PDA

View Full Version : Sign the Petition for Alleva to interview Rick Neuheisel



DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 07:24 PM
If you support Rick Neuheisel please sign the petition. I personally believe this is the guy for the job!


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/HireRickNeuheiselatDuke/

Duvall
12-10-2007, 07:25 PM
I personally believe this is the guy for the job!

Why? He washed out of two coaching jobs that are easier than Duke.

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 07:29 PM
Why? He washed out of two coaching jobs that are easier than Duke.

Then don't sign it. I personally think he is a really good coach/recruiter and can make a big splash at Duke.

Channing
12-10-2007, 07:41 PM
hasnt he had ncaa violations everywhere he has been?

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 07:47 PM
hasnt he had ncaa violations everywhere he has been?


When he was at CU he was charged with several infractions...Many of these were minor and were dropped and the others were obvioulsy results of what many other coaches referred to as a "witch hunt". I for one believe that people deserve second chances or at least an interview where they can tell their side of the story.

Duke took a chance on a BB player that had allegations against him and
they proved to be false and he has become an outstanding young man. Everyone deserves a second chance.

ugadevil
12-10-2007, 07:48 PM
I'll sign the petition if Rick agrees to put Duke in the Final Four in his NCAA Tournament Bracket.

Channing
12-10-2007, 07:56 PM
i looked it up - i am thinking of someone other than Rick Neuheisel . . .

SoCalDukeFan
12-10-2007, 07:57 PM
I used to think that Rick was a good option. However I think he pushes the envelope and am afraid he would get in trouble at Duke.

Besides his football pool, he also had a problem at Washington with misrepresenting an interview for an NFL job.

SoCal

jimsumner
12-10-2007, 08:03 PM
"When he was at CU he was charged with several infractions...Many of these were minor and were dropped and the others were obvioulsy results of what many other coaches referred to as a "witch hunt"."

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The NCAA found Colorado guilty of over 50 infractions from RH's tenure at Colorado and placed them on probation for two years.

At Washington he violated an NCAA rule that prohibits coaches from participating in gambling pools.

Whether he does or does not deserve a second (or third) chance is a question over which reasonable people can disagree. But let's go into this with open eyes. The man has some baggage.

Cavlaw
12-10-2007, 08:06 PM
They might consider fixing the typo in the body of the petition.

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 08:14 PM
"When he was at CU he was charged with several infractions...Many of these were minor and were dropped and the others were obvioulsy results of what many other coaches referred to as a "witch hunt"."

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The NCAA found Colorado guilty of over 50 infractions from RH's tenure at Colorado and placed them on probation for two years.

At Washington he violated an NCAA rule that prohibits coaches from participating in gambling pools.

Whether he does or does not deserve a second (or third) chance is a question over which reasonable people can disagree. But let's go into this with open eyes. The man has some baggage.

Jim,

I have seen the list of infractions and they were all petty violations and the majority of them were not directly related to RN. It is obvious that they were trying to make him an example.

rockymtn devil
12-10-2007, 08:36 PM
Jim,

I have seen the list of infractions and they were all petty violations and the majority of them were not directly related to RN. It is obvious that they were trying to make him an example.

This simply isn't true.

Petty Violations: Recruiting violations are never petty, especially when they lead to lost scholarships, recruiting restrictions, and two years of probation. What Rick Majerus did by providing milk and cookies at film sessions is petty.

Not Directly Related to Neuheisel: If this was true, then why would the NCAA restrict his ability to recruit at Washington from October, 2002 to May, 2003? It's one thing to not attribute a rogue player taking benefits from a booster to the HC. It's another to not attribute recruiting violations to the person in charge of overseeing recruiting.

Maybe they were trying to make an example out of him--I would agree that this is true to a certain extent--but that doesn't mean he didn't break the rules.

Here's the press release put out by the NCAA regarding Colorado's probation: http://www.ncaa.org/releases/infractions/2002100802in.htm

Karl Beem
12-10-2007, 09:05 PM
Meh.

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 09:05 PM
This simply isn't true.

Petty Violations: Recruiting violations are never petty, especially when they lead to lost scholarships, recruiting restrictions, and two years of probation. What Rick Majerus did by providing milk and cookies at film sessions is petty.

Not Directly Related to Neuheisel: If this was true, then why would the NCAA restrict his ability to recruit at Washington from October, 2002 to May, 2003? It's one thing to not attribute a rogue player taking benefits from a booster to the HC. It's another to not attribute recruiting violations to the person in charge of overseeing recruiting.

Maybe they were trying to make an example out of him--I would agree that this is true to a certain extent--but that doesn't mean he didn't break the rules.

Here's the press release put out by the NCAA regarding Colorado's probation: http://www.ncaa.org/releases/infractions/2002100802in.htm


From the press release you linked...

The violations involved impermissible recruiting contacts beginning with the 1995-96 academic year and concluding in the 1998-99 academic year. The committee also found violations involving the provision of clothing to recruits, contacts with an athletics representative, excessive reimbursement of travel expenses for recruits and improprieties involving recruiting entertainment expenses.


The report noted that the pattern of violations caused the case to rise to the "major" level. A significant number of the findings involved contact with prospects, or "bumping," during non-contact periods in the Spring when only evaluation is permitted. "When viewed separately," the committee's report said, "each of these contacts might be considered secondary; however, taken cumulatively, they reach the level of a major violation."


