection is that while Duke was committing too many of these types of penalties early in the year, we did cut down on them as the season wore on. Of course, it did seem like we got a false start at the WORST possible time in a drive many times throughout the year.

In reference to some other posts on this thread - I simply cannot recall a team (Duke's or anyone for that matter) having so many FG and PAT's blocked. As someone mentioned earlier, we certainly could have won at least a FEW games last year had our kicking game been better...or even "good".

PENALTIES-YARDS - Duke:72-564 Opponent: 92-798
Average Per Game - Duke:47.0 Opponent: 66.5

Granted, the opponent did out penalty duke, but I feel 47 yards per game could be cut down.

In my opinion these are the key stats from last year:

3RD-DOWN CONVERSIONS: 49/165
3rd-Down Pct: 30%
4TH-DOWN CONVERSIONS: 8/24
4th-Down Pct: 33%
FIELD GOALS-ATTEMPTS: 4-11
RED-ZONE SCORES: 19-39 49%
RED-ZONE TOUCHDOWNS: 17-39 44%
PAT-ATTEMPTS: 15-20 75%

This is what must improve.

[Bluedawg]

Duke football hasn't done much since Spurrier was here. My suggestion is fork out the cash and get a big-time coach who can recruit. As of right now, you have a first-time head coach who is learning on the job. You're in a big-time conference at an all-around excellent school with great facilities. Who wouldn't want to come here if they knew they had a legitimate chance to win some football games? I realize we're more academically competitive, but if Wake Forest can win a conference title, I don't see why Duke can't (in time).

And as far as the fans go, if you build it, they will come. You can't expect fans to come out when you go 0-12.

A wise man on this board wrote:


...any name that anyone has heard of, will not come to Duke under the current atmosphere. Not a chance in @!^@& that Paul Johnson would take this job. Same with Chuck Amato. right now, we are deservedly seen as one of the worst jobs in all of Division I.

it's pie in the sky to think that Duke can "fork out the cash and get a big-time coach." I realize that is a good mantra to have but it is unrealistic. State got one because of the facilities and the fan support. Can Duke match that?

[Bluedawg]

Orange,

i want to take exception to two comments you made. I apologize to anyone who wants to re-read the entirety of his post, but space, and wanting to focus attention to two precise statements dictate that i isolate statements.

First, in speaking of administration's support of football you say that they have a:


...goal of mediocrity that results from a chosen policy of benign neglect.

I know this to be incorrect. The administration is not chosen a "goal of mediocrity" and i think it is unfair to impugn them this way...not just you but everyone else on this board who has chosen to do so.



I don't think I have to remind anyone on this board that over the past 30 or so years, Duke has markedly elevated its already established academic prestige to even loftier heights and become one of the truly great universities not only of the US but internationally as well. Might this be adulterated or even squandered by a headlong attempt to compete with the Miamis, Florida States, Virginia Techs, and the other conferences where the football tail wags the academic dog?

I have always hated the concept that a school with high academic standards cannot compete in football. My understanding is that was Carl Franks feeling which is one reason we are where we find ourselves. no one makes that assumption in basketball so why football.

[Bluedawg]

Welcome to the board. An excellent first post and I three anxiously await your proposed solutions. Feel free to use as many "SAT words" as you like; most of us know what they mean ;)

As to the quotes I highlighted above, the "unsupervised time and surfeit of disposable income" sounds like most of the general population of Duke undergrads, or Harvard undergrads, or Yale undergrads, or unc undergrads or, well, you get the idea - most any 4-year college student. Unstructured time is what EVERY undergrad has, regardless of how much money he or she has to spend. Some spend hours in the library or other location buried in their books studying. Far more spend those hours watching TV, going to the mall, or being bored. Some work part or full-time jobs. Scholarship athletes (at Duke) have far less unsupervised time than the general student population (by design) as they have mandatory study halls and tutoring, hours of practice, strength training, film review, "skull" sessions (my term, nothing official) and other team related activities. Athletes today are preached to about staying out of trouble, how to behave in public, what not to do, who do avoid/not associate with, etc. That "things happen" is an unfortunate fact of life, even to good kids. But to think that an athlete is more prone to bad things/bad behavior I think is a wrong assumption; it is just more likely to make the news (see: Tauiliili, Mike).

Again, welcome to the board. Your first post reminds me of another well respected original DBR poster, Stray Gator. It don't get no better than that!


May i say "I four" without driving expectations too high for Orange to match?

Jut to piggyback on your comments concerning Duke athlete's free time, after one of the women's games last year i happened to see a player in the parking lot and we stopped to talk for a while, i asked her where she was off to and she said she was off to study. After playing and winning the game i expected her to "hang out with friends" but she was off to study.

Athletes get a bad rap but they have a schedule many of us could not match...especially at a place like Duke. In fact the Krzyzewski Center for Athletic Excellence will "nearly double the existing space to expand tutoring, computer resources, one-on-one counseling and ample team studying space (http://www.irondukes.net/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=227365)."

[RPS]

I don't think I have to remind anyone on this board that over the past 30 or so years, Duke has markedly elevated its already established academic prestige to even loftier heights and become one of the truly great universities not only of the US but internationally as well.Ironically, the success of the basketball team is a major reason for this success.


Might this be adulterated or even squandered by a headlong attempt to compete with the Miamis, Florida States, Virginia Techs, and the other conferences where the football tail wags the academic dog?I'd settle for competitive.


Is such a concern likely to become manifest and tarnish Duke's well-polished and well-earned reputation?Is it really fair to assume that quality college football players are a significantly greater risk than mediocre or poor college football players? If so, I'd expect a far higher rate of problems with the hoops team than we've seen, despite its smaller size.


What might ensue if 100 footballers from public high schools, broken homes, of scant academic discipline, and without adequate financial resources, were brought to Duke?Was I the only one put-off by this comment? If anyone connected to Duke (in the administration or otherwise) actually holds this view, I fear for its future.


But these risks are inflated and obsessive. The football program can and should be reflective of the larger institution. And it can do so and be competitive.I agree. For what it's worth, my kids' high school here in SoCal has two potential D1 football players who are also fine students. Both have been recruited, to varying extents, by USC, Cal and Stanford as well as the Ivies, Wake Forest, UVa and many others. Duke hasn't been involved. There may be legimate reasons for that lack of involvement -- talent evaluation and perceived need, for example -- but it does raise questions....


I have three practical possibilities for improvement that I will suggest in a new posting.I look forward to it.

[OrangeDevil]

First, thanks guys for the thoughtful comments and criticisms concerning my observations about the seeming indifference of certain elements within the University to the stagnant state of Duke football. Needless to say, I disagree with several of the responses and think that a few misread my primary contentions. Still, they were well intentioned and reflected a shared concern about what is wrong and how it might be righted. Well done.

I promised several practical suggestions and offer them now. An important admission before beginning: I no longer live in North Carolina and although I occasionally visit Duke for professional reasons, it has been years since I saw a game in Wallace Wade. I will leave issues of game management, play calling, etc. to those who have actually seen the spectacle bemoaned by many on this board. Some of what I suggest may on the one hand seem obvious while some might appear audacious. At this stage, however, audacity might be the very thing needed to jumpstart the program.

First, recruiting. On this matter, I am truly shocked at the state of denial (it cannot be ignorance) exhibited by a number of those writing to weigh in on the problem with Duke football. Many/most of us can parse and recite the rankings and abilities of various basketball prospects and recruits with knowledgeable insight. But football recruiting? A refrain heard here is that Roof is a wonderful recruiter and that Duke's recruiting has greatly improved during his tenure. Reality check: all recruiting is comparative and, by comparison with other ACC programs, ours remains woefully weak and lags far behind our would-be rivals. How many top 40 basketball players has Duke (men's and women's) signed in the last decade? Don't bother counting; it's an annual occurrence. How many top 100 or top 250 football prospects has Duke signed during that period? A handful will not get it done. Football is about injuries and depth -- numbers. Duke needs to establish a national recruiting profile that yearly brings some of the very best to Durham. Many recruits at the top tier programs are academically qualified to be at Duke. We have to go after those players on a consistent basis and we have to get some of them. We need a program – a coach – that can raise the level of recruiting to a truly competitive standard, and not with Stanford or Northwestern, but with our conference opponents. I understand and acknowledge that this is easier said than done, but somehow it must be done. The dilemma is how to establish the foundations for success without the better players in order to attract some of the best players. A tall order.

A second issue. Why does Duke choose to not recruit junior college players? I suspect this is predicated upon an assumption, one that goes something like this: they are not at a jc because they are not good enough athletes, but because of academic deficiencies suggesting they are either unintelligent or lazy or both and as such have no hope of succeeding at Duke. Such an assumption is as false as it is pernicious. There are more than a few junior college students who can succeed academically at Duke. And some of these are athletes. Why not broaden the recruiting base by not disqualifying someone because they come from a particular type of institution? A selective recruiting of small numbers of junior college players might help turn the program around much more quickly. Such a strategy has produced remarkable turnarounds elsewhere.

This is a promising avenue but admittedly not without risk. Here in California, one such junior college prospect a couple of years ago was a football player without apparent academic acumen, but who came to class, prepared for exams, and earned better than passing grades. With the institutional support and academic mentoring that Duke provides athletes, he could have done more or less the same at Duke. That student, Colt Brennan, has made standard academic progress at Hawaii. I won’t bother asking if you think he could have been a competitive asset to the Duke football program. The risks: Brennan’s by now well-known problems during an earlier stay at Colorado. But such problems are not exclusive to junior colleges. Still not convinced? Tyler Lorenzen, the UConn quarterback who lit up the Duke secondary last weekend is a product of the same jc league that produced Colt Brennan. In short, the idea that junior college athletes, by definition, cannot succeed academically and athletically at Duke needs to be reconsidered. It’s a specious assumption. Again, this is not a call to open the doors to all-comers from the junior colleges, but to be selective as Duke always has been. Some of these players can offer real short-term help.

Finally the coaching issue. Should a new coach be necessary, I would suggest considering Rick Neuheisel. Okay, he too has past issues that need review. But he can coach and recruit nationally. Everywhere he has gone as a player and a coach, he has been a winner. He has a youthful persona that college players relate to. I don’t think many head coaches, successful in their current jobs, are going to find Duke football, in its present state, an attractive option. As for Neuheisel, with Duke football in obvious need of redemption, perhaps someone seeking some measure of personal redemption would be just the fit.

[Bob Green]

Thank you for a thoughtful post. My response:

1. Recruiting - easier said than done. But I agree that we need to recruit top football prospects into the program. Additionally, I am one of those posters who can quote the rankings of all our basketball recruiting targets, tell you what high school they attend, and what other colleges we are in competition with for their services, but I don't follow football recruiting at all. Guilty as charged!

2. JC players - you make an excellent point. This is an avenue we could pursue in our effort to transform the football program.

3. Rick Neuheisel - another great suggestion but I question whether we could lure him away from his current job as Offensive Coordinator for the Baltimore Ravens. NFL OCs often go on to NFL head coaching positions. Therefore, I consider suggestion three to be unrealistic.

[gep]

Thank you OrangeDevil.

I like the idea of the JC transfer. I know some programs (like some basketball programs at other schools) that almost totally rely on JC transfers. While I don't think that's the path for Duke, maybe a few JC transfers to go along with a good freshmen class can help transform Duke football into one that is at least competitive. As the program grows, the reliance on JC transfers can be reduced... Something new and different has to be done, and maybe this is one starting point that might prove to be good for the future.

[Uncle Drew]

Most anyone with common sense would agree recruiting is THE key to turning the Duke football program around. You can't win the Indianapolis 500 with a Model T Ford, and Duke has been trying to race Ferrari teams with Mustang and Eclipse players. That being said, Duke has several disadvantages when it comes to recruiting. The accademic aspect is a tricky one, but I think there are many players out there if signing with Duke could be tutored and assisted with the accademics. This is where redshirtting a player would come in handy. If a player had 5 years to do four years of studying that in itself would make the learning much easier for a lot of players. Most people also realize that when Duke plays many of it's foes they have been lining up against 5 year seniors who have redshirted a year. Those players are a year older and stronger and it gives a HUGE advantage to the opposing schools and the ability to reload each year as opposed to rebuilding. Clemson, FSU, Miami etc. have so many redshirt players each season they practically have two teams. Those players get practice time, weightroom strength training to help them when they actually do get into the games. I don't know if Duke lacks the funds to redshirt a ton of players, and at this point getting any player to ink with Duke is almost begging. But some five year Div II (or junior college) tallent looks pretty good right now.

Duke also is at a disadvantage in the state of North Carolina, not that NC produces a lot of skilled future NFL players anyway. But when a talent does come along they are more than likely to going to pick NCSU, UNC, Wake or even App St. over Duke. Coach Roof has done a good job of going into Georgia and getting some recruits that would have possibly gone to UGA or GT. But traditionally Duke has had to sellect players from NY and NJ instead of players in their own back yard. But I have to ask why in God's name would any recruit select Duke over one of the traditional powerhouse schools at this point? We need powerhouse tallent, but recruits want to think by going to a certain school they will have the chance to eventually play on Sundays. At Duke they aren't even seen on television on Saturdays. Yes, before someone says it, a Duke degree is nice and looks great on a wall. But guys with a goal of making the NFL are trying to market themselves for NFL money, a Duke degree just doesn't rank up there even though it carries more weight than a degree from USC, Ohio State or Miami.

Facilities from one school to another will vary, and I couldn't begin to guess where Duke's facilities would rank among other division one schools. But you can only have so many weights, tires, sleds etc. The Nebraskas of the world could assign each player their own personal workout equipment, so no matter how much of that stuff Duke has I don't think it's as big a factor as many would say. And Wallace Wade Stadium while old and probably in need of renovation is probably substandard when compared to other ACC schools, it's never full with it's present seating capacity. You could put luxury suites and pad every seat in the stadium, it doesn't mean there will ever be a glutimus maximus sitting in them. Home games for Duke are the games where only half the staduim is rooting against them as opposed to the entire stadium. What recruit would want to join a team that fans barely show up for yet alone their classmates. I'm not faulting the students either. It's hard to bring Cameron noise, when your team is down 35-0 in the first quarter.

I thnk the thing Coach Roof has tried to do in recruiting since he knows it's impossible at this point, is to ink a few difference makers to hopefully turn things around. But football is a lot different than basketball where one good guy can pay immediate dividends. You can sign a five star recruit, but when he's playing beside a one star recruit they average out to a three. And while I have been in favor of keeping Roof and letting his recruits become seniors before breaking ties, at this point any coach would have to be in as much need of Prozac as he is a job to take over at Duke. Rick Neuheisel, Ty Willingham, Chuck Amato, Drew Strojny or Bill Cower would need to have a psycological evaluation or a drug test before they could be hired. You could put Butch Davis money out there for any of those guys and there is no way in hell any of them would be willing to take it. (Unless of course they needed a nest egg before they retired.) Duke needs a coach with experience, from a Div. II school that is kind of a diamond in the rough. (ala Coach K from Army when he came to Duke.) Who that is I don't know. But if you think any of the above candidates are coming to coach Duke, you're probably anticipating Dan Marino suiting up at QB next year.

[sagegrouse]

Thanks for your thoughts and the care with which you prepared the post. (Many of the professional on-line writers are unbelievably sloppy. This AM's example on a FIBA/USA post: "cache" when he meant "cachet.")

Re recruiting: Success begets success. A competitive Duke football program will be able to recruit at a high level. A give the current crew good marks for salesmanship and persistence on recruiting. But we need some W's.

Re JC players: Your point about JC players is right on target. As you recognize being from California, a number of academically qualified players there attend JC to mature and bulk up, as a way of qualifying for D-1 schollies. (I'm with Feinstein: the NCAA can shuffle titles as much as they want; it's still Division I and Division I-A.) I thought I remember Duke signing a CA kicker who had gone that route.

Re point three: IMHO, coaching is not just about motivating the team, it is also about creativity, especially on offense (think of Steve Spurrier, Bill Walsh, the dude at Texas Tech, and whatever is in the water in Boise, Idaho). I am afraid this crew is failing badly on the creativity side. Duke's last two successful coaches (Bill Murray and Spurrier -- no I didn't see the Wallace Wade teams) were innovators on offense. I can't see the Devils consistently over-powering anyone in the ACC; guile and trickery will have to be used. It isn't there. This is plain old coaching. Some have compared recent Duke team's to the ultra-uninspired efforts of the Mike McGee era (early 70s). My secret hope -- having watched Boise State in the BCS bowl game -- was that the Devils would steal the Boise St. playbook and spend the winter, spring and summer coming up with some real surprises. Ain't gonna happen.

Thanks for your post.

Sage Grouse

[Highlander]

I agree with your point 3. However, I would point out that those misdirection plays require precise execution in order to be successful, and execution is an area we have been sorely lacking in for way too long.

I firmly believe that if Duke could play mistake free football (or at least make fewer than their opponents), they would win a couple of games a year. Blocked FG's, missed FG's, INT's, fumbles, penalties, and missed tackles absolutely kill us year in and year out. Our margin for error is thin, and simple mistakes like this blow any chance we may have for victory.

It's like when I play golf. To get par on a par-4 hole, I have to hit two great (by my standards) drives and one good putt. Any mistake costs me at least a stroke, and I'm looking at bogey at best. Duke needs to stop trying to drive the green and start playing with fairway irons.

[Bluedawg]

Why does Duke have a policy of not signing JC players?

[Bluedawg]

Additionally, I am one of those posters who can quote the rankings of all our basketball recruiting targets, tell you what high school they attend, and what other colleges we are in competition with for their services, but I don't follow football recruiting at all. Guilty as charged!

there is a difference. How many signees does basketball have...usually 3-5. Football has 22. its hard to keep up with all of those players.

[Bluedawg]

First, recruiting.
A second issue. Why does Duke choose to not recruit junior college players?
Finally the coaching issue.

Recruiting...one of Ted Roofs goals when he became coach was to develop a national recruiting profile. This is why he is going to Alabama, Notre Dame, etc. he has said that he wants to expand the recruiting profile of Duke. Listen to Coach Roof (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHBWSzgo06M) discuss the 2007 recruiting class. I've seen a big difference in the number of recruits once Roof came. A coach who can fill the end zone with recruits after a 0-20 run has talent.

i know a group of former players had tried to put together a fund to allow more recruiting trips for Coach Roof. I don't know what became of it but the plan for the money was not to used for capital expense but solely for recruiting trips.

junior college players..this is the best part of your post. I've wondered why not bring in some JC players to help support the team while he does nationalize the recruiting profile. being a JC student/player is not a negative. Although i had decided not to play college football I has heavily requited by a JC in California.

Finally the coaching issue. I have said, as has other posters, that a high-profile NCAA division 1A coach will not come to Duke. I'll expand that to say that a high profile NFL asst will not come to duke. the program is not that enticing. Although i still support Coach roof I've suggested the need to look at a deserving D 1AA coach like Coach Jerry Moore (http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/394065.html).

the other thing he has tried to establish is a red shirt program. I read an interview by him where he said that it is standard for the starters to play 40-45 snaps per game but when he came the starters were playing 70-75 snaps per game. Depth ha been a focus for him.

[Patrick Yates]

Guys, one of the main impediments to Duke FB success is indeed recruiting. Our main problem there, IMHO, is the academic reputation of Duke. I beleive this scares off many recuits. It is not just about qualifying, because a kid that qualifies at FSU, OSU, et al Football Factories (not slamming the academics at these schools, but let's all be real) is technically qualified to play at Duke. But, can a kid with 2.something GPA and a minimum qualifying score (which he usually had to take the SAT several times to achieve), really expect to stay elligible at Duke? Really?

There are two rebuttals to this theory, and I will attempt to adress them.

1. Other Academic Schools achieve FB success. To this I reply, not lately they haven't.

Many on this board point to Standford as what Duke can achieve. Yes, Stanford had a good couple of runs in the recent past. Keep in mind that those runs coincided with a period of time when the PAC-10 was laughably bad. This was when the cream of the conference was Washington or Oregon. Basically, Stanford made runs when the LA schools were way, way down. Dating back to when USC began its ascent to god-hood, Cal's fantastic hire, and UCLA recommitting to FB, the Cardinal has been the outhouse. Rather, at the bottom of the hole therein.

Others will also point to Northwestern. To this I reply, they run a gimmick O in a conference that is the most top-heavy conference (maybe big 12, but probably big 10) in the nation. For some teams it is possible to avoid 3 of the big 4 in any given year (Big 4 being Michegan, OSU, Wisconsin and Penn St.) Northwestern made their runs in years when there were really only a big 2 or three in conference, and NW managed to avoid them. What has NW done recently? Sure they pull off a few big wins a year, but that gimmick O is not a recipe for long-term success. Many of the conf teams they play, outside the class of the conf, would all be big losers even in the ACC. I mean, Indiana, Illinois, Wyoming, Purdue, et al is not exactly a murders row. Duke got screwed when they placed us in Miami AND VT's side of the conference (which you KNOW had to be a non-negotiable demand by both schools when the ACC came-a-courting). Sure there are some down teams in the ACC in any given year. But the Big 10 ALWAYS has 3-4 teams that I feel are only slightly better than Duke each year. Again, NW is not exactly a regular in the post season either.

It should be noted that with both Stanford and NW that their periods of success coincided with surprisingly good coaches who left for bigger and better things. Their Spurriors if you will.

As for Vandy, Duke has been to a bowl game more recently than them. They are more competitive week in week out, but they are like the bottem hoops teams in the ACC. It is easier to recruit to a loser because you get to play on national TV most weeks. Vandy, for all of it being competitive, still struggles to have winning years and has not been bowling for more than 2 decades.

I would argue that the recent period of big money being poured into college FB is not good for academic schools. Sure, it would be nice to be as competive as one of the above 3, but all are still essentially Patsies within their respective Conferences.

Then you have Notre Dame. A fine academic school, probably a step below the three above, but a step above the state school football factories. They are basically getting every single high academic high major ability stud, each year. Keep in mind that the best players will gravitate towards the best schools, even if they are academic studs. Myron Rolle, FSU's all stud Soph Strong Safety, recently recieved an A-minus in organic chemisty, and it was the LOWEST grade he had ever recieved at any level. He would be able to handle the academic load at Duke, but FSU lets him excell on-field. ND gets all the kids who are good academically but might not be in the top 6 at their position, but are in the top 15 at their position. When you factor in that Stanford siphons off west coast kids, NW gets the midwest kids, and Vandy gets many southerners, Duke is left to pick over the dregs.

2. But why can Hoops get players necessary to compete and not Football?
I will leave alone the recent argument about whether the Hoops team is bringing in the athletes to compete and reply, we are completely dominating a smaller war.

As someone mentioned above, to be competive you probably need 40 guys who are capable of starting (and being competive at some point in their college career) on the roster each year. K has proven that Hoops needs at least 8 players to be successful. Also, K is coralling virtually all of the top academic/athletic players. Stanford siphons off a few, but those few are almost always those Cali kids who are scared to leave the coast. NW is a complete joke in hoops, and Vandy is mediocre at best.

Duke is basically the ND of Hoops recruiting. We are the school that can sell academics and Hoops at the highest level. Roof couldn't tell that lie with a straight face, and even if someone could, a recruit would laugh said coach out of the living room.

Some will counter this saying many more kids play FB, so there is a bigger pool to choose from. Not necessarily. Many large, urban, public high schools do not field a FB team due to lack of facilities. These same schools are tremendously fertile grounds for hoops prospects. Conversly, many rural schools in the midwest do not field FB teams due to lack of sufficient students to field a team. Each year, a few of these schools manage to produce quality hoopsters. The pool for FB is not that much larger than BB.

While I agree that recruiting must be addressed, it is not that easy. Unlike BB, there are no tournaments and camps were the best playes congregate. What few there are allow for no hitting, and tend to focus on the elite of the elite, few of whom will ever consider Duke. For a school like Duke that must really dig to find quality players who can handle the academics, actually evaluating the players is virtually impossible.

Virtually every serious academic school only found success when they lucked into a special coach who implemented a gimmick O (or D). I liked the suggestion of Gus Malzahn, who runs a crazy spread that Asack would excell at. But I think Duke will have to hire a coach who really stirs things up, and shocks a few teams, before the recruits will roll in. And you know, you know, as soon as that coach has a winning season in Durham he will be poached by a factory that can double his salary while enabling him to recruit players without fear of academic concerns.

There are no easy solutions, and for all my complaing, there may be no solutions, good or bad, period. FB is big business as never before, and if large state schools really commit to the sport, Duke may be S-O-L.

Patrick Yates


ps. Doesn't the ACC have a no-JC rule? We used to, don't know if we still do.

[RPS]

1. Other Academic Schools achieve FB success. To this I reply, not lately they haven't.I have two major responses.
Your sample is too small. The USNews list (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php) of top schools (a rough measure to be sure, but illustrative) includes a number of schools with football success in the top 40. These include the schools you mentioned as well as Cal-Berkeley, UVa, UCLA, Michigan (though not App. St.), USC, Carolina, Wake Forest, Boston College and Wisconsin. Although I doubt it, perhaps Duke is way harder academically than all these schools. But I see no reason to think that academics are sufficient reason for us not to be at least competitive.
You're defining success too narrowly. The relative successes acheived by the schools you cite (Stanford, Northwestern, etc.) would be more than satisfactory to me for at least the near-term and perhaps indefinitely.

2. But why can Hoops get players necessary to compete and not Football?
I will leave alone the recent argument about whether the Hoops team is bringing in the athletes to compete and reply, we are completely dominating a smaller war.I agree, but (again) our immediate goal should be merely to be competitive (or perhaps not embarrassing). I agree that it won't be easy, but others have proved it can be done.

[Bluedawg]

I have two major responses.
Your sample is too small. The USNews list (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php) of top schools (a rough measure to be sure, but illustrative) includes a number of schools with football success in the top 40. These include the schools you mentioned as well as Cal-Berkeley, UVa, UCLA, Michigan (though not App. St.), USC, Carolina, Wake Forest, Boston College and Wisconsin. Although I doubt it, perhaps Duke is way harder academically than all these schools. But I see no reason to think that academics are sufficient reason for us not to be at least competitive.
You're defining success too narrowly. The relative successes acheived by the schools you cite (Stanford, Northwestern, etc.) would be more than satisfactory to me for at least the near-term and perhaps indefinitely.
I agree, but (again) our immediate goal should be merely to be competitive (or perhaps not embarrassing). I agree that it won't be easy, but others have proved it can be done.


you start with being competitive, then you move to being consistently competitive, then you move to having a tradition of winning. the first two steps is what will bring in top tier recruits.

[Patrick Yates]

With respects, your sample is apples to oranges. I was comparing Duke to similiar schools, ie small, private, academically elite schools. Duke, Stanford, Vandy, and NW routinely compete with the Ivies for academic rank. you cannot compare large state schools to Duke. That is laughable. Michigan, Cal-berkely, and UVA are all out standing schools, for public schools. They do not compare to small private elites like us.

The new coach at Stanford was a former starting QB at Michigan, and says the FB staff flat out forbade him for taking difficult classes. Not to rip on UNC, which is an outstanding school for all our ribbing, but they offer a major in GEOGRAPHY. Say what you will about grade inflation at Duke, but there are not that many easy courses, much less majors, at our school.

Due to their public nature, and public funding, many public schools have much lower standards than Duke, and far superiour resources devoted to athletics. Some of our athletes, which are virtual statistical outliers on the low end as far as scores and grades, would be in the middle of the non-athlete student body at most schools. Our facilities, while very nice, are practically ghettos compared to what some schools are rocking these days.

Also, the time demands for FB are astronomical. Many programs now spend hours each week in film sessions learning the oppositions formations. This is necessary in FB where you see multiple sets and plays each week. Unlike Hoops, were there are 5 basic types of players and very similiar sets, with very little differentiation night in and night out. I imagine opposing coaches tell a kid what type of time committment winning will take, and the say "can you do all this and stay elibible at Duke?" The answer is, "probably", but it is a lot of time and work.

As far as competitive, we must define that term. Losing a bunch of close games is not competitive. Competitive means winning a few Conf games every single year, along with the non-conf pansies. It also means being in position to win some of games you lost, and occaisionally putting the fear of God into a superpower (at least for a few quarters.) Last year we were not competitive despite being in some close games.

Patrick Yates

[Bluedawg]

The new coach at Stanford was a former starting QB at Michigan, and says the FB staff flat out forbade him for taking difficult classes. Not to rip on UNC, which is an outstanding school for all our ribbing, but they offer a major in GEOGRAPHY. Say what you will about grade inflation at Duke, but there are not that many easy courses, much less majors, at our school.

if my memory is correct, during the mack brown era, UNC's hey-day, they led the ACC is requesting academic exceptions for football.

[RPS]

With respects, your sample is apples to oranges. I was comparing Duke to similiar schools, ie small, private, academically elite schools. Duke, Stanford, Vandy, and NW routinely compete with the Ivies for academic rank. you cannot compare large state schools to Duke. That is laughable. Michigan, Cal-berkely, and UVA are all out standing schools, for public schools. They do not compare to small private elites like us.I'm not sure I entirely agree (Berkeley kills us in Nobel Prize winning faculty, for example, which is hardly laughable), but they don't need to compare, whatever one means by that term. What matters is whether the recruited player can succeed academically. As with basketball (though with smaller numbers, I grant), I see no reason to think that we can't be competitive with players who can succeed academically. I have seen no reason to doubt that, in general, a football player who succeeds academically at Berkeley or UVa (or Vandy or Wake) can succeed at Duke.

I'm old enough to remember the 1978 hoop team very well and, during the Final Four week-end, remember seeing a fellow student on television waxing eloquent about how when the "academic quotient" was factored in, we were already the clear winner. Maybe it's just my lower middle class upbringing and sensibilities that react to remarks like that and to the assumption that our football failures are due to our academic standards. I think it's a cop-out and am aware of no actual evidence (as opposed to what we may want to believe) that it's so.

Is it harder to win at Duke than at the vast majority of schools? Sure. But pre-K we thought it was impossible for us to win consistently at hoop for the very same reasons I see argued today about football and consoled ourselves with our academic superiority in the very same way. I'm not foolish enough to think that it's easy or that coaches like K come a dime-a-dozen. But I'm also unwilling to assume (especially without evidence) that we can't win in football (much less be competitive) while maintaining adademic integrity. In basketball, you can't make a shot without taking a shot. I'd like us to take a real shot at winning in football, with being consistently competitive a workable by-product. We might just swish it.

[RPS]

The new coach at Stanford was a former starting QB at Michigan, and says the FB staff flat out forbade him for taking difficult classes. Not to rip on UNC, which is an outstanding school for all our ribbing, but they offer a major in GEOGRAPHY. Say what you will about grade inflation at Duke, but there are not that many easy courses, much less majors, at our school.Every school has majors deemed easier than others, and some more than others. At Duke, it used to be sociology.


Due to their public nature, and public funding, many public schools have much lower standards than Duke, and far superiour resources devoted to athletics. Some of our athletes, which are virtual statistical outliers on the low end as far as scores and grades, would be in the middle of the non-athlete student body at most schools.In recent years, average SAT scores of incoming freshman at UCLA and Berkeley (both public) and USC (private) have been in the high 1300s (old scoring method). That doesn't support your hypothesis.


Our facilities, while very nice, are practically ghettos compared to what some schools are rocking these days.Duke's football facilities are ghettos compared even to the peer group you propose. Check out Stanford's, for example. Terrific, totally refurbished and re-designed stadium with fabulous new locker and work-out facilities.


Also, the time demands for FB are astronomical. Many programs now spend hours each week in film sessions learning the oppositions formations. This is necessary in FB where you see multiple sets and plays each week. Unlike Hoops, were there are 5 basic types of players and very similiar sets, with very little differentiation night in and night out.As I understand it, the NCAA rules (http://www.neuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/A4.html) on time commitment are consistent across-the-board, irrespective of degree of difficulty.


As far as competitive, we must define that term. Losing a bunch of close games is not competitive. Competitive means winning a few Conf games every single year, along with the non-conf pansies. It also means being in position to win some of games you lost, and occaisionally putting the fear of God into a superpower (at least for a few quarters.) Last year we were not competitive despite being in some close games.On this we agree.

[Scoring Point]

Patrick,

While you make some valid points in your posts above, your reach exceeds your grasp.

A few factual corrections:

- It is not possible to avoid 3 of the "big 4" in any given year. The conference schedule is 8 games out of 10 possible opponents.

- Wyoming is not, and has never been, a member of the Big 10

- Most college football fans would consider Iowa and Purdue to be solid, borderline Top 25 programs. You may be surprised to know that Purdue has been to 9 bowl games in 10 years under Joe Tiller and has more players (24) on opening day NFL rosters than all but 3 ACC programs (FSU, Miami and Maryland), including a guy named Drew Brees. Moreover, looking at NFL ranks by alma mater suggests that the ACC is a good deal more top heavy than the Big 10, at least in terms of talent

- While Northwestern has managed to avoid Ohio State in each of its 3 title years (95, 96 and 00-shared), they went 3-0 vs Michigan and Wisconsin and 2-1 vs Penn State in those seasons. They have beaten every team in the conefernec at least once in the past decade.

- The Gary Barnett NU teams were anything but gimmicky. While they ran tricks plays now and then, they were much more in the vein of Jim Grobe's Wake teams - fundamentally sound, opportunistic and well conditioned. Randy Walker implemented the spread, which is hardly a gimmick these days in D-1, one year into the job. Over the years, that offense has morph has morphed considerably, but the last starting QB and last 2 starting RBs to graduate are both in the NFL now.

- Randy Walker had been very well regarded head coach at Miami (OH) when hired by NU; Pat Fitzgerald is very young at 32, but had shown enough potential to be anointed as Walker's successor prior to the latter's death and already has a lot of respect from his peers in the conference

- Similarly, Stanford has had several periods of success before their surprsie Rose Bowl run. I guy named Bill Walsh coached there (2 stints), as did Dennis Green and John Ralston.

- I can't speak for Stanford fans, but can say that the Northwestern program is at stage now that fans go into the season expecting the team to be bowl eligible.

[Patrick Yates]

USC and UCLA are great schools. I never meant to say any of those top 40 aren't. But our peer academic schools are the Ivies which do not offer athletic scholarships.

My point was, taking US News and World Reports rankings to a top player, even one that could handle the academic load, is not a selling point for Duke.

As to the mandatory hours limit. Yes that exisits. Many coaches brag about the player run film sessions. They are voluntary. And if you do not show up at every single one, the coach will volunteer you to sit the bench forever. Also, when was the last time a player complained about coaches abusing the time requirements? How quickly would that kid be blackballed from the sport? Even JCs wouldn't touch him, unless it was Reggie Bush, and superstars don't complain about practice, they complain about classes.

Your point about Stanford's coaches was correct. They simply had more Spurriers than we did. I would still say that they have not had sustained success, and recently they have been nearly as bad as Duke.

But I stand by my point. None of the other 4 academic schools in major conferences has had much success lately. NW may expect to win, and in the tremendously overrated Big 10 (the conf has maybe 1 team that would even have a winning record in the SEC) maybe they will occaisionally. But they aren't winning all that much. Many here "expected" to win the UCONN game.

My point is that recruiting players to a woeful FB team at a school where BB is king is a dicey proposition. Vandy plays in the SEC so they will get most of the pool of talent in the South. Stan gets the west, and NW gets the midwest. Keep in mind that we are different from all those other schools. I doubt any school in the nation is as hated by the state where it is located than Duke. It is almost impossible to get a quality player out of NC. We have no natural recruiting zone, unlike each of the other schools. Again, I stress, it will take some sort of genius to draw the kids to Duke, and Roof obviously isn't it. Because if everything you all said is true, and much of it is, then what is Duke's problem, if not coaching?

Patrick Yates

[RPS]

USC and UCLA are great schools. I never meant to say any of those top 40 aren't. But our peer academic schools are the Ivies which do not offer athletic scholarships.It doesn't matter who our peers are. All that matters in this context is that recruited players be able to succeed academically.


My point was, taking US News and World Reports rankings to a top player, even one that could handle the academic load, is not a selling point for Duke.To some players it is (I have one living in one of my bedrooms). But more is required, I agree.


Again, I stress, it will take some sort of genius to draw the kids to Duke, and Roof obviously isn't it.I'm not sure genius is required (when I played basketball in Card with Spurrier during his first stop in Durham, nobody thought him a genius...), but whether it is or not, we haven't given any prospective coaches much reason for wanting to be here (facilities, student support, faculty support, etc.).


Because if everything you all said is true, and much of it is, then what is Duke's problem, if not coaching?I summarized it previously here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18816#post18816). It starts and ends with coaching, but includes a good bit more I think.

[Uncle Drew]

Everybody is making valid points, and the posts in response to Oranges' second post all have merit. Truth be told you can take stats and make them look however you want to when comparing school to school and conference to conference. And while recruiting we pretty much agree is key to turning the whole thing around (regardless of who the coach is) I think Duke football AND Duke basketball have had the same problem the last few years. Duke basketball IMO hasn't had a beast who will throw it down or reject the ball down an opposing players throat in a long time. (Closest guys would be S. Williams or Brand) We have recruited and gotten a ton of finesse players in both sports and not enough bruisers. We're happy when a Duke football player actually makes a tackle. I may get banned for saying this (this is football for God's sake violence is part of the game) but I want to see a Duke defensive player knock the toenails off of a reciever or hit a QB so hard he thinks he just got smacked by an M-1 tank. I honestly think Dukes toughness reputation is so tarnished at this point that any school playing Duke has zero respect / fear. Against Duke schools will try 4th & 1, 2, 3 etc. they wouldn't even think about trying to pull on Miami, USC or Ohio State. Conversely it's been a while since I've seen Duke take a 4th and 1 and punch it through with authority against anyone either. Yes I know, with the beef we presently have on the ranch it's hard to match up against a team of Longhorns. But every game some Duke player should be popping an opposing player so hard it knocks the taste out of their mouth. We want to see the team get competitive again. I for one want the opposing team to feel it the next day when they manage to pull off a win against Duke. On offense I agree Duke at this point needs to be using some gimmck / trick plays just to keep the defense on their toes no matter how difficult they are to execute. For God's sake, my ferret can call 1st and 10 a 2 yard run up the middle, 2nd down an incomplete pass, 3rd down a botched screen pass, 4th down punt.....and she's never coached a day in her life either. If you don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to make a 3rd and 1 run then fake the run and throw a pass, a long pass. Take some freakin' chances, and by chances I don't mean a pooch kick by the QB on 3rd down.

[throatybeard]

I'm not sure I entirely agree (Berkeley kills us in Nobel Prize winning faculty, for example, which is hardly laughable), but they don't need to compare, whatever one means by that term.

Exactly, RPS. Patrick's posts exhibit what I call "Duke bulletin board institutional awareness." What this means is that, with a vague recollection of the terribly flawed US News rankings, and a general sense of what percentage of 17 year olds get rejected by a give institution, anyone shooting their mouth on a bulletin board can broadly paint Duke and a few other schools as "academic institutions." The implication is that people are shoving berries up their noses at Wisconsin and Florida.

Universities do so much more than play sports and screen freshman applications. In the most respectable university ranking in the world, Shanghai, which considers institutions a bit more holistically, instead of internet-sports-fan-style, Cal (4) destroys Duke (32).

You could look it up:

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm

Now, I'm not huge fan of this absurd university ranking business, but if you're going to play the "we're smarter than them card," at least use the most respected rankings.

[throatybeard]

But I stand by my point. None of the other 4 academic schools in major conferences has had much success [in football] lately.

The "academic schools." OK, the please explain to me what all those Ugrads, grad students, non-teaching researchers, faculty, and administrators are doing at the other 60-some-odd BCS football schools are doing that places them at (by implication) "non-academic" schools. Looking at porn? Playing tiddly winks? Eating twizzlers? Please enlighten me.

[Scoring Point]

Ah, throaty, you know I stand with you on the whole "institutional obsession with US News rankings". And PY's reference to the "4 academic schools" is about as naively obnoxius a quote as I have seen on here in some time.

[Scoring Point]

USC and UCLA are great schools. I never meant to say any of those top 40 aren't. But our peer academic schools are the Ivies which do not offer athletic scholarships.

My point was, taking US News and World Reports rankings to a top player, even one that could handle the academic load, is not a selling point for Duke.

As to the mandatory hours limit. Yes that exisits. Many coaches brag about the player run film sessions. They are voluntary. And if you do not show up at every single one, the coach will volunteer you to sit the bench forever. Also, when was the last time a player complained about coaches abusing the time requirements? How quickly would that kid be blackballed from the sport? Even JCs wouldn't touch him, unless it was Reggie Bush, and superstars don't complain about practice, they complain about classes.

Your point about Stanford's coaches was correct. They simply had more Spurriers than we did. I would still say that they have not had sustained success, and recently they have been nearly as bad as Duke.

But I stand by my point. None of the other 4 academic schools in major conferences has had much success lately. NW may expect to win, and in the tremendously overrated Big 10 (the conf has maybe 1 team that would even have a winning record in the SEC) maybe they will occaisionally. But they aren't winning all that much. Many here "expected" to win the UCONN game.

My point is that recruiting players to a woeful FB team at a school where BB is king is a dicey proposition. Vandy plays in the SEC so they will get most of the pool of talent in the South. Stan gets the west, and NW gets the midwest. Keep in mind that we are different from all those other schools. I doubt any school in the nation is as hated by the state where it is located than Duke. It is almost impossible to get a quality player out of NC. We have no natural recruiting zone, unlike each of the other schools. Again, I stress, it will take some sort of genius to draw the kids to Duke, and Roof obviously isn't it. Because if everything you all said is true, and much of it is, then what is Duke's problem, if not coaching?

Patrick Yates

Coaching is by far the most important component in my view. More than anything else, that is what distinguishes Duke FB from Northwestern and Stanford (historically - less so of late; Jim Harbaugh is a massive tool, by the way, and hardly someone to be quoting for any serious effect). And I mean coaching broadly defined - not just Xs and Os, but also recruiting, motivation, PR, etc. Just look at what Grobe has done at Wake. While last year's championship was a fluke in many ways, the Deacs have been consistently competitive under his watch, despite talent that is only marginally better than Duke's by most measures.

Players do matter, though, and, Duke is at a disadvantage vs NU and Stanford in this regard, given that both enjoy more fertile (and hospitable) local recruiting bases, as both CA and the major Midwest cities have HS programs that also happen to be very well regarded schools academically.

As for defining success, I would say that expectations of being competitive and bowl eligible year-in and year-out, while very occasionally bottling enough lightning to compete for (if not win) a conference championship is a realistic standard and, judging from my experience as NW season ticket holder, one that can result in solid attendance, sustained campus interest, respect from rivals and the media. I don't think this standard is unattainable for Duke, though it will take time and the right hires.

I don't disagree that the Big 10 is probably overrated (it is certainly overexposed, even before creating its own TV network), or that the SEC is the best conference, year in and year out. But to say the Big 10 has maybe 1 team that would have winning record in the SEC is asinine, and once again underscores your persistent reach/grasp issues.

[RPS]

The Big 10 v. SEC football rivalry is hilariously discussed here (http://cbs.sportsline.com/spin/story/9007236/1).

[dukie8]

Exactly, RPS. Patrick's posts exhibit what I call "Duke bulletin board institutional awareness." What this means is that, with a vague recollection of the terribly flawed US News rankings, and a general sense of what percentage of 17 year olds get rejected by a give institution, anyone shooting their mouth on a bulletin board can broadly paint Duke and a few other schools as "academic institutions." The implication is that people are shoving berries up their noses at Wisconsin and Florida.

Universities do so much more than play sports and screen freshman applications. In the most respectable university ranking in the world, Shanghai, which considers institutions a bit more holistically, instead of internet-sports-fan-style, Cal (4) destroys Duke (32).

You could look it up:

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm

Now, I'm not huge fan of this absurd university ranking business, but if you're going to play the "we're smarter than them card," at least use the most respected rankings.

throaty, i can't tell if you are serious with your "most respectable" rankings link. i sure hope that you aren't serious because the list is just as ridiculous as most every other ranking but you nonetheless have christened it as "the most respectable" one. it penalizes schools if there are a lot of students and rewards schools if there are few students? that sounds like some fantastic methodology. i cannot tell what the other factors are but the first column is "score on alumni," which rates stanford a 41, duke a 21 and wisconsin a 43. is that ability to chug beers at football games? please. moreover, any rankings that have nyu ahead of duke, northwestern, brown and dartmouth (oops, they just kind of omitted that one) is just plain silly no matter what methodology is being used (strength of drama department?).

i find it rather hypocritical that you rip on PY for making gross generalizations about the academics of certain institutions and then proceed to make gross generalizations about the academics of certain institutions. a very very quick glance at unc's departments reveals that one can major in a host of subjects in the following departments:

allied health
emergency medicine
exercise and sport science
geography (as previously noted)
health behavior and health education
maternal and child health
nutrition
recreation and leisure studies

there is nothing even remotely as soft as these departments at duke. you may think that duke has an easy curriculum but there isn't a single school with big time athletics that has avoided watering down its curriculum as much as duke has. at schools like wisconsin and florida, there are massive academic blackholes that athletes can survive in for their entire "academic" lives that simply don't exist at duke. don't forget that duke failed one of its most beloved students off all time, grant hill, and embarrassingly forced him out of his class's graduation. there is no way that any other student with serious athletics would have done that.

[cspan37421]

OrangeDevil, thanks for a well-crafted post. It is thoughtful and I hate to disagree, but I do.

First on recruiting - I can't speak with authority so I'll skip that. I hope it is true we're getting some good recruits. But when you're right out of high school, you still need coaching. So whether they're good or not coming in, we need a coaching staff that will develop their skills - not one that can't avoid basic problems in execution.

Second - on JC. Wow. I would not like to see it. I don't know about Colt Brennan or how tough school is at Hawaii but I would not like to see our school go that route. It smacks of desperation and unless the kid is in JC because of financial issues, IMO it is too big of an academic gap to claim, with a straight face, that you've bridged. No one I knew from HS who went to JC would have fit in academically at Duke, unless we have some majors that are complete frauds (I hope not but with grade inflation....). I hasten to add, Duke is not Univ of Hawaii. I don't care if the top marine scientists there are comparable to Duke's - we're not talking about scientists here. At one time JC was eyebrow raising for a state school. Have standards dropped so low that it is in the realm of possibility for Duke?

Again, I don't want to close off any players who are academically capable at a Duke level and ended up in JC for some other reason. OK. But as a general rule, no way. If we won that way, do you think anyone would think it was legit? That we didn't sell our academic soul for gridiron glory? We'd be considered no better than anyone else in terms of athletic standards. Change the name to Durham State U.

Rather than JC it would be nice to fill in some gaps with transfers - e.g., a good punter who is 2nd team behind a great one, and wants some exposure?

Third point - Neuheisel: no way. The guy may have talent but he has not the sense to keep himself or his team out of trouble.

Let's not forget this is a zero-sum game. To win, we have to take wins away from others. To do that, we're going to either have to out-recruit or out-coach them, or both. K has been a master at putting together winning teams based on what's in his toolbox. Sometimes he plays no center; sometimes, 4 guards. Sometimes, pressing uptempo; other times, half-court grind. Whether TR has good recruits or not, I don't know. I would hope so. His job is to get them to at least play football free of self-inflicted mistakes. From there, he's going to have to figure out if he attacks with guile or power. Hopefully we have some competitive advantages, and know when and how to deploy them, but who knows.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

All good points OrangeDevil. I would have no problem with Duke bringing in a few JC transfers in the short term to help raise the talent level. Of course, a couple on an ongoing basis would be OK too.

I haven't given up on Ted Roof as our coach yet. No, he isn't a superstar and yes, he is still learning how to be a head coach - OJT is a b*tch, I know, and we are suffering the growing pains. As painful as last Saturday's last 20 minutes were, well, I am the board's paradigm of optimism.

Last year, one poster, and I don't remember who, had an excellent idea of where to find our next coach if it does become necessary - a successful head coach at a "historically black college" who wants to move up to the big time and sees Duke as his ticket up. I really really like this idea IF it comes this.

[-jk]

throaty, i can't tell if you are serious with your "most respectable" rankings link. i sure hope that you aren't serious because the list is just as ridiculous as most every other ranking but you nonetheless have christened it as "the most respectable" one. it penalizes schools if there are a lot of students and rewards schools if there are few students? that sounds like some fantastic methodology. i cannot tell what the other factors are but the first column is "score on alumni," which rates stanford a 41, duke a 21 and wisconsin a 43. is that ability to chug beers at football games? please. moreover, any rankings that have nyu ahead of duke, northwestern, brown and dartmouth (oops, they just kind of omitted that one) is just plain silly no matter what methodology is being used (strength of drama department?).


Not to make any assertions on rankings, but I was curious, and found their methodology here (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Methodology.htm). Seems easily as defensible as US News asking college presidents about reputations.

-jk

[Bluedawg]

Second - on JC. Wow. I would not like to see it. I don't know about Colt Brennan or how tough school is at Hawaii but I would not like to see our school go that route. It smacks of desperation and unless the kid is in JC because of financial issues, IMO it is too big of an academic gap to claim, with a straight face, that you've bridged. No one I knew from HS who went to JC would have fit in academically at Duke, unless we have some majors that are complete frauds (I hope not but with grade inflation....). I hasten to add, Duke is not Univ of Hawaii. I don't care if the top marine scientists there are comparable to Duke's - we're not talking about scientists here. At one time JC was eyebrow raising for a state school. Have standards dropped so low that it is in the realm of possibility for Duke?


I have to take exception to your assault on Junior Colleges. They are not the bottom feeding institutions you claim and I don’t understand your condemnation of them. This is truly the first real elitist attitude I’ve seen you take and it caught me off guard.

[dukie8]

Not to make any assertions on rankings, but I was curious, and found their methodology here (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Methodology.htm). Seems easily as defensible as US News asking college presidents about reputations.

-jk

thanks for the link. it further proves my point about how ridiculous that ranking system is.

40% of the ranking is based purely on the number of "articles" written by faculty on a select range of subjects. the articles don't have to be good -- just articles and articles only on the subjects chosen. a lot of garbage written on garbage scores well here.

another 20% is nobel prizes and field medals won by faculty. i got my mba at u of chicago, which has more noble prize winners on its faculty than anywhere (and it's not even close), and i can tell you first hand that some of the WORST classes i ever have taken (going all the way back to grade school) were taught by some of these distinguished professors. moreover, plenty of them don't even teach classes so the fact that they are on the faculty doesn't really amount to much if you are a student there.

another 20% is "Highly cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories." could it be any more gray and fuzzy? so some of the complete morons who covered the duke lax case (like the law professor i think from northeastern who was cited all over the place) get a school mega points here? fabulous.

10% is the weighted scores of the 5 categories divided by the number of professors. that sounds very important -- particularly if there are a lot of bad professors!

lastly, 10% is based on alums who win nobels and fields. great. we finally hit something that matters and it accounts for a whole 10% of the rankings! what a splendid little ranking system they have put together here...

[Bluedawg]

All good points OrangeDevil. I would have no problem with Duke bringing in a few JC transfers in the short term to help raise the talent level. Of course, a couple on an ongoing basis would be OK too.

I haven't given up on Ted Roof as our coach yet. No, he isn't a superstar and yes, he is still learning how to be a head coach - OJT is a b*tch, I know, and we are suffering the growing pains. As painful as last Saturday's last 20 minutes were, well, I am the board's paradigm of optimism.

Last year, one poster, and I don't remember who, had an excellent idea of where to find our next coach if it does become necessary - a successful head coach at a "historically black college" who wants to move up to the big time and sees Duke as his ticket up. I really really like this idea IF it comes this.

That makes me think of Rod Broadway,formerally of NCCU and now with Grambling State University.

[gep]

Second - on JC. Wow. I would not like to see it. I don't know about Colt Brennan or how tough school is at Hawaii but I would not like to see our school go that route. It smacks of desperation and unless the kid is in JC because of financial issues, IMO it is too big of an academic gap to claim, with a straight face, that you've bridged. No one I knew from HS who went to JC would have fit in academically at Duke, unless we have some majors that are complete frauds (I hope not but with grade inflation....). I hasten to add, Duke is not Univ of Hawaii. I don't care if the top marine scientists there are comparable to Duke's - we're not talking about scientists here. At one time JC was eyebrow raising for a state school. Have standards dropped so low that it is in the realm of possibility for Duke?

Again, I don't want to close off any players who are academically capable at a Duke level and ended up in JC for some other reason. OK. But as a general rule, no way. If we won that way, do you think anyone would think it was legit? That we didn't sell our academic soul for gridiron glory? We'd be considered no better than anyone else in terms of athletic standards. Change the name to Durham State U.

Rather than JC it would be nice to fill in some gaps with transfers - e.g., a good punter who is 2nd team behind a great one, and wants some exposure?


I also don't completely agree with your opinions towards JC transfers. I like the idea, mainly because it brings in a more mature football player, and one that has been in a school beyond high school. BUT, I do NOT advocate lowering academic and admissions standards "just to get the JC transfer in". Maybe there's no JC transfer that can get admitted to Duke, but if no one is looking, how would they know?

I also thought of the "regular" transfers... but I think you end up at the same place as the JC transfer. The "regular" transfer from where-ever university may have just a hard of a time getting admitted to Duke as the JC transfer. Again, until some looks, no one knows...

And, someone else mentioned that the ACC doesn't allow JC transfers... any confirmation to that?

[dukie8]

I have to take exception to your assault on Junior Colleges. They are not the bottom feeding institutions you claim and I don’t understand your condemnation of them. This is truly the first real elitist attitude I’ve seen you take and it caught me off guard.

if jucos aren't the bottom feeding institutions previously claim, then please provide a list of some distinguished alums. i never have run across a single juco grad who has been successful professionally, academically or otherwise (except athletically). i'm not saying that they don't exist but i never have seen one and your simple word that they aren't bad institutions doesn't cut it -- particularly when most of us on here know them only as the schools that take the real academic dregs of athletics that take the athletes with downright putrid academic credentials.

[RelativeWays]

Are we talking about athletes who transfer from JC's or people in general? My father transferred from Pensacola Junior College to Samford University in Birmingham, where he earned his degree in Pharmacy. He's been a pharmacist for almost 40 years and if monetary gain is how we are measuring success, then he far exceeds the criteria. There are a lot of people who have graduated from technical and community colleges who earn more money than those who graduated with a four year degree from a university. The idea that one needs a bachelor's degree or master's to be successful in today's society is a myth that is no longer relevant.

[SoCalDukeFan]

if jucos aren't the bottom feeding institutions previously claim, then please provide a list of some distinguished alums. i never have run across a single juco grad who has been successful professionally, academically or otherwise (except athletically). i'm not saying that they don't exist but i never have seen one and your simple word that they aren't bad institutions doesn't cut it -- particularly when most of us on here know them only as the schools that take the real academic dregs of athletics that take the athletes with downright putrid academic credentials.

The California junior college system feeds the university system. It is an excellent way for many students to get in two years inexpensively and also to grow up. I have a friend whose son-in-law went to a JC (where he got inspired), then graduated from U.C. Berkeley in Physics, worked in Physics on the South Pole, then started an Internet business and is now rather wealthy in his mid-30s.

SoCal

[Bluedawg]

if jucos aren't the bottom feeding institutions previously claim, then please provide a list of some distinguished alums. i never have run across a single juco grad who has been successful professionally, academically or otherwise (except athletically).

My entire family

I have a good friend who owns a chain of pharmacies, is a former Mayor, is now a State Representative and has never lost an election. i know of one person who is a former Lt Governor, former Governor and former US Senator and all of us attended the same JC.

Put your elitism behind you.

[Tommac]

I'm not sure of all community colleges in NC, but credits earned at Alamance Community College are transferrable to any of the UNC campuses in North Carolina. It's a less expensive way to get college started, especially if the student doesn't know what area they want to major in. I am told than it is very common to require three years at the 4 year school to complete degree requirements. For most majors it would be hard to get in the major credits in only two years.

[cspan37421]

The practice of getting 2 yrs of credit at a JC and then transferring because it saves money is precisely the exceptional reason I mentioned - financial. Go back and read the post: "unless the kid is in JC because of financial issues,"

Let me be more specific: if the kid is in JC because he wasn't accepted at a 4 yr university, despite being able to play football, then I don't think it wise to bring them to Duke and assume they'll do fine academically. To say so is not an "assault" and I didn't use the phrase "bottom feeding" - those are your words, bluedawg, and they don't reflect my view at all. My 11-yr old daughter took a summer youth class at a local technical community college. It was great for her and better than the local branch of the Univ. of TN system. bought her a hoodie from it. I have a close relative who led a certain state's community college system for over a dozen years. So if you think I look down my nose at JCs in general, you're quite mistaken.

Now, if it is elitist to believe that I suspect a person who went to JC because they couldn't get in to a 4 yr college - that they would struggle at Duke, well so be it. But remember, Duke is an elite college.

Hope that clarifies things.

[captmojo]

At 7300 hits and 150 posts, I think it's obvious that people want to see it fixed.

[cspan37421]

Go Duke! Stun UVA. Shock the world!

[Bluedawg]

To say so is not an "assault" and I didn't use the phrase "bottom feeding" - those are your words, bluedawg, and they don't reflect my view at all.

You are correct, it was my words and not yours. However the tone of the paragraph led me to that feeling.


Let me be more specific: if the kid is in JC because he wasn't accepted at a 4 yr university, despite being able to play football, then I don't think it wise to bring them to Duke and assume they'll do fine academically.

I agree...if they can't compete then they can't compete.


But remember, Duke is an elite college.

Yes it is, and it should be proud of it. However, there is a difference in being elite and being elitist.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Let me be more specific: if the kid is in JC because he wasn't accepted at a 4 yr university, despite being able to play football, then I don't think it wise to bring them to Duke and assume they'll do fine academically.

If a kid could really play football he'd find a scholarship at a 4 year college somewhere. If he didn't qualify academically for Div. 1 and really could play, and has matured and realized the error of his non-studying ways and made himself into a good student, then maybe he could help and do the academic work and graduate. He'd actually be quite a success story.

Upon further reflection, there aren't many of those out there.

[TheTrain]

What's the big deal? Duke has had two Jucos in the last few years (Brian Sallee and Chris Sprague) and they did just fine

[Bluedawg]

What's the big deal? Duke has had two Jucos in the last few years (Brian Sallee and Chris Sprague) and they did just fine

then why have i been told by people, not just on this board but at duke, that there is a policy not to use JC transfer's?

[-jk]

then why have i been told by people, not just on this board but at duke, that there is a policy not to use JC transfer's?

Um... Don't trust everything you read or hear?

;)

-jk

[johnb]

Jeff Van Gundy transferred from Yale to Menlo Junior College after he was cut from the basketball team. He has turned out okay, though I do recognize that his movement was opposite to what you're describing.

I could go on, listing the hundred of millions of people who have been productive American citizens despite their not having graduated from Duke. I hope people realize that it is completely absurd to believe that a good student at Hawaii (or other state school) couldn't make their way therough Duke. I assume the bottom x percent (? 25%) would have difficulty graduating, and that only the top students would make Phi beta Kappa, but there is a reason that a few of our sports teams can recruit people with 1000 SAT's: because a reasonably bright and dedicated student can almost always get through Duke even if s/he wouldn't have been accepted based strictly on academics. I'm accustomed to dukie8's hostile, dismissive comments about people, but, unless you have intimate knowledge about jucos and community colleges--and about the people who attend them--I'd suggest passing on the broad, stereotyped brushstrokes, at the very least because it's bad manners and reinforces the elitist Duke stereotype.