PDA

View Full Version : Predict Duke Football Victories



4decadedukie
07-09-2007, 02:55 PM
[Mods: Please note, I am not certain if this topic is more appropriate in the Elizabeth King of the Off Topic forum. Please move it to the proper location.]


How many football wins will Duke have this year, and against whom?

Bob Green
07-09-2007, 03:09 PM
[Mods: Please note, I am not certain if this topic is more appropriate in the Elizabeth King of the Off Topic forum. Please move it to the proper location.]


How many football wins will Duke have this year, and against whom?

Your post is in the proper forum. IMO, Duke will win four or five games this year. We should win against UConn, Northwestern, Navy, WFU, & UNC.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

markbdevil
07-09-2007, 03:27 PM
If Duke wins the first game against UConn, then 4 or 5 wins is a possibility. Seems like the whole season depends on the first game and the confidence the team could get from winning. If Duke loses to UConn, it's 0-12 again.

Duvall
07-09-2007, 03:31 PM
http://www.campquality.org.au/help/images/level_3/gr_doughnut.jpg

devildeac
07-09-2007, 04:09 PM
POTW/POTM nominee anyone? ROTFLMAO. NOT necessarily because I agree but when was the last time you saw a KK doughnut posted as the reply to a question? This does not however appear to pass the '10 character" sniff test to qualify as a response, does it Mods? My prediction: 3 W's(ucons, navy and nw). We have found SO many ways to lose to the holes the last few decades and wfu still looks to have our number. Kicking game this year? Calling on OZZIE-12 W's this year, sir?

yancem
07-09-2007, 04:56 PM
http://www.campquality.org.au/help/images/level_3/gr_doughnut.jpg

I hope that you are mistaken but very funny post!

OZZIE4DUKE
07-09-2007, 05:12 PM
Calling on OZZIE-12 W's this year, sir?

I did NOT find the Krispy Kreme picture funny at all. Well, OK, I did chuckle a bit.

I'll go along with 4 to 5 wins. 6 if we beat Notre Dame ;) . I may be going to that game.

chrishoke
07-09-2007, 05:57 PM
0ur guys and our coaches need to learn how to win. I think they will win a couple but will play much better and give hope for the future. Players coaches and fans need to STEP UP! I promise to do my part.

gep
07-09-2007, 11:08 PM
0ur guys and our coaches need to learn how to win.

I agree. They need to know that, even down at the half, or close in the 4th quarter, that they can "pull it out". Reminds me of the old Oakland Raiders in the 70's with Madden and Stabler... you always knew they would come back to win, no matter what the score. I think this "feel" can only be obtained by winning a few (or a bunch :))

burnspbesq
07-10-2007, 03:07 PM
I did NOT find the Krispy Kreme picture funny at all. Well, OK, I did chuckle a bit.

I'll go along with 4 to 5 wins. 6 if we beat Notre Dame ;) . I may be going to that game.

Stopping in South Bend on the way to Lahaina? Sounds like a plan!

OZZIE4DUKE
07-10-2007, 04:00 PM
Stopping in South Bend on the way to Lahaina? Sounds like a plan!

I wish, but it is not in the budget unless we win the Powerball jackpot between now and then.

EarlJam
07-10-2007, 04:02 PM
http://www.campquality.org.au/help/images/level_3/gr_doughnut.jpg

I'll weigh in - this is one of the funniest post I've ever opened. Seriously. It gets my vote. Kudos - an instant classic!

-EarlJam

mapei
07-10-2007, 04:47 PM
4 to 5 wins???? You guys are out of yer frikkin minds. I've got a thousand dollars (I guess it has to be mythical, given that this is an upstanding site and all) that I'll put up on 3 or fewer wins against anyone who wants to take 4 or more.

Here is the record of the Duke University Blue Devils football team in this millennium:

2006: 0-11!
2005: 1-10
2004: 2-9
2003: 4-8
2002: 2-10
2001: 0-11!
2000: 0-11!

That's an average of one point something wins per season and ten losses per season.

The last time the team won 5 games was 1994 which was, by the way, the only time it has won five games in a season since the. nineteen. eighties.

And the trend is now up? You have got to be kidding. The doughnut is far more likely. But I'll guess 1 to 2 wins. Pathetic.

CameronBlue
07-10-2007, 05:58 PM
4 to 5 wins???? You guys are out of yer frikkin minds. I've got a thousand dollars (I guess it has to be mythical, given that this is an upstanding site and all) that I'll put up on 3 or fewer wins against anyone who wants to take 4 or more.

Here is the record of the Duke University Blue Devils football team in this millennium:

2006: 0-11!
2005: 1-10
2004: 2-9
2003: 4-8
2002: 2-10
2001: 0-11!
2000: 0-11!

That's an average of one point something wins per season and ten losses per season.

The last time the team won 5 games was 1994 which was, by the way, the only time it has won five games in a season since the. nineteen. eighties.

And the trend is now up? You have got to be kidding. The doughnut is far more likely. But I'll guess 1 to 2 wins. Pathetic.

I follow Duke football at least as closely as 99% of the people who post here, attending most games and my first reaction to your post was...

We won 4 games in 2003??!! Wow, 2003 seems like a dream to me now.

cspan37421
07-10-2007, 06:18 PM
Have some of those KK's shipped to the opponent the morning of the game.

UConn, a nemesis of late in hoops, is not a bad football team at all. They've created something from nothing up there. I hope we win a lot but would not pencil in that as a win, esp on the heels of last yr's encounter with the Spiders. We gotta earn any and all of them, nothing is a given, and other than unbridled optimism, I see no logical reason to predict any of them in our favor.

Classof06
07-10-2007, 06:48 PM
http://www.campquality.org.au/help/images/level_3/gr_doughnut.jpg


Priceless...

OZZIE4DUKE
07-10-2007, 07:23 PM
4 to 5 wins???? You guys are out of yer frikkin minds.

I resemble that remark!


You have got to be kidding. The doughnut is far more likely. But I'll guess 1 to 2 wins. Pathetic.


If we only win 1 or 2 games this year, I'm in the "don't give Roof the fifth year" camp. 3 plus competitive close losses is marginal. 4 or more and his job is safe for years to come.

msdukie
07-10-2007, 07:25 PM
As my friend Duvall will point out (to those of you who missed the futher underlying meaning of his post), Krispy Kreme is also a product of the EVIL Empire 9 miles down the road. Their CEO (who drove the company into the ground) took the money he made in his stock to fund Dean's scholarship machine. This point was not lost on Duvall when selecting his choice of doughnut. Both Duvall and I boycott Krispy Kreme in the hope that it will somehow impact Cryolina's scholarship money (but accept freebies).
:D
http://carolinafirst.unc.edu/connections/spring2003/livengood.html

DevilAlumna
07-10-2007, 08:06 PM
If we only win 1 or 2 games this year, I'm in the "don't give Roof the fifth year" camp. 3 plus competitive close losses is marginal. 4 or more and his job is safe for years to come.

Sat, Sep 01 Connecticut Durham, N.C. 2:00 p.m.
Sat, Sep 08 Virginia * at Charlottesville, Va. 12:00 p.m. LFS/R
Sat, Sep 15 Northwestern at Evanston, Ill. 8:00 p.m. Big Ten Network
Sat, Sep 22 Navy at Annapolis, Md. 1:00 p.m. CSTV
Sat, Sep 29 Miami * at Miami, Fla. TBA
Sat, Oct 06 Wake Forest * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Oct 13 Virginia Tech Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Oct 27 Florida State * at Tallahassee, Fla. TBA
Sat, Nov 03 Clemson * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Nov 10 Georgia Tech * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Nov 17 Notre Dame at Notre Dame, Ind. 2:30 p.m. NBC
Sat, Nov 24 North Carolina * at Chapel Hill, N.C. TBA

I'd say we might (MIGHT!) have a shot at UConn and Navy, but the rest? Well, let's just say it doesn't look good.

But, I'm always happy to be proven wrong when it comes to predicting Duke Football results....

OZZIE4DUKE
07-10-2007, 09:48 PM
Sat, Sep 01 Connecticut Durham, N.C. 2:00 p.m.
Sat, Sep 08 Virginia * at Charlottesville, Va. 12:00 p.m. LFS/R
Sat, Sep 15 Northwestern at Evanston, Ill. 8:00 p.m. Big Ten Network
Sat, Sep 22 Navy at Annapolis, Md. 1:00 p.m. CSTV
Sat, Sep 29 Miami * at Miami, Fla. TBA
Sat, Oct 06 Wake Forest * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Oct 13 Virginia Tech Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Oct 27 Florida State * at Tallahassee, Fla. TBA
Sat, Nov 03 Clemson * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Nov 10 Georgia Tech * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Nov 17 Notre Dame at Notre Dame, Ind. 2:30 p.m. NBC
Sat, Nov 24 North Carolina * at Chapel Hill, N.C. TBA

I'd say we might (MIGHT!) have a shot at UConn and Navy, but the rest? Well, let's just say it doesn't look good.

But, I'm always happy to be proven wrong when it comes to predicting Duke Football results....

We could win them all, but we won't. We could lose them all, but we won't do that either. So we'll win about half our games. It's only logical.

gep
07-10-2007, 11:23 PM
I find it interesting (maybe even humorous) that for basketball, we're predicting as high as NC, but in football, we're just hoping for not having a winless season. I, for one, am looking forward to the football season. I like what Coach Roof does, and I hope he turns this program around. Since the year he took over, he's been dealt with injuries, transfers, ineligibilities, whatever... things that are not easy to deal with. I just hope Duke gets some wins so they get that "feel" that they *can* win... especially the close ones, especially since, probably this year, every win *will* be a close one. And if they win those close ones, I think excitement will start to build... and hopefully more support.

p.s. that KK response was indeed priceless...

formerdukeathlete
07-11-2007, 08:28 AM
I find it interesting (maybe even humorous) that for basketball, we're predicting as high as NC, but in football, we're just hoping for not having a winless season. I, for one, am looking forward to the football season. I like what Coach Roof does, and I hope he turns this program around. Since the year he took over, he's been dealt with injuries, transfers, ineligibilities, whatever... things that are not easy to deal with. I just hope Duke gets some wins so they get that "feel" that they *can* win... especially the close ones, especially since, probably this year, every win *will* be a close one. And if they win those close ones, I think excitement will start to build... and hopefully more support.

p.s. that KK response was indeed priceless...


Transfers and dismissals, certainly dismissals, have reflected negatively on Roof. Many are much closer than I to the circumstances of these too often occurring matters. Lose a player, yeah, that frees up a scholarship, but maybe you lose a game without that starter. Lose a game, and maybe you lose a recruit, lose that recruit, your recruiting class is weakened, your talent level is lessened, you lose some more.

I have to think that players who are seeing or who will likely see lots of playing time and who are thinking about transferring can be talked into staying. If they are dissatisfied by Duke from an academic or social perspective (too stringent alcohol policy), and yet they are cutting the mustard in the classroom, maybe Duke administrators need to do more to support the team or support reasonable student life at Duke. Delle Donne transferred after being pulled over on the way back to campus. He was under the legal limit. But he had some beers at an off campus party - BFD.

I am concerned about Roof blowing up players (dismissals, transfers) and coaches. I am also concerned about the Duke admin.'s ongoing assault on student life at Duke. The Rolling Stone article was positive in its own way. However, with the incoming 2008 class, I understand Duke placed less weight on extra-curriculars in high school, such as playing sports (impliedly, such students are bigger sports fans in college), and admitted more students solely on the basis of SAT scores. Tone down Duke too much, enroll more and more students who never played sports and who may or may not know that Duke has a Football or Basketball team, and you lose more recruits, you lengthen the cycle of losing.

Re this season, virtually all of the teams, except Navy, has equal or better talent levels than Duke. UNC has more talent. Wake has at least equal talent. Connecticut has at least equal talent. It will take luck and coaching success. If we lose all this season, then I think we have to bring in another coach. I'd say Roof is a nice enough guy. Let him stay on as defensive coordinator at the same salary for a year while he looks for another job. Bring Paul Johnson in from Navy. On the other hand, perhaps Zach Asack surprises; VO stays healthy; and some of the 05 incoming class turn it on and we win 5 games.

Then, as long as the Trustees intervene to endeavor to stop the complete geekification of Duke and Duke stays a somewhat fun place to attend school, we begin to build a football program. Fixing or replacing Wade is part, parcel of this, in order for success to be sustainable.

Bluedawg
07-11-2007, 09:51 AM
If Duke wins the first game against UConn, then 4 or 5 wins is a possibility. Seems like the whole season depends on the first game and the confidence the team could get from winning. If Duke loses to UConn, it's 0-12 again.

Agreed.

I think last season was lost after Wake Forest. Richmond was a bust since he was platooning a trud freshman and an unexperineced Sophmore at QB. Letting that WFU game get away set the tone for the season, look at Alabama, Miami, and UNC all games they should have won.

Bluedawg
07-11-2007, 09:57 AM
Since the year he took over, he's been dealt with injuries, transfers, ineligibilities, whatever... things that are not easy to deal with.

You are correct, and the usual response to this is that these are things that all coaches have to deal with.

However, the wild card here is depth. I read an interview with Coach Roof where he said that the starters should only play 40-45 downs per game but his starters were playing 70-75. I think the injuries, transfers, and ineligibilities would have been more manageable if he had the depth to compensate for it.

throatybeard
07-11-2007, 10:34 AM
Phil Steele has that schedule ranked 9th in the country.

He's also got our incoming class ranked 10th in the conference.

JasonEvans
07-11-2007, 11:01 AM
He's also got our incoming class ranked 10th in the conference.

10th is better than 12th. If we are 10th a few years in a row it makes sense that at some point we will not finish 12th in the conference, right?

--Jason "sigh, small victories-- that is what Duke football is all about right now" EVans

tombrady
07-11-2007, 11:14 AM
10th is better than 12th. If we are 10th a few years in a row it makes sense that at some point we will not finish 12th in the conference, right?

--Jason "sigh, small victories-- that is what Duke football is all about right now" EVans

I saw a massively jacked 50-something guy in the gym last week wearing a Duke Football sweatshirt. I wanted to ask him if he played way back, but he was too busy maxing out hundreds of pounds while jamming with the earphones cranked up. I didn't want to interrupt his routine for fear of death resulting.

RPS
07-11-2007, 03:21 PM
Fixing or replacing Wade is part, parcel of this, in order for success to be sustainable.I know this subject has been hashed and rehashed, but as part of the recruiting process for my son I spoke with a prominent college HC about this subject a few days ago and he (from a long ways away) noted the obvious two impediments to Duke football success. He mentioned the stadium first and support (administrative, faculty and student) second.

Duvall
07-11-2007, 03:42 PM
I know this subject has been hashed and rehashed, but as part of the recruiting process for my son I spoke with a prominent college HC about this subject a few days ago and he (from a long ways away) noted the obvious two impediments to Duke football success. He mentioned the stadium first and support (administrative, faculty and student) second.

I assume administrative support means more funding and student support means more fans, but faculty support? What does that even mean?

mapei
07-11-2007, 04:08 PM
At the risk of seeming really dense, what is so bad about the stadium? I haven't spent a lot of time on the Duke campus and haven't been to a football game since I was a child, but walking by there on my way to Cameron it seems just fine to me. Sort of a football version of Cameron, really, old-school and centrally located. I would think it would be a great place to watch or play a game.

johnb
07-11-2007, 07:59 PM
Three wins would be fantastic, especially if we can stay reasonably close to Notre Dame on national tv.

Ain't a matter of attitude or effort or reducing penalties. We have very few players who would have even made the Florida State team, and perhaps only one who would be in the rotation (feel free to correct me if you disagree; if so, who on our team would ever start for Florida State or Miami aside from, perhaps, a healthy Oghobaase?) On the other hand, there probably aren't that many players on the Florida State team who would thrive at Duke, though I'm sure the coaching staff would salivate about the chance to make the case for a few of them every year to admissions. And so it's not a surprise that we lose to the best teams and hang tough with the bottom cluster of ACC teams.

As was discussed here at length last year, it's not just a matter of replacing Roof. The Duke job is seen as a great way to wreck your coaching career, and we wouldn't be able to hire an obvious superstar.

Anyway, I'm thinking the coaching staff needs to be spectacularly successful at recruiting the hidden gems, and then maybe we can be a Wake Forest. The stadium doesn't seem like the big problem--players would excuse old if the stadium were full of fans.

Oh, and FDA, Duke admissions is not simply accepting people based on SAT, though it is, apparently, making an effort to further increase the intellectual activity on campus.

gep
07-11-2007, 09:22 PM
The stadium doesn't seem like the big problem--players would excuse old if the stadium were full of fans.

and... if Wallace Wade Stadium can actually become the equivalent of Cameron Indoor Stadium in terms of "aura", then "old" won't be a problem, and may even be a positive. (I guess I'm dreaming...:) )

dukie8
07-11-2007, 10:17 PM
Your post is in the proper forum. IMO, Duke will win four or five games this year. We should win against UConn, Northwestern, Navy, WFU, & UNC.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan


i don't see how anyone would expect to beat navy. last year they were 9-4, went to a bowl game and almost beat bc in the bowl game (bc had to rally from 8 down in the 4th quarter to win). i don't follow college football closely enough to know whether or not they got crushed by graduation/transfers/suspensions but that doesn't sound like the profile of a team an 0-fer team is going to end its losing streak against. uconn sounds a lot more doable...

Bob Green
07-12-2007, 01:16 AM
Navy lost 35 lettermen off of last year's squad. We lost 16. The Fox Sports preview implies Navy's defense could be suspect. However, we will have to bring our "A" Game, score points and stop Navy's ground attack.

http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/6984586?CMP=OTC-K9B140813162&ATT=24

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

formerdukeathlete
07-12-2007, 04:00 AM
The stadium doesn't seem like the big problem--players would excuse old if the stadium were full of fans.

Oh, and FDA, Duke admissions is not simply accepting people based on SAT, though it is, apparently, making an effort to further increase the intellectual activity on campus.

Wade Stadium is really quite unimpressive. Yes, the old wood bleachers are and have been for quite a while aluminum. Yes, it does fit within a somewhat natural ravine. Beyond that, fans are separated from the field by a running track, the Presidents box side looks even high schoolish, and amenities such as bathrooms are lacking. To do it right, I think we need to start over. To buy time, we need to refurbish. On the Presidents box side, remove the Cantilevered lean-to and add a building replete with luxury boxes as well as something nice and appropriate for when we get a President and senior admin. types who are truly (not just paying lip service to Trustees) sports fans. Revenue for home games goes up, and, on a percentage basis from where we are now with low attendance, it goes up significantly. In addition, when games are televised, our Football venue looks updated, more impressive, and this helps with recruiting. When you think of it, the Fitch Yeager building added in the early 1980s is the only real improvement of note since 1929.

Regarding admissions, while I have not interviewed current staff, I do hear things anecdotally, including from faculty at at top private high school which sends kids to Ivy Schools and to Duke. Duke's affirmative action admissions policy is one offering greater preferences than peer institutions, and particularly in the context of hispanic applicants fails to distinguish. In one instance for Duke Class of 2012, Duke admitted a white Cuban American girl from an affluent family who attended this private high school. Fellow students were surprised she was admitted to Duke. She did not get into the University of Miami, which has many Cuban American students and alums. Apparently, Miami does not offer affirmative action admissions preferences to affluent white Cuban American applicants.

I was involved with the Duke Advisory Alumni Admissions Committee for years and was asked to chair the Boston committee in the early to mid 90s. Job transfers interferred, however, I speak with folks who are still very much involved. Because Duke admits so many students with affirmative action preferences, this lowers average admissions criteria so that with the remaining admitted applicants, more and more of the focus is simply raw test score and GPA data. Certainly athletes, legacies and children of benefactors (who are almost always also legacies) receive preferences. These preferences on average are less than for affirmative action applicants.

Duke can admit 1400 (old scale) plus applicants all day long who are also members of varsity sports programs in high school, leaders of student government, students who worked during school and in the summers. These criteria were considered for candidates for AB Duke scholarships. I would submit that we are getting away from time honored criteria which helped gauge future leaders.

Getting back to Football, when a student body, partly because of admissions policies, is more and more uninterested in the Football team, when your stadium is as antiquated as Wade, you need to think quickly and hard about making some changes if you want to continue to offer Division 1 sports. (Heck, based on attendance this last season, the undergrad student body is becoming less and less interested in basketball.)

Our continuing to offer Division 1 sports programs, with revenue sharing helping us to do so, is dependent on our fielding a better Football team. If our student body becomes disinterested in sports, our Trustees eventually also become disinterested in maintaining an athletics program at the top levels. Then we do not attract terrific kids like Reade Seligmann. Ultimately, I would submit the value of all of our degrees declines, and Duke loses its purpose and meaning for existence. Heck, shortcut the process - just sell the land and hospitals and open up a campus overseas with no sports programs.

4decadedukie
07-12-2007, 06:52 AM
Bob,

Both Navy and Duke may well look at their game as an opportunity for a "rare" 2006-2007 win. If so, both should fight voraciously and, unfortunately, I would guess the team (USNA) that has the most "win experience" might prevail. I will be at Navy/Marine Corps stadium, with my Duke sweater and my USN/Nimitz hat.

Regards.

Bluedawg
07-12-2007, 07:47 AM
When you think of it, the Fitch Yeager building added in the early 1980s is the only real improvement of note since 1929.

The Yoh Football Center was completed in 2002. My understanding is that once the basketball center is completed the plan is to upgrade Wallace Wade.


(Heck, based on attendance this last season, the undergrad student body is becoming less and less interested in basketball.)

From what i saw there is no drop in student interest. in fact they started camping out for the Duke/Carolina Women's game and created Goestenkorsopolis.

Highlander
07-12-2007, 08:24 AM
Sat, Sep 01 Connecticut Durham, N.C. 2:00 p.m.
Sat, Sep 08 Virginia * at Charlottesville, Va. 12:00 p.m. LFS/R
Sat, Sep 15 Northwestern at Evanston, Ill. 8:00 p.m. Big Ten Network
Sat, Sep 22 Navy at Annapolis, Md. 1:00 p.m. CSTV
Sat, Sep 29 Miami * at Miami, Fla. TBA
Sat, Oct 06 Wake Forest * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Oct 13 Virginia Tech Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Oct 27 Florida State * at Tallahassee, Fla. TBA
Sat, Nov 03 Clemson * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Nov 10 Georgia Tech * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Nov 17 Notre Dame at Notre Dame, Ind. 2:30 p.m. NBC
Sat, Nov 24 North Carolina * at Chapel Hill, N.C. TBA

I'd say we might (MIGHT!) have a shot at UConn and Navy, but the rest? Well, let's just say it doesn't look good.

But, I'm always happy to be proven wrong when it comes to predicting Duke Football results....

I've said it before, but our schedule next year is murderous. I'd hazard a bet that we are once again the only team who has to play FSU, Miami, and VTech next year. Of course we will get to play FSU again for the 4th or 5th straight year, but not NC State, even though both teams are in the other division.

Anything over 1 win against that schedule and I will be happy. Win a conference game and I will be ecstatic.

Side note, but 5 years ago you could count the number of teams in the conference who had beaten FSU on one hand. Now you can count the number of teams who haven't beaten them on one hand. By my count, there are 3, including us.

OZZIE4DUKE
07-12-2007, 09:15 AM
If they are dissatisfied by Duke from an academic or social perspective (too stringent alcohol policy), and yet they are cutting the mustard in the classroom, maybe Duke administrators need to do more to support the team or support reasonable student life at Duke. Delle Donne transferred after being pulled over on the way back to campus. He was under the legal limit. But he had some beers at an off campus party - BFD.


One thing that you and I agree on is that the legal drinking age should be 18 and not 21, like it was when we were in school "back in the day". Unfortunately, in NC, the legal limit for those under 21 is 0.0. That's more than a tough standard for college kids, or soldiers, or almost anyone 18 to 20 years old.

The beauty of Duke's on-campus dormitory living situation back in the day, especially for fraternities' having dorm sections as their houses, is that drinking could be done on campus with no driving involved (for the most part anyway). Of course, as dram shop laws toughened and legal liabilities became more costly, and the drinking age for beer and wine was changed to 21, the administration was forced to drive drinking (no pun intended), which is going to happen at Duke and any and every college in the world, including chapel hill college, off campus. To save the University's butt they are forced to endanger the students' lives. A bad situation with no easy solution. I suppose if we did away with all the lawyers, that would be a good start. (Just kidding).

As for replacing Wallace Wade Stadium, of which I am a regular attendee in for football games and have been since 1972, I like the stadium but hate the facilities. Without a doubt the bathrooms need to be replaced. The President's box is a joke. Seats with backs and drink holders large enough to hold the cups being sold PLEASE! Food quality and choices have improved significantly in the last 3 years, and I have no objection to the concession stands and food carts as they are from the consumer's standpoint (I'm sure the vendors would love significant improvements). Your suggestion to lower the playing field and get rid of the track to add seats doesn't thrill me. I sit in row J. I wouldn't want to be much closer to the field because it would be difficult to see the action without increasing the viewing (rake) angle of the stands. Granted, lowering the field would do that a little bit, but not significantly. (The more I think about this and the geometry involved, maybe it would work nicely. Didn't you post previously that you have seen this done elsewhere? At Stanford maybe?) Heck, as you well know, the worst view of the game is on the sidelines. That's why some of the coaches (at Duke, at other colleges and in the pros) sit up in the press box -- to get a bird's eye view. And if I were in a position to buy a luxury box, I'd want it on the west side (press box side) of the field, so the sun wasn't in my eyes in the late afternoons.

RPS
07-12-2007, 09:59 AM
I assume administrative support means more funding....Largely, yes. But it also includes the sense (subjective, I grant) that the administration puts real value upon athletics in general and football in particular. The lacrosse case makes it much harder for recruits to believe that such support exists, whatever one thinks of the administration's performance. The Yoh Center is great, but WW is a dump.


...and student support means more fans....Yup. This issue is way undervalued in importance. Obviously, I'd love to see a packed WW, but the most important ingredient for the players in this regard is the support of their peers. Great student support would go a long way toward mitigating a less than full WW.


...but faculty support? What does that even mean?I'm surprised to see this question asked so soon after the Gang of 88 debacle. Here (http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/070803/football2.html) is a report from an official Duke publication showing tepid (at best) faculty support for football, and it surely hasn't gotten any better since then. More is available here (http://www.newsobserver.com/736/story/452978.html), including K's concern, and here (http://www.newsobserver.com/691/story/456646.html). The situation is often dscribed in much starker terms by those who note that a frequent academic antipathy to sports is made worse for football players at Duke since hoops is untouchable and football is the other high profile sport.

DU Band Prez 88
07-12-2007, 11:29 AM
Sat, Sep 01 Connecticut Durham, N.C. 2:00 p.m.
Sat, Sep 08 Virginia * at Charlottesville, Va. 12:00 p.m. LFS/R
Sat, Sep 15 Northwestern at Evanston, Ill. 8:00 p.m. Big Ten Network
Sat, Sep 22 Navy at Annapolis, Md. 1:00 p.m. CSTV
Sat, Sep 29 Miami * at Miami, Fla. TBA
Sat, Oct 06 Wake Forest * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Oct 13 Virginia Tech Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Oct 27 Florida State * at Tallahassee, Fla. TBA
Sat, Nov 03 Clemson * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Nov 10 Georgia Tech * Durham, N.C. TBA
Sat, Nov 17 Notre Dame at Notre Dame, Ind. 2:30 p.m. NBC
Sat, Nov 24 North Carolina * at Chapel Hill, N.C. TBA

I'd say we might (MIGHT!) have a shot at UConn and Navy, but the rest? Well, let's just say it doesn't look good.

But, I'm always happy to be proven wrong when it comes to predicting Duke Football results....

This schedule is really, really tough. I'd say 3 wins max, 2-10 likely, but you never know what might happen if the team gets momentum from a couple of early wins. The UConn game is a must to win to start the season and would be a huge confidence booster if they can do it, but then to head to UVA and then to Northwestern on successive weeks will be major challenge.

The key is September - Duke first needs to just get a win, and the UConn game is that game. They really, really need to win that game. Then, with that opening W, can they pull off another W in one of the next 4?

Last year, what would have happened differerently had Duke pulled out a W either at Wake Forest, which was oh so close against an Orange Bowl team at their home field, or converted on 4th down at the end against Miami?

Duvall
07-12-2007, 12:10 PM
Largely, yes. But it also includes the sense (subjective, I grant) that the administration puts real value upon athletics in general and football in particular. The lacrosse case makes it much harder for recruits to believe that such support exists, whatever one thinks of the administration's performance. The Yoh Center is great, but WW is a dump.

I'm not convinced by the argument that the university administration needs to prove that it places a high priority on athletics, because, let's face it, it's not that a high priority, and shouldn't be for a major research institution. It's a luxury - an enjoyable one - but not a necessity.

And in two years football recruits (and high students generally) won't even remember the lacrosse case.


Yup. This issue is way undervalued in importance. Obviously, I'd love to see a packed WW, but the most important ingredient for the players in this regard is the support of their peers. Great student support would go a long way toward mitigating a less than full WW.

The only way to fix this is to win. From my observations, Duke students typically do a pretty good job of turning out for the first game, and stop showing up when it becomes apparent that Duke is in for another loss-filled season. Winning will take care of that.


I'm surprised to see this question asked so soon after the Gang of 88 debacle. Here (http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/dukemag/issues/070803/football2.html) is a report from an official Duke publication showing tepid (at best) faculty support for football, and it surely hasn't gotten any better since then. More is available here (http://www.newsobserver.com/736/story/452978.html), including K's concern, and here (http://www.newsobserver.com/691/story/456646.html). The situation is often described in much starker terms by those who note that a frequent academic antipathy to sports is made worse for football players at Duke since hoops is untouchable and football is the other high profile sport.

How is that supposed to affect the success of the football program - by hurting the feelings of the players? It's not clear why it matters whether faculty support is "tepid," so long as they remain willing to address the needs of athletes as students.

mapei
07-12-2007, 01:19 PM
Navy lost 35 lettermen off of last year's squad. We lost 16.

You make it sound like retaining players from teams that have gone 3-30 over the last three years is a plus.

Matches
07-12-2007, 01:28 PM
I'll be happy with one win. Just one. Maybe that's setting the bar too low - but I believe in baby steps.

RPS
07-12-2007, 01:43 PM
I'm not convinced by the argument that the university administration needs to prove that it places a high priority on athletics, because, let's face it, it's not that a high priority, and shouldn't be for a major research institution. It's a luxury - an enjoyable one - but not a necessity.Many schools disagree. Prominent examples include Stanford (for obvious reasons) and Harvard (41 varsity sports -- the most anywhere -- and roughly one in four undergraduates a recruited varsity athlete). Moreover, the idea that it's luxurious fluff is belied by the connection between athletic success and both undergraduate applications and alumni giving. It's no coincidence that Duke's rise up the rankings charts corresponds nicely to its basketball success.


And in two years football recruits (and high students generally) won't even remember the lacrosse case.If you think so you aren't very experienced with the athletic recruiting process. Duke's competition will remind parents and students early and often about the lax case and what it means for athletes at Duke for years to come. K's success and reputation can readily overcome that. It will be much more difficult for football.


The only way to fix this is to win. From my observations, Duke students typically do a pretty good job of turning out for the first game, and stop showing up when it becomes apparent that Duke is in for another loss-filled season. Winning will take care of that.Sadly, you're probably right. But it doesn't speak well of our students, who ought to support their school and their peers, particularly when contrasted with the (much higher) level of student support at other schools despite "competitive difficulties" or even with earlier times at Cameron, when student support was excellent even when the teams were not.


How is that supposed to affect the success of the football program - by hurting the feelings of the players? It's not clear why it matters whether faculty support is "tepid," so long as they remain willing to address the needs of athletes as students.That's a major so long as. Duke has been rife with stories of professors sticking it to athletes, and particularly football players, simply for being athletes, for a long time. All of us who attended should be familiar with the anecdotal evidence. What we now know (http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1128038/) happened in the lax case (look here (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/dowd-and-duke.html), here (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/05/dowd-settlement.html) and here (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/05/dowd-case-in-perspective.html) too) makes it easier to believe that an ugly pattern exists. Why else would 17 members of the economics faculty have to specifically welcome (http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/dukes-economics-department-takes-its.html) all student athletes to their classes during the lax scandal? The players know it and the competition exploits it.

Bob Green
07-12-2007, 04:01 PM
You make it sound like retaining players from teams that have gone 3-30 over the last three years is a plus.

The players may have gone 3-30 but they've gained experience in the process. This is specifically the case with our offensive line. Lewis needs time to throw the ball. So yes, retaining players that have gone 3-30 the last three years is a plus!

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

mapei
07-12-2007, 09:46 PM
Gotta love your optimism, Bob!

Bob Green
07-12-2007, 10:59 PM
Gotta love your optimism, Bob!

I'm trying hard to catch up with Ozzie in the optimism department! :)

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

OZZIE4DUKE
07-13-2007, 07:59 AM
I'm trying hard to catch up with Ozzie in the optimism department! :)

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

I'm on a big, empty train right now, Bob. Welcome aboard! Seats will fill up quickly once the winning starts.

formerdukeathlete
07-13-2007, 08:45 AM
As for replacing Wallace Wade Stadium, of which I am a regular attendee in for football games and have been since 1972, I like the stadium but hate the facilities. Without a doubt the bathrooms need to be replaced. The President's box is a joke. Seats with backs and drink holders large enough to hold the cups being sold PLEASE! Food quality and choices have improved significantly in the last 3 years, and I have no objection to the concession stands and food carts as they are from the consumer's standpoint (I'm sure the vendors would love significant improvements). Your suggestion to lower the playing field and get rid of the track to add seats doesn't thrill me. I sit in row J. I wouldn't want to be much closer to the field because it would be difficult to see the action without increasing the viewing (rake) angle of the stands. Granted, lowering the field would do that a little bit, but not significantly. (The more I think about this and the geometry involved, maybe it would work nicely. Didn't you post previously that you have seen this done elsewhere? At Stanford maybe?) Heck, as you well know, the worst view of the game is on the sidelines. That's why some of the coaches (at Duke, at other colleges and in the pros) sit up in the press box -- to get a bird's eye view. And if I were in a position to buy a luxury box, I'd want it on the west side (press box side) of the field, so the sun wasn't in my eyes in the late afternoons.

In 1992, 1993, the running track was removed at the LA Coliseum. The rake, viewing angle of the seats which were added (with the lowering of the field) was slightly steeper than the the viewing angle for the rest of the stadium. This allowed adding slightly more seats - of course the field was lowered slightly more to accommodate the additional seats. As long as the last seats, or the seats closest to the field are still elevated by at least 10 feet, I think they are good viewing seats. So if we are wedded to renovating Wade so that it is no longer a "dump" as RPS has noted, I suppose the running track removal could come later. Firstly, create some archtecture around the top of the ravine. A building to replace the Presidents box makes a lot of sense, and could probably be added for around $5-7 million, with catering facilities, for the boxes. I bet Duke could raise funds to cover a good bit of the cost of the building from corporate sponsors. Removing the running track - Roof told/e-mailed me once that he like the idea.

But, all of this takes some leadership to get it done. We do not have that with Brodhead who quivers vis a vis the Group of 88. I also believe Brodhead is not a fan of sports, college athletes and that he harbours resentment toward them. RPS's comments that Harvard undergrads are 25% recruited athletes is really telling. Yale undergrads are something like 20% athletes. And, during Brodhead's tenure at Yale, I am sure he was restrained vis a vis taking punitive actions against athletes who were pulled over for DUIs, for example. I worked for, with, a Yale undergrade, Yale Law, Yale trustee. In fact I have been told Brodhead was constrained. And, he did not like this. So Duke hired him and he has freer reign. Danowski refused to enforce Brodhead's alcohol policy vis a vis the Lacrosse team - thought it too punitive and was not afraid to let folks know. Danowski got his contract anyway. Delle Donne was admonished too harshly - indirectly by Brodhead, so he transfers. Had we Delle Donne last season, we would have won a least one game.

Getting back to Wade, on the Presidents box side there are things that can be done to reduce glare later in the afternoon - start of the art windows and shading help. Hopefully scheduling of games will be dictated more and more by television, but in the meantime, noon games and night games eliminate the problem entirely.

At Duke we have 10% athletes. At Stanford, Harvard, Yale the percentages are higher. And Brodhead still does not get it. Our undergrad admissions policies are skewed away from wanting to admit future leaders to wanting to admit computer geeks and Othello freaks.

Hopefully, Duke's next president will get us on track and provide the right kind of leadership. In the meantime, let's hope for some luck this season for Ted in making a bad situation better.

Bac, in t

rtnorthrup
07-13-2007, 11:23 AM
We return 11 starters on offense, including a dynamic QB who started 10 games last year as a true freshman. We have one of the better wide receiver groups in the ACC. Last year we struggled because we had no experience along the offensive line. This year we return every offensive lineman and we have quality depth at the position.

On defense we suffered significant losses. We graduated both of our Cornerbacks and 2 defensive linemen. We should, however, have one of our strongest defensive lines in a number of years. We also return our middle linebacker who has lead our team in tackles two years in a row. We should be decent against the run, and our pass defense will be huge question mark.

As many have pointed out, this years schedule is simply brutal. Although we were 0-12 last year, the record is somewhat misleading. We dominated Wake Forest for most of the game and were in position to win the game on a relatively easy last second field goal. Unfortunately, Field Goals and extra points turned out to be anything but easy for us last year, costing us not only the Wake Forest game, but also the UNC game. We also played Miami tough and again had a chance to win the game on the final play. Interspersed with those strong performances were real stinkers, including being shutout at home by a Division I-aa school in the opener and watching Vandy score at will.

The talent is in place this year, but our team has been dogged by poor execution, e.g. stupid penalties, bad turnovers and at times little to no effort. As of now, we would be underdogs in every game on our schedule, based on last years results.

That said, UConn is an extremely winnable game. The have a very good young running back that ran for more than 200 yards against Louisville and Rutgers last year. Their QB situation, however, is not that strong. Given that the strength of our defensive will be stopping the run, we should have a decent shot at pulling out a win. The game will be decided by how much we have improved in the areas of discipline.

GrayHare
07-13-2007, 12:02 PM
Harvard (41 varsity sports -- the most anywhere...)

In Division I, maybe, but it only ties them with the Division III school down the street, MIT.

OZZIE4DUKE
07-13-2007, 01:31 PM
Although we were 0-12 last year, the record is somewhat misleading. We dominated Wake Forest for most of the game and were in position to win the game on a relatively easy last second field goal. Unfortunately, Field Goals and extra points turned out to be anything but easy for us last year, costing us not only the Wake Forest game, but also the UNC game. We also played Miami tough and again had a chance to win the game on the final play.

As I posted last year, if EVERYTHING had gone right instead of wrong, we could have won 5 games last year.
1. Richmond. If we played this game anytime but first, we would have won. Yes, we should have won it anyway.
2. Wake. You said it well above.
3. Alabama. We were within one score midway through the 4th quarter. We committed turnovers - things went horribly wrong in the last few minutes. It would have been a minor miracle, but if things went right, we could have won.
4. Miami. We could have won by completing a pass and scoring as the clock ran out.
5. carolina. Arggghhh!

RPS
07-13-2007, 02:26 PM
In Division I, maybe, but it only ties them with the Division III school down the street, MIT.You may be right, but the MIT Athletics website (http://mitathletics.cstv.com/) lists "only" 38. Either way, the point is obviously made that a number of highly prestigious universities take issue with Duvall's claim that sports is a superfluous luxury for top schools. Moreover, to the extent that the student body ignores sports other than basketball (or even skips hoop games in the early part of the season or when the team is "down"), it fosters the prevalent stereotype of Duke students as posers rather than real fans, "in it" only for the supposed glamor, experience and TV exposure. Irrespective of what that means as a matter of policy (I'll leave that argument to FDA), it's bad for football and football recruiting.

GrayHare
07-13-2007, 05:38 PM
You may be right, but the MIT Athletics website (http://mitathletics.cstv.com/) lists "only" 38.

No, no, no... the other MIT Athletics website (http://web.mit.edu/athletics/www). But your point is taken.

RPS
07-13-2007, 05:46 PM
No, no, no... the other MIT Athletics website (http://web.mit.edu/athletics/www).Touché. Well done.


But your point is taken.Thanks.

DevilAlumna
07-13-2007, 09:04 PM
Moreover, to the extent that the student body ignores sports other than basketball (or even skips hoop games in the early part of the season or when the team is "down"), it fosters the prevalent stereotype of Duke students as posers rather than real fans, "in it" only for the supposed glamor, experience and TV exposure.

RPS, I know I've said it before, but why would football fans even think of applying to Duke? It's one thing to be supportive of your classmates, it's another to take a whole Saturday to go out and cheer on an 0-fer team. If I wanted to enjoy watching a football game in person as a student, I would have stayed in Nebraska.

Again, being a basketball fan is a different level of passion for the sport, for the Duke BBall Family; it has relatively little to do with being a fan of all sports.

As for stereotyping Duke students as posers,... when did you jump on the "Hate Duke for being elitist" bandwagon?

RPS
07-14-2007, 12:03 AM
RPS, I know I've said it before, but why would football fans even think of applying to Duke?It's not a matter of being a football fan. It's a matter of being a Duke fan.


It's one thing to be supportive of your classmates, it's another to take a whole Saturday to go out and cheer on an 0-fer team.Other schools with weak teams support them well. For example, in 2005 a hardly stalwart 4-7 WFU team (3-5 at the time) came to WW and Wake students outnumbered Duke students by a huge margin. That's a disgrace.


If I wanted to enjoy watching a football game in person as a student, I would have stayed in Nebraska.That's almost like saying you won't go see your kids play in the Saturday league because you don't like soccer.


Again, being a basketball fan is a different level of passion for the sport, for the Duke BBall Family; it has relatively little to do with being a fan of all sports.If it's a matter of being a basketball fan (or a fair weather fan) I agree. But you're wrong for Duke fans.


As for stereotyping Duke students as posers,... when did you jump on the "Hate Duke for being elitist" bandwagon?I didn't offer it as my idea and I hope it's false. But you don't have to look very hard to find that view in any number of places. Why offer fuel for the fire and throw gasoline on it as well?

DevilAlumna
07-14-2007, 01:32 AM
It's not a matter of being a football fan. It's a matter of being a Duke fan.

Other schools with weak teams support them well. For example, in 2005 a hardly stalwart 4-7 WFU team (3-5 at the time) came to WW and Wake students outnumbered Duke students by a huge margin. That's a disgrace.

That's almost like saying you won't go see your kids play in the Saturday league because you don't like soccer.

If it's a matter of being a basketball fan (or a fair weather fan) I agree. But you're wrong for Duke fans.

I didn't offer it as my idea and I hope it's false. But you don't have to look very hard to find that view in any number of places. Why offer fuel for the fire and throw gasoline on it as well?


What is a "Duke" fan? Does that mean that everyone who doesn't attend the student play or jazz band concert, or dance recital, or debate club, or whatever other student activity, ISN'T a Duke fan, or is it only around Duke Football?

You do realize that there are about 6,000 undergraduates at Duke, right? What makes the 70-80 who are on the football team any more special than the other 200-300 athletes, or any other student who otherwise represents Duke in a public arena? I doubt you'd harp as much on the "disgrace" that was the minimal fan turnout for the women's last rowing outing.

As for your soccer-mom analogy, puh-lease. Cheering on YOUR OWN CHILD in an activity you support them attending is in NO WAY comparable to attending a sporting event at your academic institution. Newsflash -- people go to top-tier education institutions for other reasons than sports. It's not like at Duke, there's some special essay you have to write about why you should be accepted because you're an awesome FAN. I know some Duke grads who actually (gasp) DISLIKE watching sports (most preferred to play themselves.)

As for Wake Football in 2005, they were on a roll! It was exciting! They had bandwagon fans, located a short hour's drive away! I have no doubt that if Duke looks like it has a chance to win against UNC this year, maybe goes in with 3 wins to its final game of the season, Dukies would come out in force. It's called momentum, and 0-fer doesn't generate it.

Now, i understand that in your case, you are cheering on your own child. Good for you, good for him. It's great you're such a supportive, passionate, enthusiastic booster for your outstanding student-athlete son, and that he has so many doors open to him at this point in his life.

Does that mean that all 6,000 other Duke undergrads (plus nearly the same amout of grad students) should care the same about him, and cheer as hard for him as you would? Hardly. He's not *that* special, sorry. And just because they don't, doesn't give you the right to look down upon them.

You've made it quite clear on the LAX board that Duke in general, and Duke Football in particular, is "lacking" for your athlete, so I'm not quite sure why you're coming here to bash my fellow alums anyway....

OZZIE4DUKE
07-14-2007, 01:54 PM
If you haven't read the story linked on the front page of the DRB about Duke Football working with the Fuqua School of business, do so.
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/637028.html

Of prime interest is the tidbit near the end of the story:
"The Blue Devils already had one change in the works that fits in with their new strategy -- a renovation project for Wallace Wade Stadium. The plans call for updated pavilion buildings to house more concession stands and restrooms, indoor luxury boxes, and the removal of the track with seats added closer to the field.

I guess his pleading hasn't fallen on deaf ears after all! The article doesn't say how long these changed will take to complete. I doubt fund raising has publicly started, so don't hold your breath (except when you are in the rest rooms.)

formerdukeathlete
07-14-2007, 01:55 PM
What is a "Duke" fan? Does that mean that everyone who doesn't attend the student play or jazz band concert, or dance recital, or debate club, or whatever other student activity, ISN'T a Duke fan, or is it only around Duke Football?

You do realize that there are about 6,000 undergraduates at Duke, right? What makes the 70-80 who are on the football team any more special than the other 200-300 athletes, or any other student who otherwise represents Duke in a public arena? I doubt you'd harp as much on the "disgrace" that was the minimal fan turnout for the women's last rowing outing.

As for your soccer-mom analogy, puh-lease. Cheering on YOUR OWN CHILD in an activity you support them attending is in NO WAY comparable to attending a sporting event at your academic institution. Newsflash -- people go to top-tier education institutions for other reasons than sports. It's not like at Duke, there's some special essay you have to write about why you should be accepted because you're an awesome FAN. I know some Duke grads who actually (gasp) DISLIKE watching sports (most preferred to play themselves.)



http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/637028-p2.html

Staged planned renovations for Wade referred to in the n&o article linked above are very encouraging.

It is unfortunate that the Trustees have yet to approve this. Worriedly, this may be repeat of tentative half-heated support for athletics at Duke.

So, my recommendation for the future of Duke athletics among those of you who care is to write, call the Trustees you know to encourage them to approve the staged renovation of Wade. Interestingly, it includes eventual removal of the running track.

and, getting back to RPS' comments re the lack of student fan support for athletics, I think this is a function of years of dysfunctional admissions policies which began under Nan's watch. Before Nan, applicants got more points for time consuming extra-curriculars in high school such as varsity sports, student government and for working. With Nan, kids got extra points for writing essays about topics deemed progressive. We, Duke got away from admitting future leaders as a matter of policy (this is still Harvard's criteria) and now with Brodhead this has evolved into striving to stimilate "intellectual activity." What does this mean? How many hours can you study a day as well as attend class? So, if you are socially inclined, like attending mixers, you will want to go to an off campus bar, even say a Delt party. But, if you are not so socially inclined or interested in dating you might find time to attend a book club meeting. Is this the type of "intellectual activity" we are talking about?

Leadership under nan and now Brodhead vis a vis student life has been abysmal. Of course our Football team has struggled tremendously during this time frame. Getting back to RPS, if Duke's admissions policies are skewed to admitting types who would have been immediately escorted to the back room at the rush party in Animal House to sit down with the geeks and freaks, then of course these folks once attending Duke will not be inclined to walk to Wally Wade when this might compete with some quality time reading Othello with Brodhead.

It is time for Duke to make a commitment, a long-term commitment to Football, to increase the number of varisty teams fielded, to endow athletic scholarships. This is more important for the future of campus life and really the future financial health of the univeristy than its plans for an arts cluster in central campus.

And, Trustees, please, hire someone to replace Brodhead.

RPS
07-14-2007, 03:10 PM
Alumna -- Your level of vitriol suggests that you feel guilty. If so, you might consider why. Oh, and the Fuqua connection is great news. That's good "outside-the-box" thinking.


What is a "Duke" fan?That's a good question.


Does that mean that everyone who doesn't attend the student play or jazz band concert, or dance recital, or debate club, or whatever other student activity, ISN'T a Duke fan, or is it only around Duke Football?No. But for students, part of it is supporting one's friends and peers, so I would expect students to regularly attend student events such as those you describe. But there's a further element relating to the public aspects of being a Duke fan. For whatever reasons, basketball is clearly #1 at Duke. That's not new and it's not news. Football is the other "public" sport. If students and other fans don't support it it's visible public information in ways that track attendance isn't. Thus I expect greater support. Other sports and events can become public at various times and for various reasons and also deserve greater support. Lax became that during the scandal. Students owed it to their peers to attend. A great tournament run by another sport deserves greater support. A major public event on campus (perhaps a major political debate) deserves greater support. I think that WBB has become such a public sport all the time now at Duke and should be supported accordingly.The idea is that a real Duke fan looks out for one's own. They represent you and your school, remember?


You do realize that there are about 6,000 undergraduates at Duke, right?Yup -- up a bit from my days.


What makes the 70-80 who are on the football team any more special than the other 200-300 athletes, or any other student who otherwise represents Duke in a public arena?It isn't a matter of how special? but of how public?. At schools with other sports that are highly prominent (e.g., softball at Arizona, women's soccer at UNC, lax at Johns Hopkins, etc.), attendance should be much greater than elsewhere. WBB has become that at Duke and Cameron should now always be rocking for them.


I doubt you'd harp as much on the "disgrace" that was the minimal fan turnout for the women's last rowing outing.Any home game or match in any sport where the opponents' fans greatly outnumber the home fans is a real cause for concern and reflects poorly on the home school's fans and students. If it's a highly public event, perhaps a conference championship on the line, attendance should be significantly greater.


As for your soccer-mom analogy, puh-lease. Cheering on YOUR OWN CHILD in an activity you support them attending is in NO WAY comparable to attending a sporting event at your academic institution.It obviously isn't the same but there is an obvious connection. You go to (or should go to) your kid's soccer game because it's your kid. You go to (or should go to) your school's prominent public event because it's your school.


Newsflash -- people go to top-tier education institutions for other reasons than sports. It's not like at Duke, there's some special essay you have to write about why you should be accepted because you're an awesome FAN. I know some Duke grads who actually (gasp) DISLIKE watching sports (most preferred to play themselves.)So?


As for Wake Football in 2005, they were on a roll! It was exciting! They had bandwagon fans, located a short hour's drive away!In what universe is 3-5 (leading to 4-7) on a roll (though I'd like to see it at Duke)?


I have no doubt that if Duke looks like it has a chance to win against UNC this year, maybe goes in with 3 wins to its final game of the season, Dukies would come out in force. It's called momentum, and 0-fer doesn't generate it.Rivalry games get better attendance and should get more attendance because they are more desirable and more prominent. Moreover, bandwagon fans are a fact of life, but it's not like it's a good thing.


Now, i understand that in your case, you are cheering on your own child.My older two stopped public competitive sports when they went to college. My youngest is still in high school, so I don't know what you're driving at here unless you're alluding to my youngest's likely future as a college football player. Of course I'd like his teams to be well supported. But at the high school level, football is typically the most public sport and is at my kids' school. Thus I expect much more attendance there than at his soccer or lacrosse matches. But I do expect significant student support at home matches in the "lesser" that well outnumbers the opposition's fans.


Good for you, good for him. It's great you're such a supportive, passionate, enthusiastic booster for your outstanding student-athlete son, and that he has so many doors open to him at this point in his life.It's actually more difficult than I expected. The number of schools which have both good academics and good football is very small.


Does that mean that all 6,000 other Duke undergrads (plus nearly the same amout of grad students) should care the same about him, and cheer as hard for him as you would? Hardly. He's not *that* special, sorry. And just because they don't, doesn't give you the right to look down upon them.I suggest that you take the Nebraska straw out of your teeth because that's a straw-man argument.


You've made it quite clear on the LAX board that Duke in general, and Duke Football in particular, is "lacking" for your athlete, so I'm not quite sure why you're coming here to bash my fellow alums anyway....Duke won't be his school, but it's still my school. I want it to be successful and supported -- in every way. Oh, and by the way, the problem I'm pointing out is largely with current students, not our "fellow alums."

P.S. I'm going to be away for the better part of a week, so the likely last word is for you.

Bluedawg
07-14-2007, 04:02 PM
Todays News and Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/637028.html) says:

"Duke football is re-evaluating every aspect of how it operates -- from the size of its support staff to the design of its stadium. Duke coach Ted Roof has decided to enlist some help from the business school in determining practical ways to reach his goals."

This looks to me like Coach Roof is willing to pull out all of the stops to turn this program around. I've said before that I like Coach Roof and the approach he is taking. This just reinforces that. He has stepped up recruiting and now he is showing his willingness for thinking beyond the standard parameters

dukie8
07-14-2007, 05:53 PM
Todays News and Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/637028.html) says:

"Duke football is re-evaluating every aspect of how it operates -- from the size of its support staff to the design of its stadium. Duke coach Ted Roof has decided to enlist some help from the business school in determining practical ways to reach his goals."

This looks to me like Coach Roof is willing to pull out all of the stops to turn this program around. I've said before that I like Coach Roof and the approach he is taking. This just reinforces that. He has stepped up recruiting and now he is showing his willingness for thinking beyond the standard parameters

i don't get it. the article says that the board has NOT approved it AND there is no funding. isn't a little bit premature to be leaking this out? isn't it akin to the baseball coach, on his own, drawing up plans for a 50,000 seat stadium without any other backing? it all sounds nice but someone has to pay for it.

dukie8
07-14-2007, 06:40 PM
No. But for students, part of it is supporting one's friends and peers, so I would expect students to regularly attend student events such as those you describe. But there's a further element relating to the public aspects of being a Duke fan. For whatever reasons, basketball is clearly #1 at Duke. That's not new and it's not news. Football is the other "public" sport. If students and other fans don't support it it's visible public information in ways that track attendance isn't. Thus I expect greater support. Other sports and events can become public at various times and for various reasons and also deserve greater support. Lax became that during the scandal. Students owed it to their peers to attend. A great tournament run by another sport deserves greater support. A major public event on campus (perhaps a major political debate) deserves greater support. I think that WBB has become such a public sport all the time now at Duke and should be supported accordingly.The idea is that a real Duke fan looks out for one's own. They represent you and your school, remember?.

your presumptiveness is ridiculous. i didn't need ANYONE telling me or expecting me to show up to various events when i was at duke. i don't know where you get that a duke student's duty is to support one's friends and peers because it is not. as a duke student, you have a myriad of things to spend your time on and attending a lousy team's games usually is not one of them. if you want to attend such games, great. however, there is zero duty to do so.

at other schools, football is more of a social event than a sporting event so students are going to show up regardless of how good or bad the team is. plenty of people go for the tailgate and never even bother going in to watch the game because they are there for the tailgate. if you eliminate tailgating, attendance would drop off precipituously. for whatever reason, the tailgate phenomenon never really has caught on at duke.

people enjoy going to basketball games because the team usually is very good and there is a long tradition with the team. if the team were to become bad, like in 1995, students stop going to the games. the football team has been horrific for a number of years no matter what metric you use. if the team were to become good, like say in 1989, then people will show up to the games. i can't believe that it is being argued on here that people don't attend football games because the bathrooms aren't nice and there isn't a good selection of food. i actually liked ww because you can get great seats and you can park close by and get out rather easily. the bottom line is if you put out a good product, then people will show up.

Exiled_Devil
07-14-2007, 07:56 PM
You know what one of the things I like about Duke? The fact that football isn't a big deal. The fact that other sports - basketball, lacrosse, golf, soccer - have a higher profile than the football team. I think that is great.

I have never been to a football game in 35 years of life. Not one. I didn't have a football team at my high school or at my university. I think it is a fine game now, from watching it on TV. But I think that the football worship that overcomes large sections of our nation and at least two posters in this thread is ridiculous. It's only a sport, and its not the top sport here. That does not hurt the school, despite what you try to pull together from conversations you have with a couple of people and information you may have heard from administrators.

I find your inference that the school is admitting more geeks and freaks (I forget who used the exact words) to be insulting to myself and to the admissions department. Do you have any evidence that admissions has been skewed away from people who participated in extra-curriculars and sports specifically? (Evidence would be documentation). Your comments are either challenging the ethics of the admissions counselors or challenging their competence. In either case, its an unnecessary slight. I was probably one of those geeks and freaks types at 18 - so you are saying that if I did apply to Duke, I should have not been let in due to my lack of playing normal varsity sport? (I did play men's volleyball, but on the east coast where I am from this qualified you for freak status in the late 80's)

And do you have any evidence that the current student body is bad for the university? Because that is the implication of your statements about admissions, giving and supporting football. You are saying that these students hurt Duke because they don't support the football team. And consequently the university will be hurt.

Get over football. Your glib response to Alumna reveals that you take football too seriously. They are at best the third team on campus, and that's okay. To Alumna's point, why should they have more consideration than the theater program and Hoof n Horn? I know for a fact that Duke has had several Broadway performers in the last couple of years. Are they less of an asset to the school than a former football player. Are they less leaders of their field?
A Duke fan either is a fan of all things Duke, which means they need to support non-sporting aspects of the school, or they can choose to support what they want. You seem to equate Duke fan with Duke athletics fan, and specifically with revenue sports fan. That is simply an inane argument.

Speaking of inane arguments, I would like to also comment on FDA's assertion that "Duke got away from admitting future leaders as a matter of policy" which it seems he links to HS sports participation. I don't know the veracity of your argument about the admissions shift, but even if it is true, the idea that the kids who did everything in high school are destined to be the leaders of the free world is inane. Simply inane.

Sorry about the rant, but the regular 'football should be more central' argument drives me nuts. Football does not need to be central, and any argument for that point is simply an attempt to foist a culture and environment on the school that the proponents incorrectly assume is the one, true, American way to spend a Saturday. And when those arguments inevitably start insulting the student body, the administration, and the posters on this board, I have to fire back.

Exiled
PS - Don't take this as my wishing football would go away. I am fine with it and friend with a couple of football alums. I would be psyched for a successful football team. But I do not think it is important. And certanly not essential to university success.

Jarhead
07-14-2007, 09:32 PM
i don't get it. the article says that the board has NOT approved it AND there is no funding. isn't a little bit premature to be leaking this out? isn't it akin to the baseball coach, on his own, drawing up plans for a 50,000 seat stadium without any other backing? it all sounds nice but someone has to pay for it.

My understanding is that the project is a plan of action that Ted Roof is submitting to Aleva for consideration. I believe he has been submitting an annual plan every year, but this one is more long term and reaches into the business end of managing a football program. In his preparations he has enlisted help from certain people in Fuqua, and he is using other positions that are already staffed and other institutions as resources for the plan. Smart way to go, but he will need help from the leadership. This idea will put Aleva and the board on the spot. If they don't act, they are not interested. In that case we may as well kiss the ACC goodbye. Good Luck, Ted.

Duvall
07-14-2007, 11:26 PM
Many schools disagree. Prominent examples include Stanford (for obvious reasons) and Harvard (41 varsity sports -- the most anywhere -- and roughly one in four undergraduates a recruited varsity athlete).

Ah, but we are now conflating two different factors, revenue sports (specifically football) and non-revenue sports. I've seen the state of Harvard and Yale football - trust me, Duke has no need to worry about catching up to that.

As for non-revenue sports, I agree that Duke should continue to support those students and teams. But the university is already doing a fantastic job of fielding competitive teams in most of those sports, trailing only deep-pocketed Stanford among private universities. I don't see how there can be a problem with the level of support there.


Moreover, the idea that it's luxurious fluff is belied by the connection between athletic success and both undergraduate applications and alumni giving. It's no coincidence that Duke's rise up the rankings charts corresponds nicely to its basketball success.

Is that true, though? It's my understanding that Duke's biggest leap in undergraduate school reputation came between the early '70s and the mid-80s, arguably a period when Duke revenue sports were significantly weaker than usual.

While improving your name recognition could be an asset, I'm not sure how much it's going to help Duke at this point. Duke is already known; it isn't going to become unknown any time soon.

The deed is done - if Duke were to stop offering athletic scholarships and move to Division III tomorrow, it would continue to be a great university. I don't expect that to happen, and I don't want to happen, but if it did, Duke would not only survive, but thrive. There is far more to this university than a good basketball program and a bad football program.


If you think so you aren't very experienced with the athletic recruiting process. Duke's competition will remind parents and students early and often about the lax case and what it means for athletes at Duke for years to come. K's success and reputation can readily overcome that. It will be much more difficult for football.

They may well try, but it still won't be long before 2006 seems like ancient history to high school kids. The lacrosse case is already old news for most of the world outside of Duke.


Sadly, you're probably right. But it doesn't speak well of our students, who ought to support their school and their peers, particularly when contrasted with the (much higher) level of student support at other schools despite "competitive difficulties" or even with earlier times at Cameron, when student support was excellent even when the teams were not.

I think you underestimate how bad Duke's "competitive difficulties" have been. It's one thing for a mediocre program to retain fans, but Duke has been historically awful, with four winless seasons in the last decade, without a single season in which bowl eligibility was even threatened. It is not remarkable that so few fans show up for games at this point; it is remarkable that any fans show up at all.


That's a major so long as. Duke has been rife with stories of professors sticking it to athletes, and particularly football players, simply for being athletes, for a long time. All of us who attended should be familiar with the anecdotal evidence.

It's a cliche, but true - the plural of anecdote is not data. It would take more than one example and a few unsourced anecdotes to show that the Duke faculty is hostile towards athletes. I agree that professors should not treat student-athletes differently, I just never saw much to suggest that it was a problem.

(Ah, but I forgot - the fearsome open letter! Truly Duke is a forbidding place for athletes.)

gep
07-15-2007, 12:45 AM
You know what one of the things I like about Duke? The fact that football isn't a big deal. The fact that other sports - basketball, lacrosse, golf, soccer - have a higher profile than the football team. I think that is great.

I have never been to a football game in 35 years of life. Not one. I didn't have a football team at my high school or at my university. I think it is a fine game now, from watching it on TV. But I think that the football worship that overcomes large sections of our nation and at least two posters in this thread is ridiculous. It's only a sport, and its not the top sport here. That does not hurt the school, despite what you try to pull together from conversations you have with a couple of people and information you may have heard from administrators.

Hi... I hope I'm not taking your comments too out of context... but I do agree that it's nice that football at Duke is *not* the be-all and end-all for college sports, as it is at other traditional "football" schools. Even so, I would at least like the football to be able to compete, be in a lot, if not all, of the games, and win a few of those.

I, for one, can't wait for this football season, and do hope for a positive season overall. thanks...

Exiled_Devil
07-15-2007, 08:12 AM
Your response is on the money, gep. I don't wish the football team ill. I would love to see them win, and win a lot. Seeing a return of the on-field Iron Dukes, with the defenseive stopping power and almost undefeated record would be pretty amazing.

That being said, itis nice that football is not the end-all, be-all. It creates a different atmosphere, one that I have appreciated at other places I have studied.

Exiled

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2007, 09:31 AM
i don't get it. the article says that the board has NOT approved it AND there is no funding. isn't a little bit premature to be leaking this out? isn't it akin to the baseball coach, on his own, drawing up plans for a 50,000 seat stadium without any other backing? it all sounds nice but someone has to pay for it.

Yes, from a strictly fund accounting point of view, measuring revenues verus football specific expenses, Duke Football runs at a loss. What Duke earns in home receipts, visiting team guarantees, less expenses such as coaches salaries, maintaining the Yoh Center, field, etc. and importantly scholarships costs, Duke runs at a $2 million deficit.

Then comes in Iron Duke contributions, which presently track $14 million a year. Football scholarships costs $4million a year. I think it is somewhat safe to say that $4 million of those contributions are from alums, including many Footballers, are motivated by a desire to support the Football program. Add money to the Gridiron society and varsity club. Then, the Football Program runs at a $3 million net net positive to the athletic program.

But, wait, by fielding a Football team, Duke gets to be in the ACC, which revenue shares about $13 million a year. Football is at least 1/2, actually it is more like 2/3 rds of the league revenue sharing. So then, Duke Football incrementally adds another $9 million net net positive to the University - for according to these estimates nearly $12 million net net to the U. These numbers might need some adjustment; however, the point is that Duke Football helps the University fund its other athletic teams.

Let's say for the sake of argument $24 million in improvements are targeted for Wade. Duke makes these back in 2 years.

Regarding fundraising, and Watzone correct me if you disagree, Athletics fundraising for such things as renovations for Wade has been held in check by folks in the Allen Building because other funding priorities set by these folks would be more difficult to meet if donors had a choice between some cubicles in the Library or some seats in a new Wade building.

But, now, the needs for improvements to Wade are compelling. We simply must as a University get away from this institutional hesitation to support Athletics and Football in particular. Harvard supports its athletics programs unabashedly. Why cannot Duke? Again, this is much more important in my view to ability of Duke to attract top students than some arts cluster in Central Campus. So, if the Central Campus fundraising program runs at the same time as the programs to raise money to renovate Wade and Cameron, and if the athletic fundraising reaches goals more easily than Central Campus - sobeit. This should tell the geeks in Allen Building something about what the alums and benefactors feel will benefit Duke in the long run.

Richard Berg
07-16-2007, 11:49 AM
Harvard supports its athletics programs unabashedly. Why cannot Duke?
Come again? According to Wikipedia, Harvard Stadium holds 30,898 people; Wally Wade holds 33,941. Harvard used to hold 55k+ before it was downsized.

I'm not saying I agree that stadium size connotes administrative support. In fact, I find the idea ludicrous. But it obviously doesn't support your argument either.


Again, this is much more important in my view to ability of Duke to attract top students than some arts cluster in Central Campus.
About 1000 students live on Central. An order of magnitude fewer students come to Wally Wade.

It wasn't that long ago I was a highly recruited p-frosh. Improved living facilities I can enjoy 24/7, or improved stadium where I might spend 100 hours (best case) over my entire Duke career? Hmm, tough decision.

Ima Facultiwyfe
07-16-2007, 12:45 PM
"kreme", "krispy",...........maybe they should use their doughnut money to put a first grade spelling teacher on the faculty. (Bless their hearts.)
Love, Ima

Fan in VA
07-16-2007, 12:57 PM
But, now, the needs for improvements to Wade are compelling. We simply must as a University get away from this institutional hesitation to support Athletics and Football in particular.

Say what? You really believe that Duke doesn't support athletics?? Good lord, every athletics building within eyesight around Cameron is virtually new or heavily renovated within the last 10 or so years! What more do you want?


Again, this is much more important in my view to ability of Duke to attract top students than some arts cluster in Central Campus.

How exactly does that work out? How exactly, could having a better football team POSSIBLY attract more "top students"? Is there some motherlode of "top students" who are turned off of duke because they don't have a better football team?

Look, I'd like to see a better football program too--because I like Duke football, and I'd rather watch winning games than gutwrenching loss after loss. But be real...

Richard said it well.. housing absolutely matters to students! I like how you manage to disparage the idea that prospective students would be attracted to better housing, while simultaneously saying that wally wade needs to be better to attract...something? Even if every single student--undergrad, grad, professional, med, etc etc came, the stadium still wouldn't be full! And we want to expand it?


This should tell the geeks in Allen Building something about what the alums and benefactors feel will benefit Duke in the long run.

Just...wow. You say things like this, and then you wonder why there is discussion about the influence of athletics possibly being too much on campus?? I mean seriously--"geeks"?! What is this, kindergarden?

We get it--you want Duke to be a sports school and for the "geeks" to be kicked off campus. Well, one of the things that I loved about Duke was that there was room for everybody--the people who didn't even know we had a basketball team and the ones who camped out all year. The ones who did want to live in that "arts cluster" and the one whose dorm walls were completely barren (guilty!). May sound corny as hell, but it's true.

I think Duke has done a pretty awesome job of being a top academic school and a top sports school, with a top collection of students..

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2007, 01:26 PM
Come again? According to Wikipedia, Harvard Stadium holds 30,898 people; Wally Wade holds 33,941. Harvard used to hold 55k+ before it was downsized.

I'm not saying I agree that stadium size connotes administrative support. In fact, I find the idea ludicrous. But it obviously doesn't support your argument either.


About 1000 students live on Central. An order of magnitude fewer students come to Wally Wade.

It wasn't that long ago I was a highly recruited p-frosh. Improved living facilities I can enjoy 24/7, or improved stadium where I might spend 100 hours (best case) over my entire Duke career? Hmm, tough decision.

Firstly, regarding Harvard, 25% of its undergrads are recruited student athletes. 1 n 4. Harvard supports 41 varsity sports unabashedly, no question, and believes its student athletes are among the future leaders of our country, which, of course, they are. The Ivy league provides virtually no revenue sharing. Net of league and other TV revenue sharing, Harvard's athletic department's budget is much greater than Duke's athletic budget. Harvard does not question this. Harvard is committed to these expenditures.

On the other hand, Duke has since the 1960s persistently questioned its commitment to the one (football) of two things (football and basketball) which provide it with revenue which enables it to offer athletic programs at a fraction of the cost of Harvard.

AND, Duke is at a crossroads. Either it improves its Football program, or it eventually must leave the ACC.

Central Campus versus Wade - no one doubts the need for refurbishment. However, for my money, and where I will donate money, is if there is a fundraising endeavor to renovate Wade. This in my view is part and parcel of fixing Football and saving the athletic department long-term. Stadium proposals do not include adding a second deck, but rather adding indoor luxury boxes to replace the hideous president's box, and eventually removing the running track and adding seats close to the field.

This is where my money will go, and it will be money well spent. In remaining in the ACC, Duke spends net net less on athletics than Harvard, for example, leaving more funds available for general student aid and housing.

I believe it is an investment (fixing Wade) which absolutely must be undertaken at this time for all of these reasons.

OZZIE4DUKE
07-16-2007, 04:37 PM
Central Campus versus Wade - no one doubts the need for refurbishment. However, for my money, and where I will donate money, is if there is a fundraising endeavor to renovate Wade.

Fortunately, there are people who will donate for Central Campus and people who will donate for football capital projects, and some who will donate for both. All designated donations are needed, regardless of their destination.

If I ever win a large Powerball jackpot, I hope to endow a football scholarship. Of course, the Iron Dukes better not be holding their breath waiting for it to happen.

dukie8
07-16-2007, 09:09 PM
Firstly, regarding Harvard, 25% of its undergrads are recruited student athletes. 1 n 4. Harvard supports 41 varsity sports unabashedly, no question, and believes its student athletes are among the future leaders of our country, which, of course, they are. The Ivy league provides virtually no revenue sharing. Net of league and other TV revenue sharing, Harvard's athletic department's budget is much greater than Duke's athletic budget. Harvard does not question this. Harvard is committed to these expenditures.

why do you hold harvard out as the model program? it may have the most sports (41) but it certainly doesn't have the best sports. are you impressed with its 18-18 baseball team, its 12-16 men's basketball team, its 15-13 women's basketball team, its 4-7 men's lax team, its 10-9 men's tennis team, its 4-16 women's tennis team or its 3-13-1 women's soccer team? if duke dared to even field half that amount of trainwreck seasons, both alleva and brodhead would be run out of town. also, don't forget that all of these teams get the luxury of competing in the less-than-competitive ivy league. stick them in the acc and i think that we would be looking at some o-fers. stanford may have a better athletic department but it isn't by much. duke, year in and year out, puts some of the best teams out there without making a complete mockery of academics.

also, what does "Net of league and other TV revenue sharing" exactly mean when you are talking about athletic budgets. that's like a movie theatre talking about net of ticket sales.


On the other hand, Duke has since the 1960s persistently questioned its commitment to the one (football) of two things (football and basketball) which provide it with revenue which enables it to offer athletic programs at a fraction of the cost of Harvard.

false. the football team LOSES money. stop living in the fairly world in which reality is suspended and football subsidizes the "olympic" sports. the sport is called men's basketball.


AND, Duke is at a crossroads. Either it improves its Football program, or it eventually must leave the ACC.

where is this ultimatum coming from? i've never heard any grumblings from acc poobahs that duke better get its act together otherwise duke will be voted off the island. quite the contrary, most of the acc schools readily enjoy the fruits of duke raking in basketball tournament money and ensuring tv coverage (if you are playing duke, the game will be on tv and very well may be on national tv).


Central Campus versus Wade - no one doubts the need for refurbishment. However, for my money, and where I will donate money, is if there is a fundraising endeavor to renovate Wade. This in my view is part and parcel of fixing Football and saving the athletic department long-term. Stadium proposals do not include adding a second deck, but rather adding indoor luxury boxes to replace the hideous president's box, and eventually removing the running track and adding seats close to the field.

knock yourself out with funding wade. however, if you want to have a real impact on students and attracting more top students, i would put your money towards something that more than just a handful of students care about. in all my life, i never have come across someone who said that he/she would have gone to duke but for wade. you are living in lala land if you think that there are a lot of people out there who think that.

Exiled_Devil
07-16-2007, 10:16 PM
Firstly, regarding Harvard, 25% of its undergrads are recruited student athletes. 1 n 4. Harvard supports 41 varsity sports unabashedly, no question, and believes its student athletes are among the future leaders of our country, which, of course, they are. The Ivy league provides virtually no revenue sharing. Net of league and other TV revenue sharing, Harvard's athletic department's budget is much greater than Duke's athletic budget. Harvard does not question this. Harvard is committed to these expenditures.



And 0 out of 4 are on athletic scholarship - Ivy League schools do not offer athletic scholarships.

Your argument that Harvard unabashedly supports athletics is seriously undermined by the fact that they do not offer scholarships to athletes.

Your arguments, FDA, are just ridiculous - the idea that Duke would need to leave the ACC if it doesn't improve football? Duke, Carolina, NCSU, and Wake are the core of the ACC. Four of the founding schools of the conference. Noone with any sense of hsitory would let any of the four schools leave.

And a quick note on your comment about number of varsity teams - only three schools in the ACC have more varsity teams than Duke. SHould they be admonished for not supporting athletics? Should tehy all leave the conference?

Your confounding 'college athletics' with 'college football' does injustice to the athletic department and the student body. You accuse them of 'not supporting athletics' when you really just want more football fans.

Football is not the definition of athletics. Your tirades just look myopic.

Exiled

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2007, 11:47 PM
why do you hold harvard out as the model program? it may have the most sports (41) but it certainly doesn't have the best sports. also, what does "Net of league and other TV revenue sharing" exactly mean when you are talking about athletic budgets. that's like a movie theatre talking about net of ticket sales.false. the football team LOSES money. stop living in the fairly world in which reality is suspended and football subsidizes the "olympic" sports. the sport is called men's basketball.

where is this ultimatum coming from? i've never heard any grumblings from acc poobahs that duke better get its act together otherwise duke will be voted off the island. quite the contrary, most of the acc schools readily enjoy the fruits of duke raking in basketball tournament money and ensuring tv coverage (if you are playing duke, the game will be on tv and very well may be on national tv).


The points about Harvard are: Harvard has very little revenue from league or gate receipts, yet it fields 41 varsity sports. Its commitment to varsity sports is across the board and is unequivocal. Yes, like other Ivies, Harvard offers need based aid to athletes. Yet, Havard brings in 30 plus footballers a year, and many others, so that 25% of the undergrad student body are varsity athletes. At Duke we are 10%. Accordingly, at Harvard athletics are more integrated into student life. Harvard does not offer athletic scholarships, yet 65% of its undergraduates receive financial aid. At Duke, we offer athletic scholarships which are paid for mostly by Iron Duke contributions. At Duke we have ACC revenue sharing. Even after all Duke's expenses, which in Harvard's case are not charged the athletic department (such as scholarship financial aid), Duke's athletic programs cost less to operate net of revenues than Harvard's.

Picture a time when after K's retirement Duke basketball is middle of the road in the ACC (no longer contributing much to the league basketball tv contract). Were Football not improved. Were Wade still looking like a high school stadium. Were our gate receipts and Football viewership still so abysmal, well, I think we can get voted out of the ACC. Then, what do we do? Become a Davidson?

As to your assertion that Football loses money - it does not. 2/3rds of ACC revenue sharing is attributable to Football. at least 1/3 of Iron Duke contributions are attributable to Football. Net, net, Football makes a lot of money.

formerdukeathlete
07-16-2007, 11:59 PM
And 0 out of 4 are on athletic scholarship - Ivy League schools do not offer athletic scholarships.

Your argument that Harvard unabashedly supports athletics is seriously undermined by the fact that they do not offer scholarships to athletes.

Your arguments, FDA, are just ridiculous - the idea that Duke would need to leave the ACC if it doesn't improve football? Duke, Carolina, NCSU, and Wake are the core of the ACC. Four of the founding schools of the conference. Noone with any sense of hsitory would let any of the four schools leave.

Your tirades just look myopic.

Exiled

Exiled, see my post above in response to Dukie 8. There are not tirades here. A dose of reality: Carolina, Wake and State no longer control the ACC. Revenue is revenue. If Duke is ridiculous in Football still in 5 years and if basketball is no longer tops, there will be pressure for changes in league configuration. Other smallish private schools in the ACC have figured out that it makes ecnominc sense to step it up in Football and they have with success - Wake and Boston College. Getting back to Wade - this is absolutely the worst looking stadium in the ACC. Wake is building the tower. Alumni Stadium at Boston College is pretty well configured already. Duke has to make the improvements. Recruits notice. Fans notice. Our ACC member schools notice. And, the irony is, it would not take that much money to turn Wade into an impressive venue.

dukie8
07-17-2007, 05:59 AM
As to your assertion that Football loses money - it does not. 2/3rds of ACC revenue sharing is attributable to Football. at least 1/3 of Iron Duke contributions are attributable to Football. Net, net, Football makes a lot of money.

you are delusional. football loses A LOT of money. i don't have the time to look it up right now but it is in the millions. please site your sources that says that 1/3 of iron duke contributions are "attributable" to football. you also are ignoring the fact that in order to field a d1 football team, you have to admit a SIGNIFICANT number of "student" athletes who are woefully unqualified academically and who make a mockery of academics at duke. i don't want to hear about how duke football only takes smart athletes because it doesn't. far too many of the players have zero business attending duke and force the school to add a whole littany of gut classes in order to keep their eligibility. it's not pretty but it is a dirty little secret about the football duke that duke would prefer to keep quiet.

dukie8
07-17-2007, 06:02 AM
Exiled, see my post above in response to Dukie 8. There are not tirades here. A dose of reality: Carolina, Wake and State no longer control the ACC. Revenue is revenue. If Duke is ridiculous in Football still in 5 years and if basketball is no longer tops, there will be pressure for changes in league configuration. Other smallish private schools in the ACC have figured out that it makes ecnominc sense to step it up in Football and they have with success - Wake and Boston College. Getting back to Wade - this is absolutely the worst looking stadium in the ACC. Wake is building the tower. Alumni Stadium at Boston College is pretty well configured already. Duke has to make the improvements. Recruits notice. Fans notice. Our ACC member schools notice. And, the irony is, it would not take that much money to turn Wade into an impressive venue.


when did bc decide to "step it up" in football? the 1960s? so now you have backed off your delusional claim that this clamoring to boot duke isn't going on now but will take place in 5 years? since you are so challenged to grasp what is going on NOW, why should we place any weight on what you are predicting what will happen in the future. your ignorant tirades are beyond tiresome.

formerdukeathlete
07-17-2007, 08:00 AM
you are delusional. football loses A LOT of money. i don't have the time to look it up right now but it is in the millions. please site your sources that says that 1/3 of iron duke contributions are "attributable" to football. you also are ignoring the fact that in order to field a d1 football team, you have to admit a SIGNIFICANT number of "student" athletes who are woefully unqualified academically and who make a mockery of academics at duke. i don't want to hear about how duke football only takes smart athletes because it doesn't. far too many of the players have zero business attending duke and force the school to add a whole littany of gut classes in order to keep their eligibility. it's not pretty but it is a dirty little secret about the football duke that duke would prefer to keep quiet.

Firstly, Duke Football is a condition precedent to being a member of the ACC. Without Football, we would need to go the route of Davidson or perhaps join the Big East as a non-football member. FYI, revenue sharing for non-football members of the Big East is about 1/15th the revenue sharing from the ACC. Most revenue sharing from the ACC is football-related. I would invite you to learn more about the Iron Dukes, contact the Director, contact the AD. You will find that a significant percentage of annual contributions are from folks who want Duke to do well in Football. In fact, I would submit that less than 5% of contributions are from people who could care less whether Duke offers Football. It does not take much to see that Duke Football makes money in an economic sense after revenue sharing. IF you actually do not recognize this (which I find hard to believe), well I suggest a course or two in finance and accounting.

Regarding admissions standards, now this is something I have known quite a bit about over the years. Duke Football has had for the longest time a higher SAT average than Basketball. Carl Franks had to target white players with 1150 + SATs and minority players with 1000 + SATs. This had to do with standard deviation from the general student population. 1000 was basically a cut off, though exceptions were made. During Spurrier's time (when I was very involved in the admissions process) the average SATs of the Football team hovered below 1100, when the average for the school was 1300. The average SAT of all affirmative action admitted students was around 1100. Yes, today, the SAT minimums for Football apparently has been dropped, and so have targeted SAT averages for the team. I do not agree with this. I think Duke can improve and win without making admissions exceptions too far removed from the general student population. But, not with one of the worst Football stadiums in Division 1. As to "gut" courses, I might buy that they exist somewhat to cater to students who have been admitted with lower admissions criteria. However, there are many more affirmative action admitted applicants each year than the 30 or less Football and Basketball players admitted. And, as at Harvard, non-rev. sports students have on average higher admissions criteria than affirmative action applicants admitted each year.

formerdukeathlete
07-17-2007, 08:14 AM
when did bc decide to "step it up" in football? the 1960s? so now you have backed off your delusional claim that this clamoring to boot duke isn't going on now but will take place in 5 years? since you are so challenged to grasp what is going on NOW, why should we place any weight on what you are predicting what will happen in the future. your ignorant tirades are beyond tiresome.

In the late 80s early 90s, BC's football stadium sat 32k. Thereafter they added buildings to create suites and stands which raise capacity to 44k. The stadium quite frankly was inimpressive before hand. Residents of Chestnut Hill fought each stage of stadium expansion - folks park on their streets during games, etc. I attending one council meeting in which the matter of stadium expansion was addressed. Experts testified for BC as to the parking issue and as to the necessity of having a slightly larger stadium - a certain critical mass needed to be reached in order to field a competitive program. The AD also testified as to the need for suites for corporate revenue. BC's proposal at the time was approved. And, they expanded the stadium one more time after that.

From what I understand, Roof's / the Football Program's stadium proposals do not call so much for the adding of seats as for the adding of suites and stadium amenitites which improve the viewing experience and improve home game revenue. Removing the running track and bringing seats to the field might be accompanied with individual seats in the current stands. Actual increase in home capacity might not be much in actual numbers. I figure capacity stops around 40k.

Exiled_Devil
07-17-2007, 08:55 AM
I would invite you to learn more about the Iron Dukes, contact the Director, contact the AD. You will find that a significant percentage of annual contributions are from folks who want Duke to do well in Football. In fact, I would submit that less than 5% of contributions are from people who could care less whether Duke offers Football. It does not take much to see that

Once again, you are confounding issues. A small percentage of people not caring about football does not equal everyone else thinking football success is necessary for the university to be successful.

And every Iron Duke I know - which is a decent number -are Iron Dukes for the sake of Basketball Tickets, and football is a secondary (if that) thought. It doesn't mean that people don't care about football, but they are giving and coming for basketball.


Duke Football makes money in an economic sense after revenue sharing. IF you actually do not recognize this (which I find hard to believe), well I suggest a course or two in finance and accounting.


Okay, so here you have done three things - first, asserted that you have a monopoly on reality by saying 'if I don't recognize this'. It shows an arrogance about a complex situation, one which you over-simplify regularly. Secondly, you have insulted me by implying I do not understand finance when in fact I teach management skills including applied finance, and have regularly
worked with Fuqua students. Third, you are mixing arguments. I never argued about football as a financial issue. That is someone else. I don't care about the financial situation of football - whether it costs millions or makes millions, it should be part of the university. I just don't see a solid argument that football success is essential to university success.

Relatedly, the point of your argument that is most ridiculous ( I don't recall using tirade, but regularly pointing out the illogic in your argument.) is the idea that football has a significant impact on the applications to the school, and consequently on the quality of the students. As far as I understand, Duke has been accepting a smaller percentage ( a key admissions metric) and also getting higher enrollment numbers for acceptances over the last few years. Both of those data points suggest that Duke is getting stronger students, with more elite applicants enrolling. This is not a fool-proof argument, but much more feasible than the assertion that by not having strong football teams, we are losing out on the 'leaders of the future'.

I don't hate football - I wish it well. Football is not and will not be the linchpin of university success at Duke. Duke is a successful school because of academics - you know, those things that are the mission of universities.

Exiled

OZZIE4DUKE
07-17-2007, 09:11 AM
Once again, you are confounding issues.

Okay, so here you have done three things -

I hate it when these discussions dissolve into pissing matches It is when I stop reading threads. You have both passed into this realm in the last few posts. Stop it, but let civil discussion continue.

Indoor66
07-17-2007, 09:14 AM
I hate it when these discussions dissolve into pissing matches It is when I stop reading threads. You have both passed into this realm in the last few posts. Stop it, but let civil discussion continue.

Here, Here! Nothing is being added.

Bluedawg
07-17-2007, 11:23 AM
Removing the running track and bringing seats to the field might be accompanied with individual seats in the current stands. Actual increase in home capacity might not be much in actual numbers. I figure capacity stops around 40k.

I'm not sure how they can do that. As it stands now the stadium wall at field level is less than 7 feet high. To add seats from there would require that they almost be flat, which will not work.

Although its a great idea i don't see how practical it is.

Bluedawg
07-17-2007, 11:26 AM
i don't get it. the article says that the board has NOT approved it AND there is no funding. isn't a little bit premature to be leaking this out? isn't it akin to the baseball coach, on his own, drawing up plans for a 50,000 seat stadium without any other backing? it all sounds nice but someone has to pay for it.

The publication of it may be a good idea to rally support and get people talking about it...like we are.

formerdukeathlete
07-17-2007, 11:41 AM
I'm not sure how they can do that. As it stands now the stadium wall at field level is less than 7 feet high. To add seats from there would require that they almost be flat, which will not work.

Although its a great idea i don't see how practical it is.


I have mentioned this in several posts, but, neglected in the one you quote, to mention that the process of moving seats to the field also involves lowering the field. This was done with the LA Coliseum in 1993-1994. Cost was actually fairly reasonable. When the field is lowered ,water accumulation, drainage piping below the surface, etc, is redone with the addition of pump stations to help get rain water (not absorbed by the field) out.

riverside6
07-17-2007, 11:50 AM
Leaving reality for one moment...

Just played with Duke on NCAA Football 08 and beat UNC 31-28 if that is indication. Ra'Quan Boyette had a great game, as did Eron Riley.

Fun game, and you may now go back to the morbid reality of Duke football.

Exiled_Devil
07-17-2007, 03:10 PM
Good call. I just get worked up by the 'administration hates athletics' and 'a successful school needs a strong sports team (football or basketball)' arguments.

I've let myself get too wrapped up in it. I'm done.

Exiled

DevilAlumna
07-17-2007, 04:38 PM
As far as I understand, Duke has been accepting a smaller percentage (a key admissions metric) and also getting higher enrollment numbers for acceptances over the last few years. Both of those data points suggest that Duke is getting stronger students, with more elite applicants enrolling.

Exiled, in total agreement with you.

FDA's problem is that he thinks this "new type" of excellent student isn't the type that Duke should be enrolling. Therefore, to him, these metrics are probably a bad thing.


From his own posts, I get the sense he'd prefer more of the "Work Hard, Play Harder" (frequently a shorthand "Work Just Hard Enough then Get Drunk!") approach.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=29874#post29874

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=30743#post30743

formerdukeathlete
07-17-2007, 06:00 PM
Exiled, in total agreement with you.

FDA's problem is that he thinks this "new type" of excellent student isn't the type that Duke should be enrolling. Therefore, to him, these metrics are probably a bad thing.


From his own posts, I get the sense he'd prefer more of the "Work Hard, Play Harder" (frequently a shorthand "Work Just Hard Enough then Get Drunk!") approach.



Certainly makes me wonder why you bother posting on an athletic fan site, when most student athletes at Duke and other schools pursue social activities rather than late night book club meetings.

I prefer Harvard's admissions criteria to Duke's current criteria, and Harvard's policies result in admitting more accomplished, more academically accomplished students. I dated one of the Deans at Cal Tech, of all places. At the time, 94-95, Cal Tech received then as it does today, applications replete with perfect SAT math scores. I distinctly recall her telling me how the admissions staff sifted through all of the resume padding and the assigned weight to time consuming extracurriculars such as jobs, summer jobs, varsity sports and student government.

Duke's current admissions policies result in admitting classes with almost 40% affirmative action applicants. The result is that many kids with 1400 SATs who work in high school, who are leaders in student government, who are varsity athletes (not recruited by Duke) do not get in. And, to compensate for the mean lowering effects of admitting so many affirmative action applicants, the admission staff must focus more simply on raw academic data. This skewing, to compare with Yale and Harvard, is that Duke admits fewer recruited student athletes, fewer high school leaders, fewer non recruited student athletes, fewer on a percentage basis kids who have demonstrated leadership and the potential of for example turning into a Rick Wagoner some day. Our geeky sports fans who appear on national TV are the talk of even schools like Harvard.

When I took my first job in Boston after law school I occassionally went to Harvard parties, mostly HBS parties, but once after a Harvard - Yale football game I got taken along by a few alums to an on campus party which included Harvard undergrads. I have to tell you that these were pretty darn good guys from the perspective of someone 4 years older at the time. I also recall Wellesley and other gals in attendance. Some pretty decent social life. Hey, but, they were not geeks, they might have been attending a book reading session to interpret Othello. But, hey, they wanted to drink some beers and meet Wellesley girls.

guayaco
07-17-2007, 07:10 PM
I concur with former duke athlete. I also started noticing that Duke's admission staff was more impressed with high SAT scores, high class rankings, and a lot of padding with extracurricular activities that did not point to leadership qualities. An interview tells you so much more about the individual and whether he/she truly is a well-rounded person with solid intellectual and social skills, and leadership qualities.

I don't interview prospective Duke students anymore because the admission staff started to completely ignore my recommendations. Of course I don't expect all my recommendation to be the main factor in deciding whether or not to admit an applicant, but let me throw a case study at you and you decide if Duke admission messed up or not.

Kid A was valedictorian at one of the biggest high schools in the Dallas area, or Texas for that matter. Incredible SAT scores, math team stud, president of a bunch of academic clubs, etc. He had his life programmed all the way through business school and as a trader at Goldman Sachs in NY. And he flat out told me that Duke was his freaking 6th option!

Kid B was in the top 10% of his class, captain of his soccer team, showed passion to learn and explore the surprises that life might bring him. He was also an Iranian-American who founded his school's (btw, the same school as the previous kid) first Iranian-American club after fighting the principal and the city's school board who tried to prevent him from doing so. This kid wanted to go to Duke so badly - Duke was his first choice.

So who does Duke admit? Kid A, who told Duke to take a hike, as expected, and ended up going to Penn, while kid B went to the University of Texas and who I am 100% sure is making that university extremely proud (not to say Kid A is not doing the same for Penn, but you get my point)

Who would you have admitted?

dukie8
07-17-2007, 07:10 PM
I hate it when these discussions dissolve into pissing matches It is when I stop reading threads. You have both passed into this realm in the last few posts. Stop it, but let civil discussion continue.

it's more or less civil but when certain posters simply make up facts (eg, "at least 1/3 of Iron Duke contributions are attributable to Football" or "less than 5% of contributions are from people who could care less whether Duke offers Football") it's not unreasonable to ask for the source of such outlandlish claims. what is uncivil is when such certain poster, rather than providing sources, tells me to "contact the Director, contact the AD" to verify his falsehoods. very persuasive indeed.

dukie8
07-17-2007, 07:21 PM
In the late 80s early 90s, BC's football stadium sat 32k. Thereafter they added buildings to create suites and stands which raise capacity to 44k. The stadium quite frankly was inimpressive before hand. Residents of Chestnut Hill fought each stage of stadium expansion - folks park on their streets during games, etc. I attending one council meeting in which the matter of stadium expansion was addressed. Experts testified for BC as to the parking issue and as to the necessity of having a slightly larger stadium - a certain critical mass needed to be reached in order to field a competitive program. The AD also testified as to the need for suites for corporate revenue. BC's proposal at the time was approved. And, they expanded the stadium one more time after that.

From what I understand, Roof's / the Football Program's stadium proposals do not call so much for the adding of seats as for the adding of suites and stadium amenitites which improve the viewing experience and improve home game revenue. Removing the running track and bringing seats to the field might be accompanied with individual seats in the current stands. Actual increase in home capacity might not be much in actual numbers. I figure capacity stops around 40k.

so your definition of "stepping it up," as it relates to college football, is adding seats to a stadium? mine involves on the field performance. bc went to 4 bowls in the 80s and another 4 bowls in the 90s, including a final #5 ranking in 1984 and a final #13 ranking in 1993. the stadium began its renovation in 1994, the year AFTER bc had just finished #13 and had knocked off #1 notre dame in south bend to prevent nd from winning another national championship. i'm certainly glad that bc just then decided to "step it up" because it really was slacking until the 1994 stadium renovations. you may want to check your facts before making any more of these silly comments.

DevilAlumna
07-17-2007, 07:34 PM
Post title: Why so hostile towards any type of social life, DA?

Certainly makes me wonder why you bother posting on an athletic fan site, when most student athletes at Duke and other schools pursue social activities rather than late night book club meetings.

What makes what I wrote "hostile" in regards to social life at Duke, FDA?

What isn't social about late night book club meetings? And why do I have this quote running through my head now? "Demented and sad, but social." :)

FWIW, I had my days as a crazy sorority chick at Duke. But I also know a lot of folks who didn't appreciate the dearth of social options outside of drunken frat parties when I went there. You seem to think that social = frat party.

And drinker or non-drinker, it has nothing to do with being a sportsfan.

Richard Berg
07-17-2007, 07:41 PM
Duke's current admissions policies result in admitting classes with almost 40% affirmative action applicants.
Link please.


An interview tells you so much more about the individual and whether he/she truly is a well-rounded person with solid intellectual and social skills, and leadership qualities....Who would you have admitted?
Admissions officers will (or should) tell you up front that well-roundedness is not valued the way it once was. Being #1 in one area is more attractive to them than being good in many areas because it allows them to construct a "well-rounded class."

Besides, you can't admit a class full of future leaders. Leadership is a wonderful trait, but it's not directly tied to academic success as much as other factors. For every gifted leader on track to becoming the next Senator, you also need to be recruiting the next Pulitzer author, Nobel chemist, musician, economist, and so on...many of those paths have little to do with leadership.

You also need to balance things out for sanity. A campus full of Type As [as in personality] would be even less fun than a campus full of nerds ;)

As for the decision, I'd almost certainly admit A, and maybe B too. Depends on how gifted B was. You don't really say.

[edit: clarity]

Duvall
07-17-2007, 08:12 PM
So who does Duke admit? Kid A, who told Duke to take a hike, as expected, and ended up going to Penn, while kid B went to the University of Texas and who I am 100% sure is making that university extremely proud (not to say Kid A is not doing the same for Penn, but you get my point)

Who would you have admitted?

Both, but I'm a soft touch. I think that Duke has room for both kids that excel within the system and those that are willing to take it on. Indeed, I feel that Duke needs both kinds of students.

dukie8
07-17-2007, 08:33 PM
Net of league and other TV revenue sharing, Harvard's athletic department's budget is much greater than Duke's athletic budget.

false again.

harvard's 2006 athletic budget: $15.9MM
duke's 2006 athletic budget: $28.7MM

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/28/a_coaching_vacancy/?page=2

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:mwXqb9-gKB4J:www.duke.edu/web/acouncil/info/documents/AthleticPolicyManual5.18.07.pdf+duke+athletic+budg et+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=54&gl=us

these things called facts and sources are so damn annoying when trying to make a point! also, for someone lecturing others to take some finance and accounting classes, i find it odd that you continue to confuse revenues with expenditures. revenues are what the ad takes in and expenditures are what the ad spends. this isn't rocket science.

you still have not answered my question regarding harvard and if its athletic department is so wonderful, then why does it have so many terrible teams? i rattled off a long list of harvard teams from last year that were less than impressive and they had the benefit of competing in the lesser ivy league.

SilkyJ
07-17-2007, 08:40 PM
it's more or less civil but when certain posters simply make up facts (eg, "at least 1/3 of Iron Duke contributions are attributable to Football" or "less than 5% of contributions are from people who could care less whether Duke offers Football") it's not unreasonable to ask for the source of such outlandlish claims. what is uncivil is when such certain poster, rather than providing sources, tells me to "contact the Director, contact the AD" to verify his falsehoods. very persuasive indeed.

80% of statistics are incorrect.

THANK YOU. All these stats and no links, come one guys. You are ruining your own credibility.

FORTY PERCENT affirmative action?!?! How are you getting that number??

formerdukeathlete
07-17-2007, 09:28 PM
false again.

harvard's 2006 athletic budget: $15.9MM
duke's 2006 athletic budget: $28.7MM

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/03/28/a_coaching_vacancy/?page=2

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:mwXqb9-gKB4J:www.duke.edu/web/acouncil/info/documents/AthleticPolicyManual5.18.07.pdf+duke+athletic+budg et+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=54&gl=us

these things called facts and sources are so damn annoying when trying to make a point! also, for someone lecturing others to take some finance and accounting classes, i find it odd that you continue to confuse revenues with expenditures. revenues are what the ad takes in and expenditures are what the ad spends. this isn't rocket science.

you still have not answered my question regarding harvard and if its athletic department is so wonderful, then why does it have so many terrible teams? i rattled off a long list of harvard teams from last year that were less than impressive and they had the benefit of competing in the lesser ivy league.

Harvard's budget does not include athletic scholarships. Yet approx. 65% of its student athletes attend on financial aid. Harvard's undergrad enrollment is around 7k - correct me if I am wrong. Harvard has .25 x 7,000 = 1750 students competing on varisty teams to Duke's 600. Of Duke's 600, 230 athletic scholarships are spread around. These costs are included in the above figure. The remaining 370 student athlete bills are covered approx. 50% by the U in general financial aid. Duke and Harvard cost approx. $48k a year. Include general student aid devoted to student athletes for a truer picture of athletic related expenditures. Then, add to the figure above for Duke .5 x $48,000 X 370 or $8,800,000. Then, Duke's budget is really 28.7 + 8.8 = $37.5 million. Do the same thing for Harvard, .5 x $48,000 x 1750 = $42,000,000. Then Harvard's athletic budget is really $15.9 + 42 = $57.9 million.

Then there is a very important difference between the two schools. Duke's athletic department revenues including ACC revenue sharing, gate receipts, Iron Duke contributions, I am virutally certain exceed such revenues at Harvard by at a minimum of $20 million. Without taking into account athletic department specific endowment income, it seems clear to me that the athletic department at Duke, with its far fewer student athletes and its far greater revenues, costs Duke much less than what the athletic department costs Harvard.

What is the point of your arguments about Wade? You think Duke can be good again in Football irrespective that the Football Stadium needs extensive renovation even to compete in appearance and amenities with high school and lesser divisioned college stadiums? Many say it cannot. Let's see if Duke can raise the money. My sense is that there will little problem doing so.

dukie8
07-17-2007, 09:53 PM
Harvard's budget does not include athletic scholarships. Yet approx. 65% of its student athletes attend on financial aid. Harvard's undergrad enrollment is around 7k - correct me if I am wrong. Harvard has .25 x 7,000 = 1750 students competing on varisty teams to Duke's 600. Of Duke's 600, 230 athletic scholarships are spread around. These costs are included in the above figure. The remaining 370 student athlete bills are covered approx. 50% by the U in general financial aid. Duke and Harvard cost approx. $48k a year. Include general student aid devoted to student athletes for a truer picture of athletic related expenditures. Then, add to the figure above for Duke .5 x $48,000 X 370 or $8,800,000. Then, Duke's budget is really 28.7 + 8.8 = $37.5 million. Do the same thing for Harvard, .5 x $48,000 x 1750 = $42,000,000. Then Harvard's athletic budget is really $15.9 + 42 = $57.9 million.

Then there is a very important difference between the two schools. Duke's athletic department revenues including ACC revenue sharing, gate receipts, Iron Duke contributions, I am virutally certain exceed such revenues at Harvard by at a minimum of $20 million. Without taking into account athletic department specific endowment income, it seems clear to me that the athletic department at Duke, with its far fewer student athletes and its far greater revenues, costs Duke much less than what the athletic department costs Harvard.

What is the point of your arguments about Wade? You think Duke can be good again in Football irrespective that the Football Stadium needs extensive renovation even to compete in appearance and amenities with high school and lesser divisioned college stadiums? Many say it cannot. Let's see if Duke can raise the money. My sense is that there will little problem doing so.

you really do exist in someplace other than reality. for about the umpteenth time, harvard does NOT have athletic scholarships. you are not free to arbitrarily add them into their publicly stated athletic budget because they don't exist. are you proud to be the only person on this planet who believes that harvard's athletic budget is $57.9MM?


Duke's athletic department revenues including ACC revenue sharing, gate receipts, Iron Duke contributions, I am virutally certain exceed such revenues at Harvard by at a minimum of $20 million

i have no idea what this run-on sentence is attempting to state so i won't bother attempting to refute it.

my point is to correct some of the vast amount of incorrect information that you have been peddling on here. you still have yet to list any sources w/r to several patently false statements made in this thread despite being expressly asked to do so. i don't really care if duke is "good again" in football. i'd like to see duke win some football games but duke overall has done just fine with a terrible football team. spurrier managed to win the acc with even worse facilities. blaming wade is a tiresome and pathetic excuse. you don't hear hurley senior blaming a lack of facilities for any shortcomings in his teams.

mapei
07-17-2007, 10:24 PM
I'm not sure it would change anything, but as long as people are looking for, you know, actual facts, Harvard's athletics web site says that 20%, not 25%, of its students "participate in intercollegiate athletics." http://www.gocrimson.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9000&KEY=&ATCLID=515910.

Now, the original assertion was that 25% percent of the Harvard student body were not just athletes but "recruited athletes." My quick look didn't find anything on that, but it is a safe bet that not every intercollegiate athlete was "recruited," unless one equates admission with recruitment. So that number is surely under 20%.

Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see Duke and all colleges emulate Harvard, actually, on perhaps the most basic of Harvard's athletic policies: no athletic scholarships. I believe that financial aid should be given on the basis of a combination of need and academic promise. Personally, I'd rather see a needy geek get the money over a needy jock.

SilkyJ
07-17-2007, 10:37 PM
I'm not sure it would change anything, but as long as people are looking for, you know, actual facts, Harvard's athletics web site says that 20%, not 25%, of its students "participate in intercollegiate athletics." http://www.gocrimson.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=9000&KEY=&ATCLID=515910.



Dont cite sources, its so much better when FDA just makes it up!

Duvall
07-17-2007, 11:34 PM
Duke's current admissions policies result in admitting classes with almost 40% affirmative action applicants.

I too would like to know if you have a source for this claim.


The result is that many kids with 1400 SATs who work in high school, who are leaders in student government, who are varsity athletes (not recruited by Duke) do not get in. And, to compensate for the mean lowering effects of admitting so many affirmative action applicants, the admission staff must focus more simply on raw academic data. This skewing, to compare with Yale and Harvard, is that Duke admits fewer recruited student athletes, fewer high school leaders, fewer non recruited student athletes, fewer on a percentage basis kids who have demonstrated leadership and the potential of for example turning into a Rick Wagoner some day.

Frankly, I'm baffled by the idea that Duke is poorly served by recruiting students that are focused on academics, or that plan to specialize in science or the arts. Seems to me people like that have done quite a bit to shape our world over the years. It's not like you have to go farther than Science Drive to see the benefits of money from geeks done good.

Besides, Duke has always a fine job of producing lawyers, businessmen and other leaders - maybe too good. Perhaps it's time to mix things up a bit.


Our geeky sports fans who appear on national TV are the talk of even schools like Harvard.

Huh. You would think that with their awesome social skills Harvard students could find something more interesting to do.

formerdukeathlete
07-18-2007, 12:48 AM
you really do exist in someplace other than reality. for about the umpteenth time, harvard does NOT have athletic scholarships. you are not free to arbitrarily add them into their publicly stated athletic budget because they don't exist. are you proud to be the only person on this planet who believes that harvard's athletic budget is $57.9MM?



i have no idea what this run-on sentence is attempting to state so i won't bother attempting to refute it.

my point is to correct some of the vast amount of incorrect information that you have been peddling on here. you still have yet to list any sources w/r to several patently false statements made in this thread despite being expressly asked to do so. i don't really care if duke is "good again" in football. i'd like to see duke win some football games but duke overall has done just fine with a terrible football team. spurrier managed to win the acc with even worse facilities. blaming wade is a tiresome and pathetic excuse. you don't hear hurley senior blaming a lack of facilities for any shortcomings in his teams.

Let me state one more time that Duke Football makes money - revenues as a result of fielding the Football Team exceed expenses by a wide margin. ACC revenue sharing, notwithstanding that the ACC has the best b-ball tv contract is mostly football-related. Duke fielding a football team in the ACC is a condition precedent to being in the ACC. Football loses money in the sense that revenues do not exceed scholarship costs, coaches salaries. But, add just the Iron Dukes and Gridiron Society contributions dedicated to Football, and you are positive. Add ACC revenue sharing and you are greatly in the black.

That the athletic department pays for 230 scholarships frees up general scholarship funds. A comparison of the real economic budgets of Duke's and Harvard's athletic departments must take into account costs to the university in subsidizing athletes educations, or you must remove them from Duke's budget inasmuch as the scholarship costs are met virtually every year through Iron Duke contributions. What then is Duke's budget sans the costs of 230 scholarships - take off $11 million for starters. The economic cost comparisons - well you need to take into account revenues. Harvard's are mostly dedicated endowment income which helps defray the costs of its athletic programs. When you take into account Duke athletic revenue, it is safe to say that the economic cost at Duke in offering its athletic programs are nil. This cannot be said about the Ivy League. Finally, notwithstanding that further to being in the ACC Duke offers athletic scholarships and fields a Football Team which does not break a profit before scholarship donations and revenue sharing, the actual economic cost net of revenues for Duke in offering its Bowl Championship Series Division sports programs are lower than the economic costs of athletic programs at Harvard and other Ivy League schools.

SilkyJ
07-18-2007, 09:27 AM
Football loses money in the sense that revenues do not exceed scholarship costs, coaches salaries. But, add just the Iron Dukes and Gridiron Society contributions dedicated to Football, and you are positive. Add ACC revenue sharing and you are greatly in the black.

I dont have the most current numbers, but it would appear that FDA is right about this (and intuition just says he's right), before expansion the revenue sharing was around 10million, after it was about 8 million, but that was before the new TV contracts...I bet with the addition of the ACC championship game, football (with ACC football revenue sharing) has go to be in the black

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NHXWzGuQxrYJ:www.techsideline.com/newsarch/2003/20030628news.htm+ACC+revenue+sharing&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

But FDA, you lose all credibility when you throw out figures and do not back them up. Of course you can say you don't care b/c "you know they are right" but then you are just doing a disservice to everyone else on the board...

killerleft
07-18-2007, 11:02 AM
I can't believe a football thread has this many posts, no matter the reason. I hope everybody who can make it will be there for the first game. Go Duke!

throatybeard
07-18-2007, 01:15 PM
I can't believe a football thread has this many posts, no matter the reason. I hope everybody who can make it will be there for the first game. Go Duke!

43% of all posters in this thread attend home games regularly.

Indoor66
07-18-2007, 02:02 PM
43% of all posters in this thread attend home games regularly.

I know in my heart that it is 44.78%. Get a live Throaty!!!! :D :D :D

Exiled_Devil
07-18-2007, 04:29 PM
43% of all posters in this thread attend home games regularly.

You, sir, have won the game.

Exiled

greybeard
07-18-2007, 05:50 PM
I went to an Ivy League school, I should be able to follow this.:rolleyes:

greybeard
07-18-2007, 05:53 PM
Did you hear that Cornell is "back" in basketball. Yeah, we're getting to play Duke this year. Now, if we only could get them to schedule us in football.;)

DevilAlumna
07-18-2007, 07:18 PM
43% of all posters in this thread attend home games regularly.

Maybe everyone who attends could wear this sporty t-shirt, to prove what great fans Duke students are!

http://cache.spreadshirt.com/users/130000/129701/products/129701_2424855_1_huge.jpg

http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?op=article&article_id=2197191&p=1

Bluedawg
07-19-2007, 12:22 PM
I have mentioned this in several posts, but, neglected in the one you quote, to mention that the process of moving seats to the field also involves lowering the field. This was done with the LA Coliseum in 1993-1994. Cost was actually fairly reasonable. When the field is lowered ,water accumulation, drainage piping below the surface, etc, is redone with the addition of pump stations to help get rain water (not absorbed by the field) out.

You know, i never considered lowering the field. What time issues are we talking about? Could it be done in an off-season?

formerdukeathlete
07-19-2007, 01:04 PM
You know, i never considered lowering the field. What time issues are we talking about? Could it be done in an off-season?

The Northridge quake in January 1994 was just after Football season. I believe the field lowering, additional seating project had just been started at the time, and the project was expanded to include repairs - all of which were done before the fall in 1994, as I recall.

killerleft
07-19-2007, 02:05 PM
The field should be RAISED by 57% above its Rose Bowl height in relation to the track height in 1943.

throatybeard
07-19-2007, 07:48 PM
The field should be RAISED by 57% above its Rose Bowl height in relation to the track height in 1943.

And a track facility built somewhere else. I.e., not encircling the FB field.

throatybeard
08-15-2007, 01:11 PM
SI just picked us to go 0-12.

They have VT over BC in the ACCCG.

johnb
08-15-2007, 03:12 PM
I blocked FDA's posts a few years ago, but then I found that my bulletin board reading was so much less interesting. I'm tempted to ask him to consider following a different school since he seems to want us to be an LSU/Harvard hybrid that doesn't actually exist in the real world, or to point out that the best intramural football and basketball players at Duke could probably make the Harvard teams so that many of those recruited "athletes" at Harvard wouldn't be considered athletes at Duke, or to ask if he is serious if he thinks that Harvard is really filled with good ol' boys and girls whose intellectual curiosity does not interfere with brunch and whose souls are embued with a jolly sense of friendly mediocrity?

I do agree, however, that Duke has changed its admissions emphasis in the past decade. From what I read in the alumni magazine a couple of years ago, the school is trying to select an increasingly focused group of students at the expense of well-rounded but unexceptional students. This would mean searching for students like kid A (who's a star) and rejecting student B, who may be a soccer captain in the top 10% of his class but who simply isn't outstanding. Further, Duke gets 8000 applications/ year from Kid B (made up statistic), and there wouldn't be room for all of the nice guys who apply. Duke also turns down half the valedictorians who apply. Twenty years ago, Duke might have shied away from Kid A because it's likely he'd go to an Ivy League school, but Duke now believes that any student is potentially willing to come to Duke and doesn't try to game the system (much). By the way, HYP have been using those admissions criteria for decades (the gentleman's C Yalie from St. Grottlesex is history), at least partly because they had ready-made peer groups into which these "geeks" could fit in, while Duke had a significant chunk of FDA's who might just make them feel uncomfortable. The tide has turned, and Duke ain't going back...

Bluedawg
08-16-2007, 02:06 PM
Here is the record of the Duke University Blue Devils football team in this millennium:

2006: 0-11!
2005: 1-10
2004: 2-9
2003: 4-8
2002: 2-10
2001: 0-11!
2000: 0-11!

Actually the 21st century did not start until 2001.

Bluedawg
08-16-2007, 02:14 PM
Your post is in the proper forum. IMO, Duke will win four or five games this year. We should win against UConn, Northwestern, Navy, WFU, & UNC.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

I agree with those and will throw ina very close game at Miami.

mapei
08-17-2007, 09:11 AM
The only way Duke beats Miami in football is if Tim Donaghy works the game.

Indoor66
08-17-2007, 09:15 AM
The only way Duke beats Miami in football is if Tim Donaghy works the game.

All due respect, but a weak shot.... :)

wxyz
08-18-2007, 06:13 PM
...

I do agree, however, that Duke has changed its admissions emphasis in the past decade. From what I read in the alumni magazine a couple of years ago, the school is trying to select an increasingly focused group of students at the expense of well-rounded but unexceptional students. This would mean searching for students like kid A (who's a star) and rejecting student B, who may be a soccer captain in the top 10% of his class but who simply isn't outstanding. Further, Duke gets 8000 applications/ year from Kid B (made up statistic), and there wouldn't be room for all of the nice guys who apply. Duke also turns down half the valedictorians who apply. ...

The above might have been true three years ago, but it is not the case today. Admissions Director Guttentag has said of the class entering in 2007 that they are better than previous classes in "extracurricular activities" and "diversity". The Pres speaks of the importance of finding students wishing "engagement", which seems to mean students wishing to go on field trips outside the US. There is a new university-sponsored competition on using the web site Facebook in the classroom, as a follow up to the use of iPods. No one in the central admin speaks of a focus on any aspect of academics as a goal, or even a good idea, since they say that what is special about Duke is its athletics and variety of extracurricular activities. I do not think they think that academic accomplishment has value any more, as a Duke objective.

This is not a joke -- it is the serious direction of the undergrad program.

johnb
08-22-2007, 01:40 PM
I do not think they think that academic accomplishment has value any more, as a Duke objective.



The Brodhead group might advertise facebook and ipods, but is there any evidence that they are dumbing down admissions? Surely these very academic people don't think football watching is an important undergraduate extracurricular?

formerdukeathlete
08-22-2007, 02:53 PM
The Brodhead group might advertise facebook and ipods, but is there any evidence that they are dumbing down admissions? Surely these very academic people don't think football watching is an important undergraduate extracurricular?

Harvard undergrads - 20% are on varsity teams. Each coach of a varsity team has x number of slots each year for student athletes. Football was 35 slots a year (greater than the NCAA limit for scholarship athletes). Most students I have know who were recruited by Harvard for athletics, including a family member of mine, were 1300 + boards and at least top 10% of the class at a public high school.

Duke undergrads - 10% are on varsity teams. Each coach may offer input in the admissions process. It was that for non-rev. athletes the admissions office wanted at least 1200 = boards and at least top 10% of the class at a public high school.

Harvard admits a much smaller percentage of other students applying. With respect to these students, legacies, benefactor children, minorities receive preferences. And, with respect to all others, someone with high 1400s may stand a better chance of being admitted than someone with high 1500s provided the high 1400s has more going for them such as working in high school, taking the time to do student government, participating on varsity sports programs (even if not recruited for this). If this is where Duke is heading vis a vis the policy announced above by the other poster, then this is something in the right direction. Admit students who will tend take advantage of the many facets of student life offered at Duke (by virtue of their taking advantage of the many facets of student life in high school).