Trust me...I have seen the details of what happened during these "impermissable contacts" and they are by all means "petty" and 90% of coaches could be charged with these same "violations" each and every year.

The rest of the allegations listed are very generic and if you happen to see documentation of what really took place you would probably change your stance on the matter just as I have.

I'm not saying he is a saint but he is a good football coach and that's what we need in Durham right now!

norduck
12-10-2007, 09:21 PM
"When he was at CU he was charged with several infractions...Many of these were minor and were dropped and the others were obvioulsy results of what many other coaches referred to as a "witch hunt"."

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The NCAA found Colorado guilty of over 50 infractions from RH's tenure at Colorado and placed them on probation for two years.

At Washington he violated an NCAA rule that prohibits coaches from participating in gambling pools.

Whether he does or does not deserve a second (or third) chance is a question over which reasonable people can disagree. But let's go into this with open eyes. The man has some baggage.

Could you imagine even interviewing a Coach K predecessor with this type of background?

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 09:25 PM
Could you imagine even interviewing a Coach K predecessor with this type of background?

You mean someone who participated in an NCAA pool? Oh no, that would be terrible! :eek:

bhop22
12-10-2007, 09:35 PM
I think if he came to Duke, the NCAA would soon be knocking at the door. He may be the next Tarkanian.

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 09:38 PM
I think if he came to Duke, the NCAA would soon be knocking at the door. He may be the next Tarkanian.


What are they going to do? Not allow us to play in a bowl game? ;)

jimsumner
12-10-2007, 09:39 PM
For those of you who didn't follow the painful divorce between Neuheisel and UW and the even more painful aftermath,

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2002199496_webneuheisel07.html

OrangeDevil
12-10-2007, 09:39 PM
I do not know Jim Sumner, but based on the opinions and insights he has posted on this this board I respect him tremendously. Jim, you wrong about this one. Your argument is essentially a moral one: Neuheisel did bad ergo he is bad. If there ever was a situation in need of redemption--as is Neuheisel himself--it is Duke football. Neuheisel should be chastened by now, His "sin' was that he irritated Barbara Hedges with his cutesy around the margins response to whether or not he placed bets in a basketball pool. Clearly this kind of behavior will not fly at Duke, nor should it. But I emphatically repeat, this should not disqualify him from consideration. The infractions were, in fact, fairly minor and he was completely exonerated of any gambling infractions.

I ask you, not considering his past indiscretions, who is preferable as a on the field offensive, pass-oriented tactician and coast-to-coast recruiter: Rod Broadway, Troy Calhoun, Bobby Johnson, Steve Logan or Rick Neuheisel? The perfect, immaculate candidate is not there. From this bunch clearly, to my way of thinking, Neuheisel is the obvious choice. He has won everywhere, he has a youthful vitality that college age athletes relate to, and given his bi-coastal bonafides he can successfully gain entry into the living rooms of the best in the nation recruits.

Let me be even bolder. The participants of the DBR ARE the Duke football fanbase. It is us who give a rats posterior about restoring the football program to ACC re national prominence. We should have our people in the Triangle (Jim Sumner and others) make our preferences known to the powers that be. Arrange a meeting or submit a petition to Alleva and Brodhead, let them know what we think. Duke football has reached a critical junction; I'm not sure of the alternative if the Franks-Roof scenario is replayed yet again. I don't know what others think, but I am not in the least excited or even hopeful over the prospect of a Bobby Johnson hire.

jimsumner
12-10-2007, 09:42 PM
"Trust me...I have seen the details of what happened during these "impermissable contacts" and they are by all means "petty" and 90% of coaches could be charged with these same "violations" each and every year"

I've always thought they "everybody does it, I just got caught" was a sad excuse. It's not one I ever want to hear from Duke.

dukie8
12-10-2007, 09:55 PM
When he was at CU he was charged with several infractions...Many of these were minor and were dropped and the others were obvioulsy results of what many other coaches referred to as a "witch hunt". I for one believe that people deserve second chances or at least an interview where they can tell their side of the story.

Duke took a chance on a BB player that had allegations against him and
they proved to be false and he has become an outstanding young man. Everyone deserves a second chance.

no they don't. vick sure doesn't.

you are comparing false allegations against a teenager to proven violations of an adult. there's just a slight difference there.

norduck
12-10-2007, 09:56 PM
You mean someone who participated in an NCAA pool? Oh no, that would be terrible! :eek:


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/pac10/2003-06-12-neuheisel-out_x.htm

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 09:57 PM
For those of you who didn't follow the painful divorce between Neuheisel and UW and the even more painful aftermath,

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskies/2002199496_webneuheisel07.html


I think the opening paragraph says it all...


A settlement was reached this morning that will pay former University of Washington football coach Rick Neuheisel $4.5 million in his wrongful termination suit against the university and NCAA.


and you have to like the results he has produced...Not to mention that Hedges has given Rick her reccomendation for any future position and spoken highly of him.


In four seasons with the Huskies, Neuheisel compiled a 33-16 record, including a Rose Bowl victory in 2001 and a No. 3 national ranking. Former athletic director Barbara Hedges fired him in June 2003 after she said Neuheisel lied to her about interviewing for a job with the San Francisco 49ers and about his participation in NCAA men's basketball gambling pools in 2002 and '03.

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 10:03 PM
no they don't. vick sure doesn't.

you are comparing false allegations against a teenager to proven violations of an adult. there's just a slight difference there.



my comparison may have a slight difference but your comparison of Vick to Rick N is absurd. Sure the violations commited fall squarely on the shoulders of the head coach even though he may not have been actively involved in the actions themselves. Does that make it right? No, but I do believe that he has learned his lesson and this is the perfect opportunity for both a coach and a football program to get a new start.

OrangeDevil
12-10-2007, 10:04 PM
The article from the Seattle Times is not the incriminating evidence that Jim implies it to be. Clearly, the relationship was poisoned, in no small part due to Neuheisel himself which he acknowledges. It was indeed sad, but not in the inculpating way that is suggested

But the latest entrant into the sweepstakes? Karl Dorrell? Listen, I live in the LA area and have watched the UCLA fiasco unfold. Dorrell is a blase, fiddle-while-Rome burns coach who couldn't recruit from the super abundant talent pool of Southern California. Now it is expected that if he moves to a strange location three thousand miles away, one with which he has zero connections and familiarity, he can suddenly turn a moribund program around? Guys, this is not even a pipe dream. It is difficult to imagine a more bizarre chioce unless Carl Franks suddenly reappears and Steve Lavin replaces K.

oli-p
12-10-2007, 10:26 PM
Duke should hire him and then they should hire Quinn Snyder to replace Coach K when he is retires. The NCAA rules are just guidelines that get in the way.

DukeDevilsBB
12-10-2007, 10:33 PM
Duke should hire him and then they should hire Quinn Snyder to replace Coach K when he is retires. The NCAA rules are just guidelines that get in the way.

oh come on thats nuts...Even Duke BB has had its run ins with the NCAA (see: Corey Maggette)

OrangeDevil
12-10-2007, 10:36 PM
I'm not sure of the intent, but Quin was not a good fit at Mizzou and violations was not the problem. I, for one, hope he gets another chance and Udub (he's from Mercer Island) might be just the place when Romar moves on.

dukie8
12-10-2007, 10:38 PM
my comparison may have a slight difference but your comparison of Vick to Rick N is absurd. Sure the violations commited fall squarely on the shoulders of the head coach even though he may not have been actively involved in the actions themselves. Does that make it right? No, but I do believe that he has learned his lesson and this is the perfect opportunity for both a coach and a football program to get a new start.

i wasn't comparing vick to rick n -- i was just showing that your belief that EVERYONE deserves a second chance is not true. vick can sit in jail for the next 2 years without a 2nd chance.

your comparison is ridiculous. as stated above, you are comparing someone who did NOTHING wrong (shel) to someone who did A LOT wrong (rick n). i am sorry if you cannot tell the difference. duke can do a lot better than someone with that checkered past.

jimsumner
12-10-2007, 10:53 PM
My primary concerns with RN concern his multiple violations at Colorado. His follow-ups at Washington certainly suggest a pattern of poor judgment, at the very least.

Cory Maggette? Exactly what trouble did Duke did into with the NCAA because of actions taken place either at Duke or by anyone associated with Duke?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Neuheisel to Duke comes to fruition. I would be a lot more comfortable with . . .

"I was young. I made some mistakes, I learned from them, and I can absolutely guarantee you that nothing like that will ever happen on my watch at Duke" than . . .

"These were the kind of petty, generic violations that occur in every program and somebody in the NCAA was out to get me."

Redemption and foregiveness and second-chances are all concepts that I agree with and practice as much as possible in my life. But some level of remorse is also necessary, at least for me. I assume that Duke won't move on RN until and unless they receive assurances that he has indeed learned some valuable lessons.

Yes, I want Duke to field a championship football team. I've been going to Wade since Johnson (Lyndon not Andrew) was president, so I've seen the long, slow decline at first hand. But I also am proud of the fact that Duke football has always been run under the highest ethical standards and I darn well want to make absolutely certain that it continues to be run under those standards. I trust that the people responsible for hiring Duke's next football coach share that sentiment.

But yes, the possibility that Duke might hire a coach with Neuheisel's background gives me pause for concern. It needs to be addressed head-on rather than swept under the rug. There is bagagge there and it does no one any good to try to pretend otherwise.

OrangeDevil
12-10-2007, 11:03 PM
I agree with pretty much every word Jim Sumner said. Caution and some degree of contrition yes, but bring Neuheisel in for an interview.

juise
12-11-2007, 01:09 AM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Neuheisel to Duke comes to fruition. I would be a lot more comfortable with . . .

"I was young. I made some mistakes, I learned from them, and I can absolutely guarantee you that nothing like that will ever happen on my watch at Duke" than . . .

"These were the kind of petty, generic violations that occur in every program and somebody in the NCAA was out to get me."

Yeah, so that's basically what he has said (http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/gatech/stories/2007/11/29/techfoot_1130.html):

"Was I trying to be creative? Yes. Was I trying to be aggressive as a young 33-year old head coach trying to make it in a world that is extremely competitive? Was I out there trying to win favor, and so forth? There is no question. Nearly all of these issues could have been avoided had I checked, and more importantly, probably double-checked with the compliance officer at the University of Colorado."



I grew up a University of Washington fan because my grandfather is an alum and, though it's been painful in recent years, I've stuck by them (along with my more recent Blue Devil allegiance of course). I was disappointed to see Rick leave UDub, mainly due to the success they enjoyed they enjoyed under him, but also because I was not convinced that his dismissal was justified. I would not be concerned about he cleanliness of the Duke program (figuratively speaking) if Neuheisal were to be hired. I end to believe that he has learned some lessons and I think that he would be watched very closely at Duke.

Having said that, I'm not sure he's the right hire for a program desiring a permanent improvement. I think he would recruit well. I think the offense would improve tremendously. However, I tend to believe that he would not stick around long after achieving any level of success at Duke. I don't want to be a downer, but I don't see Duke competing for a national title in the next 5-8 years. If Neuheisal got Duke to an astonishing 7-5 record, let's say, I think he takes off for an upper tier program and a bigger spotlight.

Maybe we're so desperate that 7-5 and (sort of) starting over would be good enough. Maybe the improvements made to reach 7-5 would be significant enough to make the hire. I'm getting a little off topic and getting way ahead of myself (Neuheisal is not a top candidate and Duke getting to 7-5 is a long ways), so I'll quit now.

HumboldtDevil
12-11-2007, 02:30 AM
I've always thought highly of RN as a coach and thought he got a raw deal. Yes, he has made mistakes, but to get fired for "gambling" in an NCAA Tournament pool is just silly. I don't care what NCAA rules there are regarding that type of "gambling", by this point we know that the NCAA has rules that make no sense at all and is more than willing to enforce them to prove how powerful it is. I probably wouldn't have passed through the NCAA Clearing House after high school if the NCAA had known that I helped organize an NCAA pool every March. Gasp! High school students "gambling"!

Not excusing RN, but saying that he is too good of a coach to not get another shot somewhere. Why not at Duke? And if you're worried about him not sticking around, stop worrying. Let's say RN comes to Duke and has some success, but decides to leave. How is that horrible? Duke has the worst power conference program around and people are worried about a guy coming in, winning, then leaving for a bigger job. How about realizing that Duke would have made huge strides by that point and actually won some games. By the time the next coaching search comes around you have a lot more interest in the job because coaches will see that you can, in fact, win some games with this program. I wouldn't worry about a coach leaving by choice after a few years at this point.

And even though RN certainly had an effect on what has happened since he left Colorado and Washington due to violations, there's no doubt that had he stayed at either place they would have been much better off. Washington hit bottom under Gilbertson and is still there for at least one more year with Willingham (the most respected .500 coach in sports history), Colorado is just coming back up now under Hawkins. Meanwhile, RN still has a 66-30 record as a high-level college head coach.

Give the guy a shot.

As far as Dorrell goes, he should've done better with UCLA. I can't say what kind of fit he would be at Duke, though. According to Scout and Rivals, Dorrell's classes were in and out of the Top 25, but they both have UCLA's current (and soon to shrink, I'm sure) class in the Top 10. Too little too late for Dorrell, though.

1Devil
12-11-2007, 07:01 AM
Duke should hire him and then they should hire Quinn Snyder to replace Coach K when he is retires. The NCAA rules are just guidelines that get in the way.

Quin. Not Quinn. Quin. Quin. Quin. Quin. Quin. Quin. Quin. Quin.

jimbonelson
12-11-2007, 07:37 AM
If you support Rick Neuheisel please sign the petition. I personally believe this is the guy for the job!


http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/HireRickNeuheiselatDuke/

please take him away from the ravens

DukeDevilsBB
12-11-2007, 08:14 AM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Neuheisel to Duke comes to fruition. I would be a lot more comfortable with . . .

"I was young. I made some mistakes, I learned from them, and I can absolutely guarantee you that nothing like that will ever happen on my watch at Duke" than . . .

"These were the kind of petty, generic violations that occur in every program and somebody in the NCAA was out to get me."


Jim,

I agree I would be more comfortable with that as well. From what I understand, Rick would be willing to have a contract structured in a way that would alleviate a lot of concerns about these type of situations.

formerdukeathlete
12-11-2007, 08:18 AM
As the Trustees must have believed in redemption in the case of DB, with his assurances that political correctness will never again get in the way of truth and decency, so should DB believe this may be possible in the case of Neuheisel. U Dub settled with Neuheisel either because they did not believe the allegations or because the allegations involved actions outside of his control.

According to Frank D, Joe Paterno called DB on his behalf. Now, what is the significance of this? Duke used to land good students who would have been the next kid offered at Penn State, who had met with Joe Pa. Joe Pa is Brown graduate - hey, so was Wallace Wade. The average SAT on the main campus at Penn State is about the same as Wake Forest. Joe Pa goes after some of the same kids Duke used to try to land (and landed in some cases) in PA, New Jersey, Ohio. It is quite nice that Joe Pa took the time out to call DB. Does this not mean that Duke Football is back on the map?

I say, if Neuheisel would take the job, we have to interview him and seriously consider him as a candidate.

killerleft
12-11-2007, 08:18 AM
OK, I signed the petition. Why not interview him? Check his story, re-check the facts, make a decision about that. If he passes the test, then decide whether he is the man for the job. What's the problem?

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 08:29 AM
If you support Rick Neuheisel please sign the petition. I personally believe this is the guy for the job!


Neuheisel's crime, by contrast, seems rather prosaic. He took part in an NCAA tournament betting pool the past two years, albeit an unusually high-stakes one, in which he won about $12,000. NCAA coaches are expressly forbidden to wager on college sports, and, ergo, Neuheisel was fired.

The real crime, though, is not that Neuheisel was fired. It's that he was fired in such a way as to preserve his reputation. Here is a man so richly deserving of a pink slip that his dismissal on such minor grounds leaves a sour taste. It's sort of like nabbing Al Capone for tax evasion. They got the right guy for the wrong reason.

In four years at Washington, he had one great season in 2000, going 11-1 and winning the Rose Bowl. The other three years, Washington went a combined 22-15, including a 7-6 record this past fall with a talent-laden squad whose players openly questioned each others' dedication.

The Gambler (http://www.slate.com/id/2084437/#); Rick Neuheisel got fired for the wrong reason.

NO, I do not want him...at all!

RepoMan
12-11-2007, 08:31 AM
I say, if Neuheisel would take the job, we have to interview him and seriously consider him as a candidate.

I agree 100%. Look, we are talking about a job perceived to to one of the toughest jobs in college football. If you want to shoot for something exceptional, you will have to look outside the box (or just be very lucky). A guy who was very successful at major programs, but made mistakes and is somewhat of an outcast is exactly who we should be considering. I don't know enough about the violations to assess the degree of concern, and, like Jim said, his explanation for those situations would be of critical importance. Maybe he's the right guy, maybe not, but I think it would be foolhardy not to seriously consider candidates such as this.

diablesseblu
12-11-2007, 08:34 AM
OK, I signed the petition. Why not interview him? Check his story, re-check the facts, make a decision about that. If he passes the test, then decide whether he is the man for the job. What's the problem?


Agree completely. I do not understand, given the recommendations from sterling, successful football people, why we wouldn't interview RN.

If we don't, Duke comes off with both the arrogant tag we get all the time and a "holier than thou" attitude.

It seems that some people want to ensure Duke football success...but only on a modest level. That's the sense I get from who they've interviewed so far (Johnson excepted). :confused:

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 08:36 AM
Yes, I want Duke to field a championship football team. I've been going to Wade since Johnson (Lyndon not Andrew) was president, so I've seen the long, slow decline at first hand. But I also am proud of the fact that Duke football has always been run under the highest ethical standards and I darn well want to make absolutely certain that it continues to be run under those standards. I trust that the people responsible for hiring Duke's next football coach share that sentiment.

He was 22-15 over his last few years, and it appears he was dropping off. That doesn't sound like a championship coach to me.

Zeb
12-11-2007, 08:36 AM
I think the CU and Washington communities know a lot more about RN than most of us, and when I have talked to alums of both those schools, they are happy that he is gone. That is not the kind of candidate I am excited about... someone who was disliked at his last two jobs.

There's plenty of reasons why this guy has not been given a third chance. I don't know why anyone thinks he is the anaswer for Duke. If he's our best hope, we don't really have a chance.

diablesseblu
12-11-2007, 08:41 AM
I think the CU and Washington communities know a lot more about RN than most of us, and when I have talked to alums of both those schools, they are happy that he is gone. That is not the kind of candidate I am excited about... someone who was disliked at his last two jobs.

There's plenty of reasons why this guy has not been given a third chance. I don't know why anyone thinks he is the anaswer for Duke. If he's our best hope, we don't really have a chance.


Interesting insights. I don't know enough about the man to judge. However, I see nothing to lose in hearing what RN has to say. The more people they listen to and consider, the more informed their final decision will be.

I am most concerned however about the rather low threshold for who appears to be in contention for the HC job.

Hopefully, there's stuff going on that's completely off the radar. I would actually prefer Hatcher or Clawson but ........

allenmurray
12-11-2007, 09:04 AM
If we don't, Duke comes off with both the arrogant tag we get all the time and a "holier than thou" attitude.

It seems that some people want to ensure Duke football success...but only on a modest level. That's the sense I get from who they've interviewed so far (Johnson excepted). :confused:

We're so bad we have to take a chance on someone with a less-than-good reputation. That iseems to be the general theme here and on local sports radio.

I think the simple answer to that is, "no we don't". As a football fan and season ticket holder who has only missed three games in five years I'm real clear on where I stand on this. You never have to willingly hire someone who has ethics and behavior you find questionable. You can if you choose to, and you may see short-term success more quickly, but you don't have to.

If people want to perceive us as arrogant because we choose not to interview a coach who has a history of NCAA violations let them hold their opinion.

It is not that we only want football success on a modest level, it is that we only want football success if it can be done in a respectable way.

Shammrog
12-11-2007, 09:07 AM
I'll sign the petition if Rick agrees to put Duke in the Final Four in his NCAA Tournament Bracket.


OK - I get it - AND THAT'S FUNNY AS HELL! :)

Indoor66
12-11-2007, 09:09 AM
We're so bad we have to take a chance on someone with a less-than-good reputation. That iseems to be the general theme here and on local sports radio.

I think the simple answer to that is, "no we don't". As a football fan and season ticket holder who has only missed three games in five years I'm real clear on where I stand on this. You never have to willingly hire someone who has ethics and behavior you find questionable. You can if you choose to, and you may see short-term success more quickly, but you don't have to.

If people want to perceive us as arrogant because we choose not to interview a coach who has a history of NCAA violations let them hold their opinion.

It is not that we only want football success on a modest level, it is that we only want football success if it can be done in a respectable way.

I agree Allen. Duke cannot sacrifice integrity in the name of winning. We have not done that in the past and should not now. I am always proud of the fact that the Duke way is by following the rules, all the rules.

Devil in the Blue Dress
12-11-2007, 09:15 AM
We're so bad we have to take a chance on someone with a less-than-good reputation. That iseems to be the general theme here and on local sports radio.

I think the simple answer to that is, "no we don't". As a football fan and season ticket holder who has only missed three games in five years I'm real clear on where I stand on this. You never have to willingly hire someone who has ethics and behavior you find questionable. You can if you choose to, and you may see short-term success more quickly, but you don't have to.

If people want to perceive us as arrogant because we choose not to interview a coach who has a history of NCAA violations let them hold their opinion.

It is not that we only want football success on a modest level, it is that we only want football success if it can be done in a respectable way.

Well said indeed! It's time that the expectation of excellence is applied to our football program. Clean programs are expected at Duke. We should look for nothing less.

I, too, am a season ticket holder and have made a point of supporting the football program by my presence in Wallace Wade for 30 years. The football players we recruit deserve the same high level of coaching we try to provide in other sports.

killerleft
12-11-2007, 09:19 AM
I don't see what Duke has to lose by talking to him.

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 09:23 AM
I don't see what Duke has to lose by talking to him.

I don't see what they have to gain?

formerdukeathlete
12-11-2007, 09:23 AM
I agree Allen. Duke cannot sacrifice integrity in the name of winning. We have not done that in the past and should not now. I am always proud of the fact that the Duke way is by following the rules, all the rules.

Many of us do not know Neuheisel from adam. At U Dub he was fired for participating in a NCAA bb bracket, and whatever else was going on behind the scenes. And, a compliance person had told him it was ok to participate in the bracket.

However, Joe Paterno does know this guy. I would submit that Joe Pa is an honest person of good judgment. He is also generous, agreeing to work for 500k a year. So, what would have prompted him to make the call to DB? I submit it is because he believes in Neuheisel.

with our NCAA compliance staff, and tight reins on the athletic department, we have little to lose with a Neuheisel hire. Neuheisel has something unique to sell this go around. He has instant street cred. We have little to lose and a lot potentially to gain. He is an OC in the NFL. He is still young. He can coach. Our current players will listen to this guy, be in awe, no more "family" this and that. Just work hard in the classroom, succeed on the field, maybe make it to the NFL (guess what kids, I, "RN," will help you get there if anyone can) and then succeed in the game of life.

Nothing in our hiring him suggests that we plan on breaking rules. In fact the unlikelihood that he would break rules at Duke makes Duke a potentially perfect place for him to become a head coach again.

Interview the guy. What would K say? I think he would say interivew the guy.

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 09:28 AM
Well said indeed! It's time that the expectation of excellence is applied to our football program. Clean programs are expected at Duke. We should look for nothing less.

I, too, am a season ticket holder and have made a point of supporting the football program by my presence in Wallace Wade for 30 years. The football players we recruit deserve the same high level of coaching we try to provide in other sports.

yes it was...

In a different thread an article was posted by David Glenn. Although I question his accuracy I found this quote interesting:


Duke made an excellent presentation and left no doubt they are committed to restoring Duke football to national prominence," Jack Reale, (http://www.wral.com/sports/blogpost/2153055/) Johnson's agent, said Sunday. "They made clear their willingness to allocate whatever resources are necessary to accomplish this objective. The next coach will be coming into a very attractive circumstance.

diablesseblu
12-11-2007, 09:51 AM
Have been attending games at WW since the late 50s. I in no way want Duke to compromise the standard of excellence and integrity that we all are proud of.

That being said, given the recommendations of people like Joe Pa, I see no downside in at least talking to RN. Maybe the members of the committee might at least learn something that would help them in their search.

Have interviewed tens of thousands of candidates for competitive positions over the years. I always learned something from each one...even the ones I knew we would not be hiring. Quite often, they had done the most "homework" and offered insights & suggestions that we later considered.

I simply don't "get" why if we are (understandably) reaching out to groups like the BCA, we wouldn't extend at least a courtesy interview to RN given who has called on his behalf.

killerleft
12-11-2007, 10:03 AM
I don't see what they have to gain?

Possibly a very good football coach? There seems to be conflicting info regarding his "evilness".

Anybody remember Pressler? Not the same situation by any means, but it does show how coaches can be fired for things beyond their control, or because of dubious reasons.

Olympic Fan
12-11-2007, 10:08 AM
I do not know Jim Sumner, but based on the opinions and insights he has posted on this this board I respect him tremendously. Jim, you wrong about this one. Your argument is essentially a moral one: Neuheisel did bad ergo he is bad. If there ever was a situation in need of redemption--as is Neuheisel himself--it is Duke football. Neuheisel should be chastened by now, His "sin' was that he irritated Barbara Hedges with his cutesy around the margins response to whether or not he placed bets in a basketball pool. Clearly this kind of behavior will not fly at Duke, nor should it. But I emphatically repeat, this should not disqualify him from consideration. The infractions were, in fact, fairly minor and he was completely exonerated of any gambling infractions.


This is so much BS that it makes me want to hurl.

I definitely favor giving people second chances. But the accumulation of Neuheisal's transgressions has him on his umpteenth chance so far.

Start with the 51 violations at Colorado. Yes, many of them were minor -- some were not. But the total accumulation of violations is a concern and did earn Colorado two years of probation.

If that was it, I could see giving him a second chance.

Did Neuheisal learn from his mistakes and admit his errors?

Well, no, as soon as he arrived at Washington, he was caught making illegal contacts with recruits during a dead period. Not only that, he contacted several players who had committed to him at Colorado and tried to lure them to Washington instead -- not in itself an NCAA violation (except the contacts occurred during a dead period), but a breach of coaching ethics.

The University of Washington admitted the violations and imposed its own recruiting sanctions of Neuheisal, reducing his allowed off-campus visits from 29 to 9. Neuheisal later brags about how he "creatively" got around the penalty (his favorite trick was to drive past a player's house, use his cell phone to call the kid out and have a "bump")

On Jan. 9, 2003, Neuheisal is officially censured by the American Football Coaches Association for "lack of remorse" for his documented recruiting violations (so much from learning from your mistakes). Neuheisal brags again that when it comes to the rules, he's not a cheater, hut "creative".

A month later (just after signing day), Neuheisal is linked in print to the San Francisco 49ers coaching job. Neuheisal flat out lies to the media, denying any contact and any interest in the job. It turns out that he was lying ... which is not any kind of violation, but it's also reported (but not confirmed) that Neuheisal lied to his bosses at UW. The University President gives a weird interview where he refuses to address the question and also refuses to discuss whether the university considered firing him over the incident.

It's two months later when the NCAA betting pool story explodes. While it is a clear NCAA violation, Neuheisal's defense is that he got permission from the school's compliance officer to participate (although the school's compliance officer does not have the right to give that permission).

He's where it gets hairy. This fact is not in dispute: When first confronted by an NCAA investigator, Neuheisal lied about his participation in the pool. It's not clear whether he initially lied to Washington officials or not -- but eight days after lying to the NCAA, Neuheisal was suspended and given termination notice at Washington.

Later, he sued the university of Washington for wrongful termination. The lawsuit was settled ... he did NOT win the lawsuit and he was NOT exonerated.

Seriously, the level of denial about this guy's long track record of dishonesty reminds me of Carolina fans who keep trying to convince themselves that Larry Brown never cheated and it wasn't his fault that he got UCLA and Kansas both put on probation.

And for what? Neuheisal inherited a Colorado program that was at the top after Bill McCartney's tenure ... after back-to-back 10-2 records with McCartney's players, he went 5-6 and 8-4 the next two years. At Washington, he inherited a program that had dominated the Pac 10 most of the 90s and had one great season -- an 11-1 Rose Bowl year. His other three years were 22-15 -- finishing with a 7-6 mark in his last two seasons.

Both times he's been a head coach he lied and cheated. Both programs he headed were worse off at the end of his tenure than when he took over.

To quote Jonathan Chait of Slate Magazine:

"The real crime, though, is not that Neuheisel was fired. It's that he was
fired in such a way as to preserve his reputation. Here is a man so richly
deserving of a pink slip that his dismissal on such minor grounds leaves a
sour taste. It's sort of like nabbing Al Capone for tax evasion. They got
the right guy for the wrong reason."

There's a reason his alma mater, UCLA, refuses to consider this guy. There's a reason Georgia Tech refused to interview him.

I pray that Duke has the same good sense.

SoCalDukeFan
12-11-2007, 10:20 AM
This is so much BS that it makes me want to hurl.

I definitely favor giving people second chances. But the accumulation of Neuheisal's transgressions has him on his umpteenth chance so far.

Start with the 51 violations at Colorado. Yes, many of them were minor -- some were not. But the total accumulation of violations is a concern and did earn Colorado two years of probation.

If that was it, I could see giving him a second chance.

Did Neuheisal learn from his mistakes and admit his errors?

Well, no, as soon as he arrived at Washington, he was caught making illegal contacts with recruits during a dead period. Not only that, he contacted several players who had committed to him at Colorado and tried to lure them to Washington instead -- not in itself an NCAA violation (except the contacts occurred during a dead period), but a breach of coaching ethics.

The University of Washington admitted the violations and imposed its own recruiting sanctions of Neuheisal, reducing his allowed off-campus visits from 29 to 9. Neuheisal later brags about how he "creatively" got around the penalty (his favorite trick was to drive past a player's house, use his cell phone to call the kid out and have a "bump")

On Jan. 9, 2003, Neuheisal is officially censured by the American Football Coaches Association for "lack of remorse" for his documented recruiting violations (so much from learning from your mistakes). Neuheisal brags again that when it comes to the rules, he's not a cheater, hut "creative".

A month later (just after signing day), Neuheisal is linked in print to the San Francisco 49ers coaching job. Neuheisal flat out lies to the media, denying any contact and any interest in the job. It turns out that he was lying ... which is not any kind of violation, but it's also reported (but not confirmed) that Neuheisal lied to his bosses at UW. The University President gives a weird interview where he refuses to address the question and also refuses to discuss whether the university considered firing him over the incident.

It's two months later when the NCAA betting pool story explodes. While it is a clear NCAA violation, Neuheisal's defense is that he got permission from the school's compliance officer to participate (although the school's compliance officer does not have the right to give that permission).

He's where it gets hairy. This fact is not in dispute: When first confronted by an NCAA investigator, Neuheisal lied about his participation in the pool. It's not clear whether he initially lied to Washington officials or not -- but eight days after lying to the NCAA, Neuheisal was suspended and given termination notice at Washington.

Later, he sued the university of Washington for wrongful termination. The lawsuit was settled ... he did NOT win the lawsuit and he was NOT exonerated.

Seriously, the level of denial about this guy's long track record of dishonesty reminds me of Carolina fans who keep trying to convince themselves that Larry Brown never cheated and it wasn't his fault that he got UCLA and Kansas both put on probation.

And for what? Neuheisal inherited a Colorado program that was at the top after Bill McCartney's tenure ... after back-to-back 10-2 records with McCartney's players, he went 5-6 and 8-4 the next two years. At Washington, he inherited a program that had dominated the Pac 10 most of the 90s and had one great season -- an 11-1 Rose Bowl year. His other three years were 22-15 -- finishing with a 7-6 mark in his last two seasons.

Both times he's been a head coach he lied and cheated. Both programs he headed were worse off at the end of his tenure than when he took over.

To quote Jonathan Chait of Slate Magazine:

"The real crime, though, is not that Neuheisel was fired. It's that he was
fired in such a way as to preserve his reputation. Here is a man so richly
deserving of a pink slip that his dismissal on such minor grounds leaves a
sour taste. It's sort of like nabbing Al Capone for tax evasion. They got
the right guy for the wrong reason."

There's a reason his alma mater, UCLA, refuses to consider this guy. There's a reason Georgia Tech refused to interview him.

I pray that Duke has the same good sense.

First of all Neuheisal appears to be interested in the Duke job. I am not sure if Duke is interested in him.

Secondly, when Washington hired Neuheisal they were getting a coach with baggage. He promised to be honest. He then lied. How could Duke trust him?

As for as giving him a second or third chance, look he is an offensive coordinator in the NFL. Not a bad gig.

I really doubt if JA wants to hire a guy that he will have to watch like a hawk.

SoCal

formerdukeathlete
12-11-2007, 10:54 AM
Secondly, when Washington hired Neuheisal they were getting a coach with baggage. He promised to be honest. He then lied. How could Duke trust him?

I really doubt if JA wants to hire a guy that he will have to watch like a hawk.

SoCal


about participating in a NCAA b ball bracket which apparently a compliance advisor at the athletic department had ok-ed in advance?

and, watching Neuheisel like a hawk? come on. We have compliance people who track, audit recruiting practices, itineraries, expenses.

Folks on the board have their opinions, preferences, however, I see little harm in interviewing this man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Neuheisel

I suggest read more about him.

This guy went to UCLA as an out-of-state studen from Arizona, without an athletic scholarship. So, he got in, he had high SATs, and while at UCLA, notwithstanding working his way to a starting position as QB his senior year, he earned a 3.4 GPA before grade inflation.

So, he would have been the kind of guy Duke would have liked to attend our University and play Football. Smart, hard-working.

He did it, he has to value it.

Interview the guy. I say hire the guy.

Duvall
12-11-2007, 11:13 AM
This is baffling. When did Rick Neuheisel become Amos Alonzo Stagg?

The guy was mediocre at best at his last two stops. Why would we take a chance on seeing if he's cleaned up his act when he wasn't that great a coach to begin with?

Cavlaw
12-11-2007, 11:20 AM
His "creative" recruiting tactics sound a lot like the ones Billy Donovan caught so much heat for on these boards a few years back.

DukeDevilsBB
12-11-2007, 11:26 AM
I don't see what they have to gain?

Bluedawg - since you seem to have all of the answers who do you think duke should hire?

Olympic Fan
12-11-2007, 11:31 AM
about participating in a NCAA b ball bracket which apparently a compliance advisor at the athletic department had ok-ed in advance?


So that's all he did wrong at Washington?

You kind of skipped over the recruiting violations he committed at Washington, didn't you? You kind of missed the sanctions that the school had to self-impose after he cheated. You kind of missed the official repriment from the American Football Coaches association. You kind of missed the fact that he lied to an NCAA investigator about betting $1500 on an NCAA pool.

Neuheisal leaves a track record of dishonesty that is far more impressive than his record as a coach who sent two superb programs into decline.

I'm as bummed as anyone that we seem to be focusing on nonenities such as Bobby Johnson and Karl Dorrel. But better either of them than a chronic liar and a cheat.

juise
12-11-2007, 11:59 AM
Neuheisal leaves a track record of dishonesty that is far more impressive than his record as a coach who sent two superb programs into decline.

Again, I'm not going to campaign for Neuheisal, but I can tell you that he did not send Washington into decline. Gilbertson was (to put in nicely) both a subpar recruiter and a subpar game coach. Those were very frustrating times for UDub fans.

Zeb
12-11-2007, 11:59 AM
To folks saying we absolutely owe this guy an interview, and to the even crazier who say we should flat out hire him: have you ever hired someone for a job?

In what world would you agree to interview a candidate who was fired from his previous job for dishonesty? Who failed to comply with regulations at his previous two jobs? