A Query About the Duke Football Program

[J_C_Steel]

If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?

Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).

Now, I'm a fan of David Cutcliffe, but we're not seeing steady improvement under his watch. While Stanford went from 1-11 to 4-8 to 5-7 to 8-5 to 12-1 under Jim Harbaugh, Duke stagnated in 2010 after some modest improvement from 2007 (1-11) through 2009 (5-7). The defense simply hasn't gotten better and play in the trenches has taken a step back.

To me, when you're coaching at a small school in a big-time conference, you have to do two things to be successful. First, you have to implement a non-traditional (or even gimmicky) offense and/or defense to make your team more difficult to prepare to play. Second, you have to recruit players that fit your system and can run it to perfection. This does not necessarily mean you have to bring in a ton of 4- or 5-star recruits. Rather, it means that you have to find the best players for your particular brand of football.

As to the first item, Coach Cutcliffe has done a pretty good job implementing a fairly non-traditional spread offense at Duke. However, he has failed to craft any similar innovation on the defensive side of the ball. Such an innovation is necessary to stop ACC offenses, particularly on the ground. He could go to a straight 4-6 or play a base 5-2. Whatever it is, he needs to take chances and implement (or hire a new defensive coordinator to implement) a new defensive system.

As to the second item, I believe Coach Cutcliffe has not quite succeeded. He needs to find and bring to Durham capable big men to man the offensive and defensive lines, and he also needs to bring in as many speed guys as possible to keep the spread offense moving. Finally, to truly push Duke to the next level, he'll need to develop a pro prospect at the quarterback position. To his credit, Coach Cutcliffe is trying to lure top quarterback recruits to Duke with his system and promises of airing it out. His success or failure as a head coach will probably turn on whether he finds an "Andrew Luck."

Those are my thoughts. As a huge football fan, I want to see the Duke program become a winner. I just think they'll have to take a non-traditional path to get there. So far, I don't think Coach Cutcliffe has been non-traditional enough. Here's hoping he takes more chances and strikes gold soon...

[Duvall]

If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?

Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).

It also helps to have a $500 million athletics endowment, a brand-new stadium and the largest state in the union that you only have to share with three other BCS programs.

[Bob Green]

However, he has failed to craft any similar innovation on the defensive side of the ball. Such an innovation is necessary to stop ACC offenses, particularly on the ground.

Coach Cutcliffe and defensive coordinator Marion Hobby attempted to implement a 3-4 defense in 2010 in order to emphasize Duke's strength at the linebacker position. However, the 3-4 scheme was not successful so Duke abandoned it. IMO, the 3-4 requires a dominant nose tackle, which Duke did not possess.

[Acymetric]

Coach Cutcliffe and defensive coordinator Marion Hobby attempted to implement a 3-4 defense in 2010 in order to emphasize Duke's strength at the linebacker position. However, the 3-4 scheme was not successful so Duke abandoned it. IMO, the 3-4 requires a dominant nose tackle, which Duke did not possess.

I think we also turned out not to have the linebackers to play the 3-4, as evidenced by the fact that we mostly played 4-2-5 after we bailed on the 3-4, using Matt Daniels as a hybrid safety/3rd linebacker. Hopefully some of the guys with all the physical tools develop the knowledge and instinct they need to play next year.

[loran16]

If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?

Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).

Now, I'm a fan of David Cutcliffe, but we're not seeing steady improvement under his watch. While Stanford went from 1-11 to 4-8 to 5-7 to 8-5 to 12-1 under Jim Harbaugh, Duke stagnated in 2010 after some modest improvement from 2007 (1-11) through 2009 (5-7). The defense simply hasn't gotten better and play in the trenches has taken a step back.

To me, when you're coaching at a small school in a big-time conference, you have to do two things to be successful. First, you have to implement a non-traditional (or even gimmicky) offense and/or defense to make your team more difficult to prepare to play. Second, you have to recruit players that fit your system and can run it to perfection. This does not necessarily mean you have to bring in a ton of 4- or 5-star recruits. Rather, it means that you have to find the best players for your particular brand of football.

As to the first item, Coach Cutcliffe has done a pretty good job implementing a fairly non-traditional spread offense at Duke. However, he has failed to craft any similar innovation on the defensive side of the ball. Such an innovation is necessary to stop ACC offenses, particularly on the ground. He could go to a straight 4-6 or play a base 5-2. Whatever it is, he needs to take chances and implement (or hire a new defensive coordinator to implement) a new defensive system.

As to the second item, I believe Coach Cutcliffe has not quite succeeded. He needs to find and bring to Durham capable big men to man the offensive and defensive lines, and he also needs to bring in as many speed guys as possible to keep the spread offense moving. Finally, to truly push Duke to the next level, he'll need to develop a pro prospect at the quarterback position. To his credit, Coach Cutcliffe is trying to lure top quarterback recruits to Duke with his system and promises of airing it out. His success or failure as a head coach will probably turn on whether he finds an "Andrew Luck."

Those are my thoughts. As a huge football fan, I want to see the Duke program become a winner. I just think they'll have to take a non-traditional path to get there. So far, I don't think Coach Cutcliffe has been non-traditional enough. Here's hoping he takes more chances and strikes gold soon...

I've said this before. Stanford is a TERRIBLE example.

First of all, since 1999, they've had only two horrible-Duke-like seasons (a 1-11 season and a 2-9 season). Duke has had 7, including multiple 0 win seasons.

They even won the Pac-10 in 1999, a full 10 years more recent than Duke's last real ACC Title (well co-title).

Moreover, they are known in the last 20 years athletically more for football than their other sports, despite occasional good bball performances. While they did (disputably) lose the "Band is Out on the Field!" game, it's constant replaying only helps that reputation. Moreover, they've been a school far more recently than Duke that has put plenty of players into the NFL (14 Current NFL players). And of course, the memory of John Elway is a big one....and certainly helps luring QBs like Luck.

The end result is the fact that recruiting at Stanford is far easier and thus better than at Duke, and will ever be at Duke for the very nearby future.

If you do want to compare an academic school to Duke, Northwestern or Vandy better fit the bill. Both are good schools academically, without a recent history as a big time contender.

[DukeSean]

It also helps to have a $500 million athletics endowment, a brand-new stadium and the largest state in the union that you only have to share with three other BCS programs.

Can't speak for Alaskans, but we Texans take offense ;)

[J_C_Steel]

I read about the attempt to implement a 3-4 defense. I never liked the concept for Duke.

I've been watching the Pittsburgh Steelers run the 3-4 about as well as it can be run the last 20+ years. And you not only need a stout nose tackle in the middle, you need smart and strong defensive ends capable of playing the two gap technique. Duke lacks kids that can do that.

Further, the 3-4 isn't non-traditional enough in my view. Duke needs to craft a risky defensive scheme that takes advantage of the athletes they do have. Now, no defense can work without some big men. So Coach Cutcliffe needs to lure some hogs to Durham. But in terms of scheme I'd LOVE to see Duke try to put together a blitzing, Buddy Ryan archetypal 46 defense. Play four down linemen in traditional one-gap technique, three linebackers right behind them, and then your biggest and most athletic safety roaming around the front seven and blitzing from every angle. You could even play an "amoeba" style (all front seven players standing upright and mulling around the line of scrimmage to disguise who is rushing and who is dropping into coverage) on passing downs.

I just want to see a coherent, non-traditional defensive scheme implemented. Soon. Like now.

[J_C_Steel]

I've said this before. Stanford is a TERRIBLE example.

First of all, since 1999, they've had only two horrible-Duke-like seasons (a 1-11 season and a 2-9 season). Duke has had 7, including multiple 0 win seasons.

They even won the Pac-10 in 1999, a full 10 years more recent than Duke's last real ACC Title (well co-title).

Moreover, they are known in the last 20 years athletically more for football than their other sports, despite occasional good bball performances. While they did (disputably) lose the "Band is Out on the Field!" game, it's constant replaying only helps that reputation. Moreover, they've been a school far more recently than Duke that has put plenty of players into the NFL (14 Current NFL players). And of course, the memory of John Elway is a big one....and certainly helps luring QBs like Luck.

The end result is the fact that recruiting at Stanford is far easier and thus better than at Duke, and will ever be at Duke for the very nearby future.

If you do want to compare an academic school to Duke, Northwestern or Vandy better fit the bill. Both are good schools academically, without a recent history as a big time contender.

Stanford has had more success recently than Duke, but what happened in 1999 shouldn't be effecting recruiting in 2011. I'll give you the Elway advantage, given his national prominence, but Duke should be able to build a solid program much like Stanford's.

And hey, Vanderbilt had Jay Cutler. Where's our gunslinger?

[throatybeard]

California is the largest state in the Union by population. I don't see Pac10 coaches heavily recruting Alaska becuase of its large area.

7B) Why can Stanford and Northwestern do it, but we can’t?

[ElSid]

Stanford has had more success recently than Duke, but what happened in 1999 shouldn't be effecting recruiting in 2011. I'll give you the Elway advantage, given his national prominence, but Duke should be able to build a solid program much like Stanford's.

And hey, Vanderbilt had Jay Cutler. Where's our gunslinger?

Renfree is/was considered a large recruiting win. It is not typical for a top 10 high school QB prospect to come to Duke, or other such historically win-challenged programs. If Cutcliffe is famous for anything in particular, it's developing QBs. I'm not concerned about Renfree becoming a very quality player.

I don't know much about our defensive schemes or other aspects of the game, but I do think QB play and recruiting should probably be the least of our worries.

My instinct would be to give Cutcliffe a lot more time to try to get it right.

[sagegrouse]

If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?

Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).

Now, I'm a fan of David Cutcliffe, but we're not seeing steady improvement under his watch. While Stanford went from 1-11 to 4-8 to 5-7 to 8-5 to 12-1 under Jim Harbaugh, Duke stagnated in 2010 after some modest improvement from 2007 (1-11) through 2009 (5-7). The defense simply hasn't gotten better and play in the trenches has taken a step back.



I think you are asking a natural question. Let me help with you with some background. The poster above has already mentioned endowment and resources (yep, it's a good thing to be the largest intellectual property owner in Silicon Valley). Here's some more:

In the ten NFL drafts since 2001, Stanford has had 31 players drafted. Duke has had one - 1 - 1.000 - uno - eine -un! Moreover, IIRC that draftee never played a down in the NFL. The next lowest total in the ACC is 17 for Wake Forest. The big boys, Miami and FSU, have had around 75 drafted in these ten years, while the bulk of the ACC -- UNC, State, Clemson -- have had around 25.

I haven't researched wins and losses for the two programs, but I believe they would show a comparable picture of Stanford doing far better than Duke. Therefore, it is misleading to conclude that Stanford at 1-11 four years ago and Duke at 1-11 are really in the same position. Stanford has been up and down, but Duke football has been in the pits for years and years and years. It took a long time to get there, and it will take years to get out.

I share your frustration. In my four years at Duke we won the ACC in football three times, and these weren't necessarily the glory years.

Laying Duke's football woes at the feet of the current coach and his staff is completely unfair. IMHO (where the H is always silent) Cut knows how to coach, recruit, and run a program, and for the first time in nearly 50 years, someone is getting the resources to do it.

sagegrouse

[duke09hms]

Stanford has a much more recent history of football success than we do, and so Duke football is in a MUCH deeper hole than Stanford has been in.
Their university endowment of 15 billion is three times greater than Duke's of 5 billion, and their athletic endowment is also much larger.
Their training facilities and stadium and much larger and well-equipped than ours, though that may begin to change soon.
Stanford has Jim Harbaugh, arguably one of the best college football coaches in the country. Cutcliffe is a great coach, but probably not on Harbaugh's level. I don't think it's a knock on Cut to say this.

aside: I have to give props to the attitude Harbaugh has instilled in their program. In 2007 (a 4-8 season) prior to their game against #2 USC, he stated publicly, "We bow to no man. We bow to no program here at Stanford University." They then beat USC 24-23.

Therefore, it IS NOT logical or valid to compare the two programs head-to-head.
However, their 40-12 blowout of VT last night IS useful to show what Duke football can achieve, and it is what we should strive for.

It is not fair to Cutcliffe to say we are not getting better enough when in 3 years we have more wins than the previous 9. Building a football program takes a long time, much longer than with basketball, and ultimately time will tell, but 3 seasons after 8 wins in 9 seasons is not enough time.

It obviously starts with recruiting, and our classes coming in have much more depth and more than half the commitments are 3-star recruits. I think a reasonable goal for us is to expect mostly 3-stars with a few 4-stars.

I believe the loss of John Drew, a would-be sophomore 300+ lb DT and 4-star recruit to expulsion, was a huge factor in our porous defense and 3-9 season.

[El_Diablo]

Let's also remember that we lost four games by less than a TD. And we lost to GT by 10, but we were up 13-6 at the half. While it would be nice to convert some of those Ls into Ws...we should also remember that we had a young roster with a scrawny OL and a pretty stout schedule. We're not as far off as you might think (laughable comparisons to Stanford aside).

[Duke: A Dynasty]

Why come to Duke to play football when you got State? or Unc? or Wake? Even Ecu. All have more established programs in football in state here. And out of state kids, I mean same thing.

[duke09hms]

Why come to Duke to play football when you got State? or Unc? or Wake? Even Ecu. All have more established programs in football in state here. And out of state kids, I mean same thing.

Easy answers:

To get an education at an internationally renowned Top 5-Top 10 school, to be part of the movement in resurrecting Duke football, and the biggest reason, because you connect with the coaches, and you think they can develop you the best.

[uh_no]

Let's also remember that we lost four games by less than a TD. And we lost to GT by 10, but we were up 13-6 at the half. While it would be nice to convert some of those Ls into Ws...we should also remember that we had a young roster with a scrawny OL and a pretty stout schedule. We're not as far off as you might think (laughable comparisons to Stanford aside).

DING DING DING

we had a new quarterback who struggled in several games and a young team overall....but the young team will grow....I don't know how many starters we are returning next year, but its a lot....IMHO? watch out for duke football next year....

[tommy]

If Stanford, a prominent private university with high academic standards that plays in a solid BCS conference in football, can go from 1-11 in 2006 to 12-1 and an Orange Bowl victory following the 2010 season, why can't Duke make a similar jump?

Theoretically, in my view, there is no reason but one -- coaching (which encompasses game strategy and recruiting).

. . .


As to the second item, I believe Coach Cutcliffe has not quite succeeded. He needs to find and bring to Durham capable big men to man the offensive and defensive lines, and he also needs to bring in as many speed guys as possible to keep the spread offense moving. Finally, to truly push Duke to the next level, he'll need to develop a pro prospect at the quarterback position. To his credit, Coach Cutcliffe is trying to lure top quarterback recruits to Duke with his system and promises of airing it out. His success or failure as a head coach will probably turn on whether he finds an "Andrew Luck."

So you think we should be recruiting a lot of big guys and a lot of fast guys, and we need a QB who will be the #1 pick in the NFL draft? Wow, those ideas are really way out there. I'm sure Coach Cut has never considered any of them, nor is every coach in the country looking for exactly the same thing.

:rolleyes:

[davekay1971]

DING DING DING

we had a new quarterback who struggled in several games and a young team overall....but the young team will grow....I don't know how many starters we are returning next year, but its a lot....IMHO? watch out for duke football next year....

Exactly. Duke's big "downturn" this year was mainly a byproduct of youth. But it was easy to see the improvement in athleticism across the board. This is a team that will develop over the next two years into a much more competitive team. And our gunslinger, Renfree, most of all.

To each his own opinion, and what Harbaugh has done at Stanford sets the standard for building a program at an academically strong private university, but I'm more than willing to give Cut time, because I still see this program moving in a very positive direction.

[J_C_Steel]

So you think we should be recruiting a lot of big guys and a lot of fast guys, and we need a QB who will be the #1 pick in the NFL draft? Wow, those ideas are really way out there. I'm sure Coach Cut has never considered any of them, nor is every coach in the country looking for exactly the same thing.

:rolleyes:

My point is that a coach has to recruit for his SYSTEM. The top-notch big guys usually flood the top football programs, but good coaches from smaller schools do an excellent job poaching trench talent by recruiting "frames" instead of "players." I've seen this work at Boise State and Northwestern (particularly during the Autry years).

As for quarterback, Luck is simply an example. Certainly, it would be difficult for Coach Cutcliffe to lure a top-of-the-line prototype quarterback to Durham, but he can find projectable arms and try to develop them. We've all seen what Cutcliffe did with Peyton Manning at Tennessee, and I'm anxious to see what kind of signal-caller Sean Renfree turns out to be. But all that matters is results. He needs to find the best quarterback that can run HIS spread offense. That's the challenge.

Schematically, the defense has to undergo drastic change. The 3-4 was a terrible idea, so the team should (at least in my view) implement a risky and confusing non-traditional college defense that gives running offenses fits. The 46 and 52 and "amoeba" defenses can accomplish that.

[J_C_Steel]

Exactly. Duke's big "downturn" this year was mainly a byproduct of youth. But it was easy to see the improvement in athleticism across the board. This is a team that will develop over the next two years into a much more competitive team. And our gunslinger, Renfree, most of all.

Duke needs more big guys. In my view, Coach Cutcliffe hasn't brought in enough "frames" to fill the trenches with capable players. That's going to hold back the rest of the team for years unless it's addressed quickly.

[roywhite]

As for quarterback, Luck is simply an example. Certainly, it would be difficult for Coach Cutcliffe to lure a top-of-the-line prototype quarterback to Durham, but he can find projectable arms and try to develop them. We've all seen what Cutcliffe did with Peyton Manning at Tennessee, and I'm anxious to see what kind of signal-caller Sean Renfree turns out to be. But all that matters is results. He needs to find the best quarterback that can run HIS spread offense. That's the challenge.

Schematically, the defense has to undergo drastic change. The 3-4 was a terrible idea, so the team should (at least in my view) implement a risky and confusing non-traditional college defense that gives running offenses fits. The 46 and 52 and "amoeba" defenses can accomplish that.

Sean Renfree was a highly recruited top-of-the line QB prospect.

2008 Parade All-America team (http://www.parade.com/news/all-america/2008/All-America)

Additionally, Coach Cut has been recruiting bigger, better offensive linemen.

The big area for improvement is in the defensive front seven, and, frankly, Duke has always had difficulty in attracting good, big defensive linemen. Nevertheless, I'm happy with Coach Cut, and expect continued improvement.

[duke09hms]

Indoor practice facility now under construction:
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22672&SPID=1843&ATCLID=205069507&DB_OEM_ID=4200


Regarding the "frames" of which you speak - 300 lb. linemen don't exactly grow on trees, and Cut has only been here for 3 years. Take a look at this year's class, we got 9 linemen coming in, and most of them are big boys, even by football standards.

Size is not everything, just look at TCU whose average D-lineman was outweighed by 60 lbs by the average Wisconsin O-lineman. Yet, their defense largely shut down Wisconsin.

[J_C_Steel]

Sean Renfree was a highly recruited top-of-the line QB prospect.

2008 Parade All-America team (http://www.parade.com/news/all-america/2008/All-America)

Additionally, Coach Cut has been recruiting bigger, better offensive linemen.

The big area for improvement is in the defensive front seven, and, frankly, Duke has always had difficulty in attracting good, big defensive linemen. Nevertheless, I'm happy with Coach Cut, and expect continued improvement.

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. In other words, he was ranked high but not in the five-star group.

He wasn't in SI's top 25:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/highschool/10/14/25.qbs/

Andrew Luck was in the same class as Renfree and he was ranked the 68th best overall prospect by Rivals, while Renfree was not in the top 100.

[bluepenguin]

I'm not a big fan of football. I don't really follow it anymore other than to see how Duke is doing. (the reasons for my lost interest are not germane to this thread so I won't elaborate unless someone really wants to know).
But what I have seen in the last 10 years or so, is a paucity of talented players coming to Duke. I base this on the annual recruiting write-up in the Atlanta papers, where they list the top hundred players or so in the south and where they will matriculate. It is very rare to see Duke on that list. I have to believe this is the same throughout the rest of the nation.
Who's fault is it? Several posters argue that Cut is a good recruiter. I would suggest maybe he is not as good as we think. If so, shouldn't we see more of the top players in the south going to Duke?
Others have stated that we don't have the facilities/resources to match a school like Stanford. Hasn't Duke updated the stadium and the facilities in the past decade? And even if our facilities are not the best, why is that an excuse for not being able to bring good players in? Did it stop Coach K?
Cut may be a good field coach. But until the talent comes to Duke, he will not be able to show it. And if the talent doesn't come to Duke, either Cut needs to hire a recruiting coordinator who can do the job, or Duke may need to find another head coach who can convince players to come to Duke. Until Duke gets the talent, I don't see Duke improving.

[J_C_Steel]

Indoor practice facility now under construction:
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22672&SPID=1843&ATCLID=205069507&DB_OEM_ID=4200


Regarding the "frames" of which you speak - 300 lb. linemen don't exactly grow on trees, and Cut has only been here for 3 years. Take a look at this year's class, we got 9 linemen coming in, and most of them are big boys, even by football standards.

Size is not everything, just look at TCU whose average D-lineman was outweighed by 60 lbs by the average Wisconsin O-lineman. Yet, their defense largely shut down Wisconsin.

This year's class certainly looks better. I'm not ragging on it; I just want to see results.

And I agree with you about the defense -- scheme and technique are vital. That's why I'd like to see a non-traditional defensive plan implemented (NOT a 3-4) that can shoot gaps, stop the run game and create pressure. The Blue Devils play too much conventional defense for my tastes. They need to take risks.

[J_C_Steel]

Cut may be a good field coach. But until the talent comes to Duke, he will not be able to show it. And if the talent doesn't come to Duke, either Cut needs to hire a recruiting coordinator who can do the job, or Duke may need to find another head coach who can convince players to come to Duke. Until Duke gets the talent, I don't see Duke improving.

This is only partially true.

You can win without a lot of talent if you have a non-traditional scheme that is expertly executed by smart football players. They don't have to be the BEST football players, but they have to be smart and execute the system to perfection.

Boise State doesn't get a lot of 4- or 5-star recruits, but they have a brilliant coach in Chris Peterson who has implemented a complex offensive system that takes risks and puts opposing teams on their heels. If you don't have the talent, you have to take chances.

[bluepenguin]

I've said this before. Stanford is a TERRIBLE example.

First of all, since 1999, they've had only two horrible-Duke-like seasons (a 1-11 season and a 2-9 season). Duke has had 7, including multiple 0 win seasons.

They even won the Pac-10 in 1999, a full 10 years more recent than Duke's last real ACC Title (well co-title).

Moreover, they are known in the last 20 years athletically more for football than their other sports, despite occasional good bball performances. While they did (disputably) lose the "Band is Out on the Field!" game, it's constant replaying only helps that reputation. Moreover, they've been a school far more recently than Duke that has put plenty of players into the NFL (14 Current NFL players). And of course, the memory of John Elway is a big one....and certainly helps luring QBs like Luck.

The end result is the fact that recruiting at Stanford is far easier and thus better than at Duke, and will ever be at Duke for the very nearby future.

If you do want to compare an academic school to Duke, Northwestern or Vandy better fit the bill. Both are good schools academically, without a recent history as a big time contender.
I think you may be missing the point. Don't compare Duke to Stanford based on their respective performances since 1999. Instead, ask yourself WHY Stanford has done better than Duke since 1999. They are similar private schools that put academics ahead of sports. But Stanford has been much more successful at it than Duke. Stanford has won the Director's Cup sixteen straight years, winning sixteen out of the seventeen years it has been offered. So I wouldn't say they are a football school. What is it about the Stanford model that makes it so successful?
As for recruiting, I discussed this in another post. It shouldn't be easier to recruit at Stanford. A good coach can always get the recruits to come to a school.

[Duvall]

I think you may be missing the point. Don't compare Duke to Stanford based on their respective performances since 1999. Instead, ask yourself WHY Stanford has done better than Duke since 1999. They are similar private schools that put academics ahead of sports. But Stanford has been much more successful at it than Duke. Stanford has won the Director's Cup sixteen straight years, winning sixteen out of the seventeen years it has been offered. So I wouldn't say they are a football school. What is it about the Stanford model that makes it so successful?

Cash, mostly.

Not having terrible coaches also helped the Cardinal.

[El_Diablo]

Regarding lack of "frames"...the upcoming DL was somewhat thin already, but we lost two defensive linemen last January when they were dismissed from the team for shooting a gun into the air on Campus Drive. One (Drew) was expected to play a lot this year. So if we had little depth at DL, the initial attempt to use a 3-4 seems to make a little more sense than a 5-2. But maybe that's just me.

[J_C_Steel]

Regarding lack of "frames"...the upcoming DL was somewhat thin already, but we lost two defensive linemen last January when they were dismissed from the team for shooting a gun into the air on Campus Drive. One (Drew) was expected to play a lot this year. So if we had little depth at DL, the initial attempt to use a 3-4 seems to make a little more sense than a 5-2. But maybe that's just me.

The problem there is technique. You need fewer defensive linemen to run a 3-4, but they have to be EXCELLENT (i.e. Casey Hampton and Aaron Smith and Brett Keisel in Pittsburgh). I'd rather see a bunch of average guys playing one-gap defense on the line than three under-skilled kids trying to play a two-gap scheme in the 3-4.

Actually, the 46 might have worked best in 2010 from a schematic point of view (provided the coaches had the time/ability to implement it).

[Acymetric]

Regarding lack of "frames"...the upcoming DL was somewhat thin already, but we lost two defensive linemen last January when they were dismissed from the team for shooting a gun into the air on Campus Drive. One (Drew) was expected to play a lot this year. So if we had little depth at DL, the initial attempt to use a 3-4 seems to make a little more sense than a 5-2. But maybe that's just me.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest a 5-2 was the answer...

[J_C_Steel]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest a 5-2 was the answer...

I threw it out as a possibility against running teams. It makes things easier for the defensive linemen, who can line up hat-on-hat on the offensive line to create gaps for the two linebackers. Provided the safeties and/or corners can provide outside contain, it should free up at least one player for the tackle.

Personally, I'd prefer an aggressive 46 defense.

[-jk]

Whatever the merits of the two schools, we have both recent and long term baggage. We have been to two bowl games in last 50 years. Stanford's been to bowl games in every decade of the last 50 years, and 8 in the last 20 years.

That's a world of difference in what recruits think of the two schools. Toss in that football is the second sport at Duke - and a distant second at that - and some recruits will be reluctant to come.

-jk

[El_Diablo]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest a 5-2 was the answer...

Post 19.

Anyway, my point was to respond to the OP's supposed "query" about why Cut hadn't initially used a different defensive scheme using more D-linemen. I'm pretty sure Cut and his staff didn't go out of their way to find the worst possible formation for their personnel, and they likely had other reasons for not employing "riskier" schemes. For example: I haven't played Madden in a while, so my memory might be a little cloudy on this, but I thought a 4-6 needs some good DBs to lock down receivers. If so, this was a huge weakness for us last year, and I think we would have gotten absolutely torched in the passing game in relying on the 4-6, since our DBs (which were not very well suited for 1-on-1 coverage) would have been consistently exposed on the outside and deep.

[El_Diablo]

I threw it out as a possibility against running teams. It makes things easier for the defensive linemen, who can line up hat-on-hat on the offensive line to create gaps for the two linebackers. Provided the safeties and/or corners can provide outside contain, it should free up at least one player for the tackle.

Personally, I'd prefer an aggressive 46 defense.

Yeah, so it sounds like we're on the same page regarding what is needed for a 4-6 to work: effective DBs.

I'll admit, I only watched eight of our games this year. Maybe you saw something that I didn't, but I don't see how someone could plausibly believe that we had the type of players in our secondary to run a 4-6 consistently and effectively.

[cato]

Don't compare Duke to Stanford based on their respective performances since 1999. Instead, ask yourself WHY Stanford has done better than Duke since 1999. They are similar private schools that put academics ahead of sports.

Frankly, I don't get the comparisons between Duke and Stanford at all. Sure, they are both selective private schools, but I'd put Stanford in a different class. It has more money, much better name recognition and reputation outside of the Southeast and a far more successful athletic program in general.

Should Duke aim to achieve the same levels of success? Sure. But the first answer for why Duke hasn't achieved the same success is, well, because it's not Stanford.

[duke09hms]

Frankly, I don't get the comparisons between Duke and Stanford at all. Sure, they are both selective private schools, but I'd put Stanford in a different class. It has more money, much better name recognition and reputation outside of the Southeast and a far more successful athletic program in general.

Should Duke aim to achieve the same levels of success? Sure. But the first answer for why Duke hasn't achieved the same success is, well, because it's not Stanford.

Minor quibble - I'd say money is by far the largest reason for Stanford's success. They had some bball alum named Arrillaga who dropped $100 million straight to the athletic department. The two schools are very similar in most other regard and the other factors are much smaller in extent - name recognition, reputation, etc. I mean, Duke still can't afford to offer financial scholarships to many of our athletes!

Gradually it is changing, and patience is key.

However, it all boils down to money.

[DueBlevil]

Indoor practice facility now under construction:
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22672&SPID=1843&ATCLID=205069507&DB_OEM_ID=4200


I noticed that, too; does anyone have any more details on this project or any recent information on where the stadium renovation stands?

Although progress has been slow, I must admit that I'm impressed that the university seems to be keeping on track with many of their promised facility upgrades thus far.

[El_Diablo]

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. In other words, he was ranked high but not in the five-star group.

He wasn't in SI's top 25:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/highschool/10/14/25.qbs/

Andrew Luck was in the same class as Renfree and he was ranked the 68th best overall prospect by Rivals, while Renfree was not in the top 100.

Scout had Renfree at #10.

BTW, where did all this talk about Luck wanting to play at Duke come from? Does anyone have a link? Seems pretty specious to me. Regardless, even if it were accurate that Luck was at one time considering Duke, he committed to Stanford six months before Duke even hired Cutcliffe. Renfree was a huge pickup in the spring of 2008, and was (I believe) the second-best QB still available. The only better one still open was Pryor, whom we were also recruiting and who listed us as one of his finalists out of respect for what Cutcliffe had accomplished elsewhere. So let's not rewrite history and make it seem like Cutcliffe simply went hard after some mediocre talent while ignoring all the better ones. Renfree was a huge prize for us, and I don't find any fault in Cutcliffe settling for a 4-star player who I believe was our biggest QB recruit in over a decade, no matter what recruiting service you use.

[roywhite]

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. In other words, he was ranked high but not in the five-star group.

He wasn't in SI's top 25:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/highschool/10/14/25.qbs/

Andrew Luck was in the same class as Renfree and he was ranked the 68th best overall prospect by Rivals, while Renfree was not in the top 100.


Sean Renfree was a highly recruited top-of-the line QB prospect.

2008 Parade All-America team (http://www.parade.com/news/all-america/2008/All-America)

Additionally, Coach Cut has been recruiting bigger, better offensive linemen.

The big area for improvement is in the defensive front seven, and, frankly, Duke has always had difficulty in attracting good, big defensive linemen. Nevertheless, I'm happy with Coach Cut, and expect continued improvement.


Scout had Renfree at #10.

BTW, where did all this talk about Luck wanting to play at Duke come from? Does anyone have a link? Seems pretty specious to me. Regardless, even if it were accurate that Luck was at one time considering Duke, he committed to Stanford six months before Duke even hired Cutcliffe. Renfree was a huge pickup in the spring of 2008, and was (I believe) the second-best QB still available. The only better one still open was Pryor, whom we were also recruiting and who listed us as one of his finalists out of respect for what Cutcliffe had accomplished elsewhere. So let's not rewrite history and make it seem like Cutcliffe simply went hard after some mediocre talent while ignoring all the better ones. Renfree was a huge prize for us, and I don't find any fault in Cutcliffe settling for a 4-star player who I believe was our biggest QB recruit in over a decade, no matter what recruiting service you use.

J C Steel,

You've lost us here. Renfree was a very highly ranked QB prospect. There are several different rating services, but Parade and Scout ranked him very highly.

If you're going to continue to contest this point, I don't see much basis for discussion about areas for improvement in Duke FB.

[6th Man]

This thing is going to take time. Duke didn't even have a 100 yard practice field until 2-3 years ago. The University made no commitment to football until recently. The facilties have been subpar forever. There is a very small student body to help fill stands, and a community surrounded by bigger state schools in Raleigh and Chapel Hell.

I would say Coach Cut has one of the toughest coaching jobs in America if not the toughest. The level of play under Cut whether winning or losing is night and day beyond the previous run of coaches. Duke would lose games by wide margins...at least we are competing in most games. We need to win some of the close ones and make it to a bowl soon to generate recruiting and fan enthusiasm.

[Duvall]

Minor quibble - I'd say money is by far the largest reason for Stanford's success. They had some bball alum named Arrillaga who dropped $100 million straight to the athletic department. The two schools are very similar in most other regard and the other factors are much smaller in extent - name recognition, reputation, etc. I mean, Duke still can't afford to offer financial scholarships to many of our athletes!

Gradually it is changing, and patience is key.

However, it all boils down to money.

Location is also a factor, I think. It's a lot easier to find talent when you're one of four BCS schools and seven FBS schools in a state of 37 million than it is when you're one of four BCS schools and five FBS schools in a state of 9 million. But money is the biggest factor.

[sagegrouse]

This thing is going to take time. Duke didn't even have a 100 yard practice field until 2-3 years ago. .

Harrumph! Well, Duke had a 100-yard practice field fifty years ago. The open end of the stadium included a field at least that long. What happened to it? I can remember seeing scrimmages there while running on the track.

sagegrouse

[-bdbd]

Stanford has a much more recent history of football success than we do, and so Duke football is in a MUCH deeper hole than Stanford has been in.
Their university endowment of 15 billion is three times greater than Duke's of 5 billion, and their athletic endowment is also much larger.
Their training facilities and stadium and much larger and well-equipped than ours, though that may begin to change soon.
Stanford has Jim Harbaugh, arguably one of the best college football coaches in the country. Cutcliffe is a great coach, but probably not on Harbaugh's level. I don't think it's a knock on Cut to say this.

aside: I have to give props to the attitude Harbaugh has instilled in their program. In 2007 (a 4-8 season) prior to their game against #2 USC, he stated publicly, "We bow to no man. We bow to no program here at Stanford University." They then beat USC 24-23.

Therefore, it IS NOT logical or valid to compare the two programs head-to-head.
However, their 40-12 blowout of VT last night IS useful to show what Duke football can achieve, and it is what we should strive for.

It is not fair to Cutcliffe to say we are not getting better enough when in 3 years we have more wins than the previous 9. Building a football program takes a long time, much longer than with basketball, and ultimately time will tell, but 3 seasons after 8 wins in 9 seasons is not enough time.

It obviously starts with recruiting, and our classes coming in have much more depth and more than half the commitments are 3-star recruits. I think a reasonable goal for us is to expect mostly 3-stars with a few 4-stars.

I believe the loss of John Drew, a would-be sophomore 300+ lb DT and 4-star recruit to expulsion, was a huge factor in our porous defense and 3-9 season.

I grew up in the Stanford area and almost went to school there, twice - undergrad and grad school. It is a fair parallel as far as the academics -- Stanford might generally rank just a few slots higher -- but the comparison stops there (other than both schools having terrific BB coaches!). Stanford is located in a metropolitan setting (Santa Clara/Silicon Valley, just outside SF -- full of people to more easily fill their larger, nicer stadium), with year-round gorgeous weather, a huge endowment, and much, much better football facillities. Don't under-estimate the value that top-notch facillities and a full stadium has on recruits, to say nothing of a decent tradition and playing in a major media market (SF/Oak/SJ). I'm guessing that Stanford has a greater population to recruit from within 50 miles than we do in the entire state of NC (not that they are limited to just that area). BTW, Stanford has an incredible overall athletic tradition, and is a perrineal Sears Trophy contender.

We are addressing the facillities issues slowly, after 40+ years of lagging horribly far behind the rest of D1. We will eventually do some things to improve our stadium, and it will show greater attendance with greater on-field success. We can't do much about playing in a metro area or major media market, but can emphasize other things that favor Duke (like B-ball and Lacrosse, proximity to the East coast, med school/Sports Medicine, beautiful campus, etc). But for the moment, it isn't a fair comparison.

Just b/c we haven't matched The Cardinal's trajectory doesn't mean Cut is failing by any means. You can see the right steps finally being taken - like facillities investments, tradition creation (e.g. Devil Walk), local HS recruiting base being established, Wally Wade refurbishment plans, changing from the 'losing is acceptable' mentality, etc. We'll get there. And I believe Cut will be our coach when we do. Heck, Harbaugh probably won't even be the Stanford coach by the time next year when they come to Durham. (With any luck, their QB will be gone by then too...) :rolleyes:

And I agree, we are still building up our talent pool at key positions, such as D and O-lines (which this year's recruits, and last year's Red-shirts will go a long way to address). .....Patience, grasshopper.


:cool:

[Bob Green]

Harrumph! Well, Duke had a 100-yard practice field fifty years ago. The open end of the stadium included a field at least that long. What happened to it? I can remember seeing scrimmages there while running on the track.

sagegrouse

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=218252


In 2002, the Duke football program moved into the Yoh Football Center, a facility complete with locker room, weight room, sports medicine area, indoor workout space, player lounge, computer center and meeting spaces. Later in the decade, the Brooks Practice Facility was completed with a full-length practice field with a FieldTurf surface as well as the Brooks Football Building, which houses a locker room, athletic training area, media room and storage space.

While not specifically spelled out in the Wallace Wade Stadium info link, it is my understanding that the old practice field was only 60 yards long.

[sagegrouse]

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=218252



While not specifically spelled out in the Wallace Wade Stadium info link, it is my understanding that the old practice field was only 60 yards long.

You can't be right. There were full-scale scrimmages down there. Moreover, Bo Diddley played there in 1964, and there was no way he would play on a substandard football field.

I'll do some surveying next time I'm on campus.

sagegrouse

[blazindw]

The two practice fields were 80 yards long, not the full 100, bit with the 10 yard endzones, yes it was 60 yards in the playing field. I was on the video staff for 3 seasons when I was in school, and even then Coach Franks (and Roof) on more than one occasion had to alter practices due to the smaller playing surfaces.

[fan345678]

This is only partially true.

You can win without a lot of talent if you have a non-traditional scheme that is expertly executed by smart football players. They don't have to be the BEST football players, but they have to be smart and execute the system to perfection.

Boise State doesn't get a lot of 4- or 5-star recruits, but they have a brilliant coach in Chris Peterson who has implemented a complex offensive system that takes risks and puts opposing teams on their heels. If you don't have the talent, you have to take chances.

Boise State's offense may be complex, but in no way is it non-traditional. Boise State does have the talent and that's why they beat all of the much less talented teams on their schedule (except for Nevada). When they play a more talented team (VT this year, Oklahoma in the past), they win because of experience and execution. Yes, they're well-coached, but they don't win because of their system.

There are a lot of problems with "non-traditional" systems. Georgia Tech can't pass, can't recruit a QB or WR's who can sustain an effective passing game, and can't win when the opposing defense has more than a week to prepare. Rich Rod's defense was a disaster in the Big Tweleven and on offense he has been unable to clone Pat White, Steve Slaton.

Gary Barnett didn't really do anything "non-traditional" at Northwestern. He just had a great running back, great linebacker, solid QB, and a huge city behind him.

[davekay1971]

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. In other words, he was ranked high but not in the five-star group.

He wasn't in SI's top 25:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/highschool/10/14/25.qbs/

Andrew Luck was in the same class as Renfree and he was ranked the 68th best overall prospect by Rivals, while Renfree was not in the top 100.

Is the point of this post simply to clarify Renfree's high school ranking, or to imply that we should be dissatisfied with Cut's quarterback recruiting? I'm sure Cut would love to snag whichever quarterback prospect he wants coming out of high school, as well as recruit a half dozen fast, athletic 300 pound linemen, every year. But you're talking about getting 5 star recruits to come to a school whose last quarter century is arguably one of the worst of all BCS programs, plays in a conference that is widely considered about the 5th best for football, has a tiny stadium and (until Cut got here) completely inadequate facilities, has no discernable fan base, and has no track record of getting athletes to the NFL. Given all that, I think Cutcliffe's doing a commendable job recruiting.

As an aside, I think it's way too early to consider Renfree, in any way, a disappointment. He had an up-and-down year in his first year as a starter, but he showed great potential. We'll see his development over the next two years, and there's every possibility he could become on of the better quarterbacks in the nation before he's done.

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

And hey, Vanderbilt had Jay Cutler. Where's our gunslinger?

Even when we had Cutler at Vandy we still lost most of our games. I hope that the new coach, James Franklin, and a new financial commitment to football can turn things around, but many remain skeptical.

[roywhite]

Is the point of this post simply to clarify Renfree's high school ranking, or to imply that we should be dissatisfied with Cut's quarterback recruiting? I'm sure Cut would love to snag whichever quarterback prospect he wants coming out of high school, as well as recruit a half dozen fast, athletic 300 pound linemen, every year. But you're talking about getting 5 star recruits to come to a school whose last quarter century is arguably one of the worst of all BCS programs, plays in a conference that is widely considered about the 5th best for football, has a tiny stadium and (until Cut got here) completely inadequate facilities, has no discernable fan base, and has no track record of getting athletes to the NFL. Given all that, I think Cutcliffe's doing a commendable job recruiting.

As an aside, I think it's way too early to consider Renfree, in any way, a disappointment. He had an up-and-down year in his first year as a starter, but he showed great potential. We'll see his development over the next two years, and there's every possibility he could become on of the better quarterbacks in the nation before he's done.

Absolutely. In the last 5 games of the year, Sean completed almost 70% of his passes and cut down sharply on his interceptions.

QB play, QB recruiting, etc. is waaaayyyy down the list of concerns about Duke football.

[Reilly]

I'm aware of Renfree's pedigree, but he wasn't a top 10 quarterback prospect coming out. .....

I believe Scout rated Luck as the #4 QB out of h.s., and Renfree as the #10 QB.
I believe Rivals rated Luck as the #4 QB out of h.s., and Renfree as the #15 QB.
Luck is 7 months older; Renfree had knee surgery.
Luck is 6-4, 235; Renfree 6-5, 220.
H.S. soph year: Luck 1529 yds, 7 TDs .... Renfree 1533 yds, 10 TDs
H.S. junior year: Luck 2926 yds, 27 TDs .... Renfree 2483 yds, 25 TDs
H.S. senior year: Luck 2684 yds, 19 TDs .... Renfree 3353 yds, 41 TDs
2008: both redshirt
2009: Luck 2575 yds, 13:4 TD:INT .... Renfree 330 yds, 4:2 TD:INT
2010: Luck 3051 yds, 28:7 TD:INT .... Renfree 3131 yds, 14:17 TD:INT
2010: Luck 70% completion/166 QB effic .... Renfree 61% completion/120 QB effic

We have an excellent QB in Renfree. If the INTs get cut down a bit (help if the WRs catch the ball rather than tipping to other team) .... if the OLine continues to come around (slated to be even better the next couple of years) ... Renfree could do wonderful things for us ... maybe not at the same level as Luck, but if he can be 80 to 90% as good or productive, that'll be great

[SupaDave]

Just b/c we haven't matched The Cardinal's trajectory doesn't mean Cut is failing by any means. You can see the right steps finally being taken - like facillities investments, tradition creation (e.g. Devil Walk), local HS recruiting base being established, Wally Wade refurbishment plans, changing from the 'losing is acceptable' mentality, etc. We'll get there.

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.
On the money! People who are unfamiliar with Durham easily overlook the caliber of athletes in the Durham schools. Hillside is hot right now. In the recent past, Riverside, Northern and Southern have been hot.

[jimsumner]

Yep - and there just happens to be a state championship level football team playing just 5 minutes away. I'm real interested in seeing if Cut goes after any more Hillside kids (and I need to go check right now).

Back in my day - you went to UNC, NC State, App. State or ECU. If Cut can get a few of those players - he's on his way.

Desmond Scott and Corey Gattis went to Hillside and Duke tried to get in on Lee, so the foundation has been laid.

But just because Durham kids go to Durham high schools, that doesn't mean they grow up as fans of the Durham university (ies). They are a lot more likely to have parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, principals, teachers, ministers, physicians, insurance agents, store owners, family friends etc. who went to UNC or NC State and want to push them in that direction. That applies to every part of the state. That's just the reality of growing up and living in North Carolina.

[J_C_Steel]

J C Steel,

You've lost us here. Renfree was a very highly ranked QB prospect. There are several different rating services, but Parade and Scout ranked him very highly.

If you're going to continue to contest this point, I don't see much basis for discussion about areas for improvement in Duke FB.

Fair enough. Renfree was a very good recruit. I'll give you that. I simply don't put him in the marquee, 5-star class. And that's fine because it's such an inexact science.

The key, to me, is not the level of the recruit but how he fits the coach's system. If Renfree can be taught to run Coach Cutcliffe's offense to perfection, none of us will care about what rating he carried as a prospect.

Accepting that Duke will not get the VERY top 5-star players, Coach Cutcliffe has to recruit for his system. That will determine whether the Blue Devils will be successful.

[J_C_Steel]

Boise State's offense may be complex, but in no way is it non-traditional. Boise State does have the talent and that's why they beat all of the much less talented teams on their schedule (except for Nevada). When they play a more talented team (VT this year, Oklahoma in the past), they win because of experience and execution. Yes, they're well-coached, but they don't win because of their system.

I disagree with you here. Chris Peterson runs a fast-paced, pro-style offense that uses zone blocking schemes in the run game and creative screens and flood patterns in the passing game. It's very different from any offense run in that conference. Charlie Weis tried to bring a similar style to Notre Dame and failed.

As for recruits, look at the prospects Boise State brought to Idaho from 2004 through 2008. You don't see a lot of 4- or 5-star players at all. The very talented prospects didn't become Broncos. Yet they have been able to beat far more talented teams (Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Oregon State, etc.).


There are a lot of problems with "non-traditional" systems. Georgia Tech can't pass, can't recruit a QB or WR's who can sustain an effective passing game, and can't win when the opposing defense has more than a week to prepare. Rich Rod's defense was a disaster in the Big Tweleven and on offense he has been unable to clone Pat White, Steve Slaton.

Gary Barnett didn't really do anything "non-traditional" at Northwestern. He just had a great running back, great linebacker, solid QB, and a huge city behind him.

As I've noted before, implementing a "non-traditional" system is a risk. But what's the alternative? Play traditional football with less talent and average one ACC win per year? That isn't particularly attractive to me as a fan.

Excellent coaches can find a way to win with less talent. I've seen it. And I'd like to see Duke run a "non-traditional" or even gimmicky defense next year in an attempt to slow some teams down and get them thinking. It's better than trotting out a failed 3-4 and then switching to a base 4-3 and watching teams run all over the defense.

[roywhite]

As I've noted before, implementing a "non-traditional" system is a risk. But what's the alternative? Play traditional football with less talent and average one ACC win per year? That isn't particularly attractive to me as a fan.

Excellent coaches can find a way to win with less talent. I've seen it. And I'd like to see Duke run a "non-traditional" or even gimmicky defense next year in an attempt to slow some teams down and get them thinking. It's better than trotting out a failed 3-4 and then switching to a base 4-3 and watching teams run all over the defense.

Perhaps you've heard this old saying:

"It's not about the X's and O's; it's about the Jimmys and the Joes"

which is old football talk that means attracting and developing talent is more important than the particular scheme. I don't doubt the ability of Coach Cut and his staff to devise schemes that give our team the best chance to succeed.

Simply, we need more good players on defense. Some of those may already be in the weight room and the practice field, young guys whose time will come. Some are prospects in high school who may be receptive to Duke and Duke football.

We'd all like to speed up the calendar, but I believe Coach Cut is the right man for the job, and has the program heading toward winning seasons.

[SupaDave]

Desmond Scott and Corey Gattis went to Hillside and Duke tried to get in on Lee, so the foundation has been laid.

But just because Durham kids go to Durham high schools, that doesn't mean they grow up as fans of the Durham university (ies). They are a lot more likely to have parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, principals, teachers, ministers, physicians, insurance agents, store owners, family friends etc. who went to UNC or NC State and want to push them in that direction. That applies to every part of the state. That's just the reality of growing up and living in North Carolina.

I totally agree Jim. But Duke and Cut are doing things VERY different in Durham nowadays. He has a shot he never had before. Start winning a little more with local kids and the program becomes even more attractive.

[loran16]

As I've noted before, implementing a "non-traditional" system is a risk. But what's the alternative? Play traditional football with less talent and average one ACC win per year? That isn't particularly attractive to me as a fan.

Excellent coaches can find a way to win with less talent. I've seen it. And I'd like to see Duke run a "non-traditional" or even gimmicky defense next year in an attempt to slow some teams down and get them thinking. It's better than trotting out a failed 3-4 and then switching to a base 4-3 and watching teams run all over the defense.

Once again, you're assuming we've plateaued. There's a possibility that this is the case, but there's a stronger possibility that we simply had a rebuilding year after losing Thad and a lot of D Starters. You shouldn't be watching a team that's still 4-8 in two years.

As for non-traditional, Duke tried to lure a non-traditional coach here...our first choice for a coach after Roof was PAUL JOHNSON. Johnson chose GT instead.

[jimsumner]

I totally agree Jim. But Duke and Cut are doing things VERY different in Durham nowadays. He has a shot he never had before. Start winning a little more with local kids and the program becomes even more attractive.

I agree and support Cut's increased emphasis on recruiting North Carolina. I just don't want anyone not close to the area or familar with the situation to think that Duke was somehow "Durham's school." Economically, sure. Duke is the engine that drives Durham's economy.

But the affections of most of the community lie elsewhere.

[-jk]

I agree and support Cut's increased emphasis on recruiting North Carolina. I just don't want anyone not close to the area or familar with the situation to think that Duke was somehow "Durham's school." Economically, sure. Duke is the engine that drives Durham's economy.

But the affections of most of the community lie elsewhere.

Those of us who grew up in Durham carry the scars for life!

It was especially tough being in Durham's public schools during the early 70's. <sigh>

-jk

[alteran]

I just don't want anyone not close to the area or familar with the situation to think that Duke was somehow "Durham's school." Economically, sure. Duke is the engine that drives Durham's economy.

But the affections of most of the community lie elsewhere.

Amen, brother. As a local, I can tell you it drives me batty when people think Durham is a "Duke town." We're outnumbered 4-1 here, at that's just with UNC.

I will say that I think Duke has been visibly trying to reach out to the local community more (it's always reached out, but lately it seems more visible), and in my entirely subjective opinion it seems to be paying dividends.

[Bob Green]

It was especially tough being in Durham's public schools during the early 70's. <sigh>

-jk

Life in Fayetteville's public schools during the early 70's wasn't any easier.

[sagegrouse]

Life in Fayetteville's public schools during the early 70's wasn't any easier.

In my South Carolina HS a few years earlier, no one gave a rat's patootie about college sports, except in the abstract. The real question was whether you were a Ford guy or a Chevy guy. And the difference among the guys in class was whether you were focused totally on cars (you know, seven coats of lacquer on your bat wing Chevy from the early '50s, or pinstriping your '55 T-bird) or whether you viewed cars as just transportation. It was about 50-50.

sagegrouse

[formerdukeathlete]

Renfree is/was considered a large recruiting win. It is not typical for a top 10 high school QB prospect to come to Duke, or other such historically win-challenged programs. If Cutcliffe is famous for anything in particular, it's developing QBs. I'm not concerned about Renfree becoming a very quality player.

I don't know much about our defensive schemes or other aspects of the game, but I do think QB play and recruiting should probably be the least of our worries.

My instinct would be to give Cutcliffe a lot more time to try to get it right.

Our recruiting at Duke with Cutcliffe is a much different approach than Harbaugh's at Stanford. Cutcliffe started out at Duke seeking lowered admissions for Football and spun his wheels with a number of recruits who were not interested academically. Roof brought in Ayanga Okpokowuruk, a 4 star DT with very good grades, as well as VO a 5 star DT with good grades. Cutcliffe has tended to land 2 star defensive players with more marginal grades. Recruiting to Duke requires leveraging our academic reputation - exactly what Harbaugh did at Stanford.

[loran16]

Our recruiting at Duke with Cutcliffe is a much different approach than Harbaugh's at Stanford. Cutcliffe started out at Duke seeking lowered admissions for Football and spun his wheels with a number of recruits who were not interested academically. Roof brought in Ayanga Okpokowuruk, a 4 star DT with very good grades, as well as VO a 5 star DT with good grades. Cutcliffe has tended to land 2 star defensive players with more marginal grades. Recruiting to Duke requires leveraging our academic reputation - exactly what Harbaugh did at Stanford.

Ummm, how about no? I'll admit Cut has had issues bringing in as high level defensive recruits. But his coaching has resulted in us actually being you know, NOT TERRIBLE, as opposed to Duke under Roof.

Meanwhile, show me the proof that Duke has been recruiting athletes who don't meet the same standard as other duke athletes (say as the basketball team).

Seriously, you're ridiculous.

[formerdukeathlete]

Ummm, how about no? I'll admit Cut has had issues bringing in as high level defensive recruits. But his coaching has resulted in us actually being you know, NOT TERRIBLE, as opposed to Duke under Roof.

Meanwhile, show me the proof that Duke has been recruiting athletes who don't meet the same standard as other duke athletes (say as the basketball team).

Seriously, you're ridiculous.

Before levying what, say kind of an insult, I would suggest actually having followed the recruiting process under Cutcliffe. For example, among our verbal commits for the 11 class at least two have had to drop out for not making it academically, one was offered by us when he was not even NCAA bare minimum qualified, with another a third on the cusp of not making it. When you review offer lists of higher rated prospects with good grades it certainly appears that we are not seeking out the say best student 50 out of top 500 prospects, which is exactly Harbaugh's approach, and which is what a Duke faculty member (a former Harvard Football player) advised Cutcliffe would be the most fruitful approach when Cut interviewed for the job. Cutcliffe has tended to recruit out of camp, in-state, and then among those he likes, usually before or ones who do not have a lot of interest from North Carolina and top programs, seeing if he can get them in. Football is much more of a "project" sport than Basketball. Players tend to stay in school longer. Traditionally, Duke Football was a bit higher academically (at least they were in 1997 when the NCAA last released team averages) than Duke Basketball, reflecting this reality. On today's Duke teams, I dont think that is the case. I think Men's and Women's Basketball are ahead of the Football team in terms of admissions criteria. When Harbaurgh started at Stanford, he was given his marching orders on whom he would be able to recruit, and he went with it. Cutcliffe's wanted assurances when he took the job that he would have additional academic leeway. Clearly, he has been given that, with offering a non-NCAA qualifier like Joe Watson, but it has not resulted in improved recruiting. Our best shot, like with Stanford, is with the better students. You have to be able to make that pitch, with a vision of what Duke can offer individual recruits. Harbaugh has had recruits interested in medicine touring Stanford Hospital, even sitting in on surgery, meeting with top faculty like Condi Rice in their areas of academic interest. All this, his approach, screening, going after smart kids, has resulted in landing top 10 classes to this exclusive private school of similar size as Duke.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Before levying what, say kind of an insult, I would suggest actually having followed the recruiting process under Cutcliffe. For example, among our verbal commits for the 11 class at least two have had to drop out for not making it academically, one was offered by us when he was not even NCAA bare minimum qualified, with another a third on the cusp of not making it. When you review offer lists of higher rated prospects with good grades it certainly appears that we are not seeking out the say best student 50 out of top 500 prospects, which is exactly Harbaugh's approach, and which is what a Duke faculty member (a former Harvard Football player) advised Cutcliffe would be the most fruitful approach when Cut interviewed for the job. Cutcliffe has tended to recruit out of camp, in-state, and then among those he likes, usually before or ones who do not have a lot of interest from North Carolina and top programs, seeing if he can get them in. Football is much more of a "project" sport than Basketball. Players tend to stay in school longer. Traditionally, Duke Football was a bit higher academically (at least they were in 1997 when the NCAA last released team averages) than Duke Basketball, reflecting this reality. On today's Duke teams, I dont think that is the case. I think Men's and Women's Basketball are ahead of the Football team in terms of admissions criteria. When Harbaurgh started at Stanford, he was given his marching orders on whom he would be able to recruit, and he went with it. Cutcliffe's wanted assurances when he took the job that he would have additional academic leeway. Clearly, he has been given that, with offering a non-NCAA qualifier like Joe Watson, but it has not resulted in improved recruiting. Our best shot, like with Stanford, is with the better students. You have to be able to make that pitch, with a vision of what Duke can offer individual recruits. Harbaugh has had recruits interested in medicine touring Stanford Hospital, even sitting in on surgery, meeting with top faculty like Condi Rice in their areas of academic interest. All this, his approach, screening, going after smart kids, has resulted in landing top 10 classes to this exclusive private school of similar size as Duke.

I don't follow Duke football recruiting as closely as you and others. I do think that all of the coaches would be best served by recruiting players would could benefit what Duke has to offer.

There are two private schools on the West Coast that play big time football, USC and Stanford. While I think it is changing, at USC athletes were supposed to be athlete/students. There certainly were some student/athletes but when I talk to USC athletes in several sports, academics was just big part of the recruiting process. So Stanford puts itself in a pretty unique position. Duke has more competition. However I think that is the right approach.

SoCal

[SupaDave]

I don't follow Duke football recruiting as closely as you and others. I do think that all of the coaches would be best served by recruiting players would could benefit what Duke has to offer.

There are two private schools on the West Coast that play big time football, USC and Stanford. While I think it is changing, at USC athletes were supposed to be athlete/students. There certainly were some student/athletes but when I talk to USC athletes in several sports, academics was just big part of the recruiting process. So Stanford puts itself in a pretty unique position. Duke has more competition. However I think that is the right approach.

SoCal

I feel ya SoCal but I just don't think USC cares as much about any of that. They care about WINNING. This is the same school that let OJ Mayo TELL them he was coming to school there and they said "yay!!!" Same school with Snoop Dogg at practice - which is like the anti-Condi of course but appealing to recruits nonetheless. USC knows what works for them - and sometimes it means paying the rent. Duke needs to do the same (except the rent part of course).

[J_C_Steel]

Before levying what, say kind of an insult, I would suggest actually having followed the recruiting process under Cutcliffe. For example, among our verbal commits for the 11 class at least two have had to drop out for not making it academically, one was offered by us when he was not even NCAA bare minimum qualified, with another a third on the cusp of not making it. When you review offer lists of higher rated prospects with good grades it certainly appears that we are not seeking out the say best student 50 out of top 500 prospects, which is exactly Harbaugh's approach, and which is what a Duke faculty member (a former Harvard Football player) advised Cutcliffe would be the most fruitful approach when Cut interviewed for the job. Cutcliffe has tended to recruit out of camp, in-state, and then among those he likes, usually before or ones who do not have a lot of interest from North Carolina and top programs, seeing if he can get them in. Football is much more of a "project" sport than Basketball. Players tend to stay in school longer. Traditionally, Duke Football was a bit higher academically (at least they were in 1997 when the NCAA last released team averages) than Duke Basketball, reflecting this reality. On today's Duke teams, I dont think that is the case. I think Men's and Women's Basketball are ahead of the Football team in terms of admissions criteria. When Harbaurgh started at Stanford, he was given his marching orders on whom he would be able to recruit, and he went with it. Cutcliffe's wanted assurances when he took the job that he would have additional academic leeway. Clearly, he has been given that, with offering a non-NCAA qualifier like Joe Watson, but it has not resulted in improved recruiting. Our best shot, like with Stanford, is with the better students. You have to be able to make that pitch, with a vision of what Duke can offer individual recruits. Harbaugh has had recruits interested in medicine touring Stanford Hospital, even sitting in on surgery, meeting with top faculty like Condi Rice in their areas of academic interest. All this, his approach, screening, going after smart kids, has resulted in landing top 10 classes to this exclusive private school of similar size as Duke.

Excellent post, and good point about the Stanford recruiting approach.

To me, Coach Cutcliffe must "system recruit" within the academic confines Duke generally uses and get the best kids to implement his strategies. On offense, that's obviously speedy receivers/backs, mobile offensive linemen, and smart quarterbacks. On defense, that's... what, exactly?

And that's my problem. I want to see a coherent and, yes, non-traditional defense designed to confuse offenses and force them to take chances. I hate seeing teams grind the Blue Devils into dog meat with simple dive plays and play-action passes.

[dukeimac]

It all comes down to players wanting to play for the coach. Spurrier did well at Duke. Having high academic requirements don't mean jack. There are many of good, smart players playing for other programs that could cut it at Duke.

Yes, players that dream of the NFL want to play in a program that will get them the attention they feel they need but it all comes down to the coach. Many of coaches have done more with less. A good coach can build a program that becomes one in which players want to play for and will get the NFL attention they want.

Who ever is doing the recruiting needs to take more time in finding the "Duke" recruits and needs to work on making a good sales pitch. This all comes down to the coach picking the right recruiter or doing it himself.

But it is all on Cut, not the stadium, not that fact that it is Duke football. Cut was a great offensive coordinator but as a head coach or recruiter, not so great.

[El_Diablo]

A good coach can build a program that becomes one in which players want to play for and will get the NFL attention they want.

And what, besides perhaps your impatience, suggests that Coach Cut is not doing that? :confused:

Quite frankly, I think it's utterly naive to think that Duke's recent history, losing reputation, and poor facilities do not play a role in recruiting. But maybe others have insights into the minds of all high school football recruits and thus know better, so I guess I won't belabor that point here at the risk of further spouting off my uniformed opinions.

Go Duke!

[Bluedog]

Our recruiting at Duke with Cutcliffe is a much different approach than Harbaugh's at Stanford. Cutcliffe started out at Duke seeking lowered admissions for Football and spun his wheels with a number of recruits who were not interested academically. Roof brought in Ayanga Okpokowuruk, a 4 star DT with very good grades, as well as VO a 5 star DT with good grades. Cutcliffe has tended to land 2 star defensive players with more marginal grades. Recruiting to Duke requires leveraging our academic reputation - exactly what Harbaugh did at Stanford.


Before levying what, say kind of an insult, I would suggest actually having followed the recruiting process under Cutcliffe. For example, among our verbal commits for the 11 class at least two have had to drop out for not making it academically, one was offered by us when he was not even NCAA bare minimum qualified, with another a third on the cusp of not making it. When you review offer lists of higher rated prospects with good grades it certainly appears that we are not seeking out the say best student 50 out of top 500 prospects, which is exactly Harbaugh's approach, and which is what a Duke faculty member (a former Harvard Football player) advised Cutcliffe would be the most fruitful approach when Cut interviewed for the job. Cutcliffe has tended to recruit out of camp, in-state, and then among those he likes, usually before or ones who do not have a lot of interest from North Carolina and top programs, seeing if he can get them in. Football is much more of a "project" sport than Basketball. Players tend to stay in school longer. Traditionally, Duke Football was a bit higher academically (at least they were in 1997 when the NCAA last released team averages) than Duke Basketball, reflecting this reality. On today's Duke teams, I dont think that is the case. I think Men's and Women's Basketball are ahead of the Football team in terms of admissions criteria. When Harbaurgh started at Stanford, he was given his marching orders on whom he would be able to recruit, and he went with it. Cutcliffe's wanted assurances when he took the job that he would have additional academic leeway. Clearly, he has been given that, with offering a non-NCAA qualifier like Joe Watson, but it has not resulted in improved recruiting. Our best shot, like with Stanford, is with the better students. You have to be able to make that pitch, with a vision of what Duke can offer individual recruits. Harbaugh has had recruits interested in medicine touring Stanford Hospital, even sitting in on surgery, meeting with top faculty like Condi Rice in their areas of academic interest. All this, his approach, screening, going after smart kids, has resulted in landing top 10 classes to this exclusive private school of similar size as Duke.

Good posts. I agree with them. The thing that's somewhat humorous to me (and I don't mean to pick on VO as he's a great guy, player, and representative of our university, but it's a good example with data), is that even a "good" student like VO is in the bottom 5% of Duke students by SAT. Vince scored a 1020 on his SATs while carrying a 3.6 GPA in high school. So, it's not like we're stetching for the moon here. We should be able to recruit student athletes for football that in the bottom 5% of Duke admits instead of the bottom 1% - i.e. we need more VOs, not prospective Rhodes Scholars.

And before I get called out for bashing Vince, I'm not saying he's a bad student at all. He's well above the NCAA minimum, but still WAY WAY WAY below the average Duke student. There are more players out there like him - we just need to find them and be able to convince them to come (which isn't always that easy).

And here are the sources for this info so I'm not accused of making it up:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=1126131
"Oghobaase carries a 3.6 GPA and 1020 SAT."

http://ir.provost.duke.edu/facts/cds/CDS%202009-10.pdf
Duke Common Data Set. If VO got a 480 Verbal and 540 Math (I don't know his verbal/math breakdown though, those numbers are simply for illustrative purposes), that puts him in the bottom 1% of Duke students for Verbal and bottom 5% for math. And VO was undoubtedly one of the "best" football recruits from an academic standpoint.

Question: if you were a high-profile recruit that was an average student for a high-profile football player, would you want to go to a school where you'd be in the bottom 1% going into all your classes? I personally wouldn't. I wouldn't want to be made to feel like an idiot and not know what anybody is talking about (I already did feel like an idiot at times in Biomedical Instrumentation and courses like that at Duke, and I thought I was a pretty good student). On top of that, would you go to a school were not only are you going to have to work REALLY hard academically and perhaps struggle at times, but go to a school where the students still don't fully support you, the gameday experience is not so great, and the athletic facilities are subpar? Heck no. I'd much rather go to Mississippi State.

The types of players that Duke appeals to are the good students. And there are some decent students who are good football players. If the good students and players are most likely to be allured by Duke's amazing academic reputation, aren't those the type of players we should be focusing our efforts on recruiting? We have a better shot of landing them because they see the appeal of Duke from an academic standpoint. Players at the NCAA minimum sometimes see Duke's academic prowess as a negative because they don't want to feel like idiots in their classes (I'm not saying they are idiots, but when you're that much less prepared in high school, it's tough ground to make up and takes a lot of extra effort). Nobody does.

It's obviously not our football gameday experience or facilities that is going to entice recruits. Rather, its the academics and coaching staff that sets us apart. To exploit those things, we need to focus the vast majority of our recruiting attention on high-achieving students since they are the ones that see Duke's academic strength as a positive. And then they might choose us over Mississippi State.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I feel ya SoCal but I just don't think USC cares as much about any of that. They care about WINNING. This is the same school that let OJ Mayo TELL them he was coming to school there and they said "yay!!!" Same school with Snoop Dogg at practice - which is like the anti-Condi of course but appealing to recruits nonetheless. USC knows what works for them - and sometimes it means paying the rent. Duke needs to do the same (except the rent part of course).

My point was the Stanford has little competition when recruiting student/athletes who want a private West Coast university. I agree that USC especially under Garrett was concerned about winning above all us.

SoCal

[formerdukeathlete]

Excellent post on your part. Three examples of highly regarded recruits who were, are good students, from the State of Georgia that Cutcliffe did not offer, missing out on the kind of student, student-athletes who may be receptive to a Duke education: In 09, WR Patterson, 4.56 GPA, 26 ACT, over 1200 math verbal; In 10, Anderson (wanted to come to Duke), 4.12 GPA, 1330 math verbal, Woodward academy: In 11, LB Vaughters, 4.0 GPA. These are guys who had big time offers. (One of the better student defensive players in Duke's 10 class had a 17 ACT, which translates to between a 840-870 two part SAT). In the cases above, only Anderson was a shoe in for Duke, but the others just might have considered us academically and we are quite a bit closer to Atlanta than Palo Alto. We missed the boat on many better student recruits.


Good posts. I agree with them. The thing that's somewhat humorous to me (and I don't mean to pick on VO as he's a great guy, player, and representative of our university, but it's a good example with data), is that even a "good" student like VO is in the bottom 5% of Duke students by SAT. Vince scored a 1020 on his SATs while carrying a 3.6 GPA in high school. So, it's not like we're stetching for the moon here. We should be able to recruit student athletes for football that in the bottom 5% of Duke admits instead of the bottom 1% - i.e. we need more VOs, not prospective Rhodes Scholars.

And before I get called out for bashing Vince, I'm not saying he's a bad student at all. He's well above the NCAA minimum, but still WAY WAY WAY below the average Duke student. There are more players out there like him - we just need to find them and be able to convince them to come (which isn't always that easy).

And here are the sources for this info so I'm not accused of making it up:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=8&c=1&nid=1126131
"Oghobaase carries a 3.6 GPA and 1020 SAT."

http://ir.provost.duke.edu/facts/cds/CDS%202009-10.pdf
Duke Common Data Set. If VO got a 480 Verbal and 540 Math (I don't know his verbal/math breakdown though, those numbers are simply for illustrative purposes), that puts him in the bottom 1% of Duke students for Verbal and bottom 5% for math. And VO was undoubtedly one of the "best" football recruits from an academic standpoint.

Question: if you were a high-profile recruit that was an average student for a high-profile football player, would you want to go to a school where you'd be in the bottom 1% going into all your classes? I personally wouldn't. I wouldn't want to be made to feel like an idiot and not know what anybody is talking about (I already did feel like an idiot at times in Biomedical Instrumentation and courses like that at Duke, and I thought I was a pretty good student). On top of that, would you go to a school were not only are you going to have to work REALLY hard academically and perhaps struggle at times, but go to a school where the students still don't fully support you, the gameday experience is not so great, and the athletic facilities are subpar? Heck no. I'd much rather go to Mississippi State.

The types of players that Duke appeals to are the good students. And there are some decent students who are good football players. If the good students and players are most likely to be allured by Duke's amazing academic reputation, aren't those the type of players we should be focusing our efforts on recruiting? We have a better shot of landing them because they see the appeal of Duke from an academic standpoint. Players at the NCAA minimum sometimes see Duke's academic prowess as a negative because they don't want to feel like idiots in their classes (I'm not saying they are idiots, but when you're that much less prepared in high school, it's tough ground to make up and takes a lot of extra effort). Nobody does.

It's obviously not our football gameday experience or facilities that is going to entice recruits. Rather, its the academics and coaching staff that sets us apart. To exploit those things, we need to focus the vast majority of our recruiting attention on high-achieving students since they are the ones that see Duke's academic strength as a positive. And then they might choose us over Mississippi State.

[J_C_Steel]

I've learned a lot in this thread. Thanks to all who have replied.

I looked at the incoming 2011 class for Duke and I'm generally impressed with the interior linemen that Coach Cutcliffe has brought to campus, and the great kicker he recruited -- Will Monday.

http://insider.espn.go.com/college-football/recruiting/player/_/id/101864

The kid could potentially serve as both a punter and kicker. Impressive.

Don't laugh. As the team improves, many a close game will be won or lost due to field position and field goals. Anything that turns the tide toward Duke in close games will be mightily helpful.

Now, if the coaches could do something about that defense...

[Bluedog]

I received a negative comment on my above post, and I realize it may have come off the wrong way. I did not mean to suggest that the football team is currently full of academic duds, or that a player with a SAT of 1000 can in no way succeed in the classroom at Duke. Cutcliffe recruits high character guys who do very admirably in the classroom and work hard to get a great education. I knew a few guys on the football team during my undergrad years, and they were all really solid students and good guys in general. I respect the players on the team athletically and academically.

My point was simply that instead of focusing our recruiting efforts on students who perhaps are more of a "reach" academically, I feel that the academic pull of Duke would be more enticing to the athletes that are also really good students. We need Brian Zoubeks and Ryan Kellys of the football world. :) Our recruiting would be more successful on a percentage basis for those types of individuals.


Don't laugh. As the team improves, many a close game will be won or lost due to field position and field goals. Anything that turns the tide toward Duke in close games will be mightily helpful.

I don't think anybody who is a Duke fan would laugh at that. We all know how important a good kicker is. We lost many many games due to poor kicking in the past and having Snyderwine on the team has been an amazing change allowing us capture some victories. Look at Michigan to see how much a lousy kicker has held them back (well, and no defense either). Note that high school rankings for kicking is notoriously difficult though. Surgan was ranked the #4 kicker in the nation...and didn't turn out so well. Snyderwine barely kicked in high school and walked on to the football team. And has become first team all-american. You just never know, but the importance of a good kicker is definitely not overemphasized. It's key.

Cheers!

[roywhite]

Duke Common Data Set. If VO got a 480 Verbal and 540 Math (I don't know his verbal/math breakdown though, those numbers are simply for illustrative purposes), that puts him in the bottom 1% of Duke students for Verbal and bottom 5% for math. And VO was undoubtedly one of the "best" football recruits from an academic standpoint.



I doubt your "undboutedly".

Unless you have records of the high school academic credentials of all of our scholarship football players, I don't know upon what basis you would draw such a conclusion.

I'm speculating somewhat, but I'd say there were/are quite a few football players at Duke with better academic credentials.

[Bluedog]

I doubt your "undboutedly".

Unless you have records of the high school academic credentials of all of our scholarship football players, I don't know upon what basis you would draw such a conclusion.

I'm speculating somewhat, but I'd say there were/are quite a few football players at Duke with better academic credentials.

I agree that I misspoke a bit in that post. As I said in the post after the one you quoted, I knew a few guys on the team and they were all good students. And there's obviously no way to know for sure since I don't know the academic credentials of all our football players. Let me rephrase. VO is undoubtedly one of the best 5-star academic recruits at Duke in recent memory. Because he's the only 5-star recruit in recent memory. ;) And he was one of the top academic guys in the nation among the 5-star players in high school that year as well. Partially why Duke was appealing to him.

[formerdukeathlete]

Bluedog, Yes, the point is that we have a shot at landing top talent if we go after the kids in that category who are better students. Generally, the better the student, the greater chance they might actually listen to a pitch from Duke. In their 11 class so far, it looks like Stanford offered just over 60 4 and 5 star players (all with good grades, apparently) and they landed 8 4 star players. A yield of about 15%, which is pretty huge. http://rivals.yahoo.com/duke/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/stanford-63 We offered just one of these 4 star recruits.

[formerdukeathlete]

I agree that I misspoke a bit in that post. As I said in the post after the one you quoted, I knew a few guys on the team and they were all good students. And there's obviously no way to know for sure since I don't know the academic credentials of all our football players. Let me rephrase. VO is undoubtedly one of the best 5-star academic recruits at Duke in recent memory. Because he's the only 5-star recruit in recent memory. ;) And he was one of the top academic guys in the nation among the 5-star players in high school that year as well. Partially why Duke was appealing to him.

Yes and yes. Recruits list data on rivals and scout, GPA, ACT, SAT, and from their sourced data one can track and make certain conclusions. In 1997 Duke Football team average SAT data was released by the NCAA. Here is a good summary http://stanford.scout.com/3/1997_SAT_Analysis.html

"Table 1 - SAT scores and Graduation Rates (Div. I-A Top 10 and others)

Rank School Football Ave. SAT Football Grad. %
1 Stanford 1108 94%
2 Northwestern 1102 92%
3 Rice 1083 48%
4 Duke 1068 86%
5 Vanderbilt 1049 86%
6 Purdue 1005 43%
7 UCLA 1002 63%
8 Tulsa 1002 41%
9 Missouri 994 60%
10 Indiana 990 65% "

Stanford's team average currently is into the mid 1200s based on several things I have read online, but official numbers have not been released to my knowledge. This compares pretty favorably with Ivy Schools, where I believe based on their academic index formulas, they end up in the high 1200s to low 1300s.

Tracking our recruiting with Cutcliffe, while official data is not released, recruit listed data on rivals and scout suggests a team average now under 1000.

Not only was VO a much higher rated recruit than most all if not all of the team, but his SATs would be better than the team averages right now, as best as I can tell.

What does Stanford's success tell our admin about Duke Football? I think it takes away the fear that getting really good at Football needs to adversely affect our school's academic reputation. How Cutcliffe is recruiting arugably is a negative to our academic repuation. Corrective approaches would actually improve talent levels and the team averages academically.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Bluedog, Yes, the point is that we have a shot at landing top talent if we go after the kids in that category who are better students. Generally, the better the student, the greater chance they might actually listen to a pitch from Duke. In their 11 class so far, it looks like Stanford offered just over 60 4 and 5 star players (all with good grades, apparently) and they landed 8 4 star players. A yield of about 15%, which is pretty huge. http://rivals.yahoo.com/duke/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/stanford-63 We offered just one of these 4 star recruits.

First of all I agree completely with the idea that Duke should try to recruit players who are better students.

However lets be realistic and understand that there are not that many of them.

Secondly Stanford, Notre Dame and others want them badly.

Right now Stanford is at the top of the heap. They also happen to have one of the best coaches in college football, one of the best quarterbacks in college football, and a senior laden offensive line. Kind of a perfect storm. The QB will be back next year, not sure about the coach and we will see what the line looks like.

Stanford's situation makes them the "Duke basketball of college football." If my son were a pro prospect high school football player with serious academic interests I would probably want him to go to Stanford. Basketball Duke.

If we can get some success in football then the staff should be able to build on it.

SoCal

[formerdukeathlete]

First of all I agree completely with the idea that Duke should try to recruit players who are better students.

However lets be realistic and understand that there are not that many of them.

Secondly Stanford, Notre Dame and others want them badly.

Right now Stanford is at the top of the heap. They also happen to have one of the best coaches in college football, one of the best quarterbacks in college football, and a senior laden offensive line. Kind of a perfect storm. The QB will be back next year, not sure about the coach and we will see what the line looks like.

Stanford's situation makes them the "Duke basketball of college football." If my son were a pro prospect high school football player with serious academic interests I would probably want him to go to Stanford. Basketball Duke.

If we can get some success in football then the staff should be able to build on it.

SoCal

I agree with what you are saying. Cant expect us to recruit top 10 right away with a Harbaugh like approach. But, I think bluedog and I are saying that our only chance of recruiting top 10 classes to Duke is by following this approach. I think it will be the recruit who says, if I am giving up Ohio State for Football, it better be for outstanding academics. Some good academic fits have landed under Cut, highly rated with upper tier offers. Eg., Renfree, and Laken Tomlinson who had that Ohio State offer, but who came to Duke because he is interested in medicine. Fact remains there are problems in Cut's overall approach. It undersells Duke. Overlooks a lot of talent who might actually consider Duke by virture of their academic standing.

[tommy]

Stanford's situation makes them the "Duke basketball of college football."

I'd say they're a little short of being the Duke basketball of college football. Like about 4 national championships, 15 Final Four-equivalents (major bowls maybe), 10 Nat'l Coach of the Years, 10 National Player of the Years, and lots and lots and lots of other honors and achievements over generations of play.

I love what Stanford has done this year. Love it. And they've had some excellent teams, here and there, over the years. But in no way other than academic requirements and their associated recruiting limitations are the two progams comparable in my mind.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I'd say they're a little short of being the Duke basketball of college football. Like about 4 national championships, 15 Final Four-equivalents (major bowls maybe), 10 Nat'l Coach of the Years, 10 National Player of the Years, and lots and lots and lots of other honors and achievements over generations of play.

I love what Stanford has done this year. Love it. And they've had some excellent teams, here and there, over the years. But in no way other than academic requirements and their associated recruiting limitations are the two progams comparable in my mind.

Stanford football does not compare with Duke basketball over the last 30 years, true.

However Stanford has become the top football school with high academic standards just as Duke is the top basketball school with high academic standards. Of course, Duke is also the top basketball school period and Stanford is not the top football school, period.

SoCal

[TheDevilMadeMeDoIt]

I am always surprised, although I shouldn't be, that so many of our fans are so impatient. Sure, we all want to win yesterday, but to crawl out of the abyss that was Duke football takes time. We played a lot of young players this year, and our record showed it. This next year we will be better. You can take it to the bank. Coach Cut is making progress. It is both a blessing and a curse that the ACC is such a sorry conference. Did you catch the ACC record in BCS bowls after Va. Tech lost. It is pathetic! It is amazing any really good football player would want to play in such a sorry conference. That impacts Duke's ability to recruit the top players, but neither can the other ACC schools. Assuming Kelby Brown's knee is okay, our defense will be better. The one area I don't understand is why our receivers tipped and dropped so many passes this past year. I thought that was our strength, but dropped and tipped passes killed us offensively all year. The operative word is patience. And by the way, Stanford will take a drop this next year. Harbaugh has gone to the 49's.

[sagegrouse]

I am always surprised, although I shouldn't be, that so many of our fans are so impatient. Sure, we all want to win yesterday, but to crawl out of the abyss that was Duke football takes time. We played a lot of young players this year, and our record showed it. This next year we will be better. You can take it to the bank. Coach Cut is making progress. It is both a blessing and a curse that the ACC is such a sorry conference. Did you catch the ACC record in BCS bowls after Va. Tech lost. It is pathetic! It is amazing any really good football player would want to play in such a sorry conference. That impacts Duke's ability to recruit the top players, but neither can the other ACC schools. Assuming Kelby Brown's knee is okay, our defense will be better. The one area I don't understand is why our receivers tipped and dropped so many passes this past year. I thought that was our strength, but dropped and tipped passes killed us offensively all year. The operative word is patience. And by the way, Stanford will take a drop this next year. Harbaugh has gone to the 49's.

I didn't fully parse out your meaning in the boldfaced quote about bowl records. But when I looked at the results yesterday (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/16343161/ns/sports-college_football/?ns=sports-college_football), each of the six BCS conferences was within one game of 0.500 except the Big Ten at 3-5, thanks to the New Year's Day debacle. The SEC has a chance to get to 6-4 with an Auburn win Monday night and a victory by Kentucky over Pitt. If the SEC wins both games and if BC should beat Nevada, the ACC would finish 5-4 for the second best record among the BCS conferences.

sagegrouse

[DueBlevil]

I didn't fully parse out your meaning in the boldfaced quote about bowl records. But when I looked at the results yesterday (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/16343161/ns/sports-college_football/?ns=sports-college_football), each of the six BCS conferences was within one game of 0.500 except the Big Ten at 3-5, thanks to the New Year's Day debacle. The SEC has a chance to get to 6-4 with an Auburn win Monday night and a victory by Kentucky over Pitt. If the SEC wins both games and if BC should beat Nevada, the ACC would finish 5-4 for the second best record among the BCS conferences.

sagegrouse

I think he meant record in BCS bowls, not record by BCS conference teams in any bowl. The ACC is 2-11 in BCS bowls (compare with SEC: 14-6, Big 10: 11-12, Big 12: 8-10, Pac-10: 9-5, Big East: 6-7; data from Wikipedia)

[sagegrouse]

I think he meant record in BCS bowls, not record by BCS conference teams in any bowl. The ACC is 2-11 in BCS bowls (compare with SEC: 14-6, Big 10: 11-12, Big 12: 8-10, Pac-10: 9-5, Big East: 6-7; data from Wikipedia)

I said I was having trouble parsing the meaning. I guess I just should have read it.

What's interesting is what your numbers imply about the number of times each conference has had two representatives in the BCS bowls:


Big Ten 10
SEC 7
Big 12 5
Pac 10 1
ACC 0
Big East 0

sagegrouse

[formerdukeathlete]

I am always surprised, although I shouldn't be, that so many of our fans are so impatient. Sure, we all want to win yesterday, but to crawl out of the abyss that was Duke football takes time. We played a lot of young players this year, and our record showed it. This next year we will be better. You can take it to the bank. Coach Cut is making progress. It is both a blessing and a curse that the ACC is such a sorry conference. Did you catch the ACC record in BCS bowls after Va. Tech lost. It is pathetic! It is amazing any really good football player would want to play in such a sorry conference. That impacts Duke's ability to recruit the top players, but neither can the other ACC schools. Assuming Kelby Brown's knee is okay, our defense will be better. The one area I don't understand is why our receivers tipped and dropped so many passes this past year. I thought that was our strength, but dropped and tipped passes killed us offensively all year. The operative word is patience. And by the way, Stanford will take a drop this next year. Harbaugh has gone to the 49's.

VO was a more highly rated recruit than any defensive player landed by Stanford in his year, and he would have met Stanford's admissions cutoffs and criteria, now and then. Yet he picked Duke, over Miami, Oklohoma and about 30 other programs.

We had an unsuccessful Football program at the time. Clue, it was the academics.

Ben Watson gave Duke one year, a 4 star recruit, then went on to graduate from UGA with close to a 4.0 and scored nearly perfect on the Wonderlic. Duke had a poor program at the time - academics were key.

Ben Patrick was also a 4 star recruit, a solid, good student who came to Duke over SEC offers, when our program was pretty bad. Academics.

The problem with Cutcliffe is that he does not offer the VO's, the Watson's, the Patrick's. He does not focus and make sure he offers all the elite prospects who are good students. It's like fighting with two hands tied behind your back.

Based on what I follow, my guess is that our team has a 950 two part SAT average. Yet, we dont even offer http://rivals.yahoo.com/duke/football/recruiting/player-Jamal-Rashad-Patterson-66218 in our own back yard with SATs over 1200.

I would hope that such information would help in the accountability department. I dont want to see Football not be funded for the reasons we still play under 500 ball and carry a team SAT average in the 900 department.

[formerdukeathlete]

http://stanford.scout.com/a.z?s=18&p=8&c=1&nid=4400031

Another Stanford (just today) commit, 4 star, 4.8 GPA that we did not offer, from Florida.

[Richard Berg]

To be clear, there is no shortage of brainpower on the Duke football team. I had the pleasure of interviewing some very bright, driven football alumni back when I worked in the Triangle. Most were not starters, but a couple were; regardless, all had obviously taken full advantage of their physical talents to get a free world-class education.

I don't remember their names, sadly, so I can't give examples. But there are other well known examples from the Roof era we can look back on without beating the VO horse to death. How about Patrick Bailey? Big strong linebacker, went to a great high school (my alma mater), 1360 SAT, 101.4 GPA, has managed to stay in the NFL for 3 years now. He was not anywhere near a 5* recruit out of high school, but so what? We pay our coaches (not Rivals.com) big bucks for a reason. Honestly I'd rather have guys like him -- a little under the radar, but exceptionally well suited to develop in & out of the classroom -- than a bunch of VO's in first place.

I do agree with FDA overall. While our athletic roster is blessed with a number of outliers, the statistics about the football team's credentials don't lie. It boggles the mind that FB recruiting seems to view Duke's academic requirements as a burden instead of an opportunity.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

It boggles the mind that FB recruiting seems to view Duke's academic requirements as a burden instead of an opportunity.
From the beginning, Coach Cut has said publicly that he uses Duke's academics as a huge plus in recruiting. He has said that in every alumni gathering and signing day event I've been to, which is several. So either he's telling us stories because he thinks we want to hear them, or he believes it. I have always believed him. And still do.

[killerleft]

From the beginning, Coach Cut has said publicly that he uses Duke's academics as a huge plus in recruiting. He has said that in every alumni gathering and signing day event I've been to, which is several. So either he's telling us stories because he thinks we want to hear them, or he believes it. I have always believed him. And still do.

I agree with that, Oz. It would be mindboggling to find out otherwise. Surely there are other reasons why these players weren't offered. Like maybe they point-blank told us they were not interested in Duke, so they weren't offered a scholly. Or Cut wasn't as high on them as the recruiting gurus.

[-bdbd]

I agree with that, Oz. It would be mindboggling to find out otherwise. Surely there are other reasons why these players weren't offered. Like maybe they point-blank told us they were not interested in Duke, so they weren't offered a scholly. Or Cut wasn't as high on them as the recruiting gurus.

...or the kid maybe didn't fit our team attitude-wise, or didn't fit well in our system, or didn't show good coachability, etc. There's any number of reasons why a 4-star player like Patterson doesn't get offered by Duke. Just b/c Stanford DOES, that doesn't mean WE should have.

I have heard Cut and staff say that "coachability" is a major factor in their recruiting decisions, which explains part of why the camp evaluations are so important. I trust Cut. He is not going to fail to use every silver bullet in his belt for these top, great-fit recruits.
'just too smart not to.

And us laymen will never understand all of the why's and why-nots of Duke FB recruiting offers.....

[TheTrain]

http://stanford.scout.com/a.z?s=18&p=8&c=1&nid=4400031

Another Stanford (just today) commit, 4 star, 4.8 GPA that we did not offer, from Florida.

We offered Lyons

[jimsumner]

Full disclosure. I voted for Jim Harbaugh for national coach of the year. So, if the metric is did-David-Cutcliffe-do-better-than-the-best-coach-in-the-country, then the answer is no.

Of course, that applies to everyone else.

But I think it's disengenuous to think that Duke and Stanford are somehow the same school, just on opposite coasts and that all Duke has to do is emulate Stanford in every particular.

As for David Cutcliffe, he could not possibly care less what Rivals.com or Scout.com thinks about a high school player. He thinks he and his staff can evaluate talent quite nicely, thank you very much and he really likes to see players up close and personal in camps. As opposed to looking at film.

Recall that last fall Randy Shannon admitted that Miami had over-relied on ratings and films, as opposed to looking at players in a real football context. David Cutcliffe did a pretty good job building the program at Mississippi using an approach similar to what he's doing at Duke and somehow helped turn two-stars into All-SEC players.

Perhaps he's wrong and his internet critics are correct. But I'm inclined to give Cutcliffe the benefit of the doubt because, without putting too fine a point on it, he's actually done it before.

And I am reasonably certain that Cutcliffe does not view Duke's academics as an undue hindrance and I am equally certain that he uses those academics as a positive on the recruiting trail.

How quickly and easily we forget that Cutcliffe came into a program that had become a national laughingstock. I don't have to recite the dismal litany of winless and one-win seasons, the long ACC losing streaks, the blow-out losses. Most of us remember that all too well.

Nobody is laughing at Duke football. This improvements in this program since Cutcliffe took over are clear and apparent to me.

And, I suspect to others.

[Richard Berg]

From the beginning, Coach Cut has said publicly that he uses Duke's academics as a huge plus in recruiting. He has said that in every alumni gathering and signing day event I've been to, which is several. So either he's telling us stories because he thinks we want to hear them, or he believes it. I have always believed him. And still do.
I would love to be wrong. Not being a 300lb 16-year-old, the only info I have on Duke's recruiting tactics comes third-hand. Please don't take me as an authority.

There's no doubt Cut has made tremendous strides in other aspects of building up our program. I trust he has good reasons for recruiting the way he does, even if I don't fully understand it. It does seem like we've missed some opportunities to recruit the kind of high caliber student + athlete that FDA wants. And being the bunch of internet blowhards we are, we can't avoid yapping about it ;)

But I think we all realize that recruiting is a fickle beast, and that Shane Battier types don't grow on trees. It's no contradiction to say "K should recruit more 6'6-7" hyperathletic swingmen" (to revisit one trope from years past) and still feel exceptionally lucky to have him as our Coach.

[Bluedog]

http://stanford.scout.com/a.z?s=18&p=8&c=1&nid=4400031

Another Stanford (just today) commit, 4 star, 4.8 GPA that we did not offer, from Florida.


We offered Lyons

Yep. Apparently, our DB coach, Derek Jones, recruited him. Looks like he had 30+ offers, including from the likes of Harvard, UPenn, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Michigan, Florida State.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/player-Wayne-Lyons-94559

Not saying that your premise is necessarily wrong FDA. Just that it does look like Cutcliffe was on top of this one. That's just a heckuva lot of competition. Remember, rivals for football and scout for basketball. ;)

[formerdukeathlete]

Yep. Apparently, our DB coach, Derek Jones, recruited him. Looks like he had 30+ offers, including from the likes of Harvard, UPenn, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt, Michigan, Florida State.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/michigan/football/recruiting/player-Wayne-Lyons-94559

Not saying that your premise is necessarily wrong FDA. Just that it does look like Cutcliffe was on top of this one. That's just a heckuva lot of competition. Remember, rivals for football and scout for basketball. ;)

Yes, should have checked the rivals offer list which is most often the more reliable. And, his grades apparently improved since the scout profile, 4.96, with 1230 two part SAT. That makes we offered 2 out of 9 of the 4 star kids who committed to Stanford. Lyons committed to Stanford after Harbaugh announced he was leaving. Its much more the school than many realize among this type of student athlete.

To the other poster, Patrick Bailey showed up as 2 star on rivals, but that was an inaccurate assessment, if in fact he was ever evaluted by that service. I'd have to put him in that category of elite recruit, very good student whom we have landed in the past (because we offered) notwithstanding the state of Duke Football. He picked Duke over http://rivals.yahoo.com/duke/football/recruiting/player-Patrick-Bailey-25200;_ylt=Alq0V1qjW3341Y1wQJmG.yyQrpB4 and had offers from Notre Dame, Arizona, Michigan State, Rice.

A useful tool for the staff, if they dont have their system in place to find among the elite recruits the better students, rivals recruit search facilitates a search by any interest level among schools, either or, such as Stanford, Rice, Northwestern, or Duke. What happens when you do this is that the highest ranked recruits are listed first. Chances are if recruits list Stanford, Northwestern as schools of interest, when you check the bio, these kids are good students, and the list starts with 5 star and descends from there. A lot of good student prospects - I would have to think would like to hear from Duke as well.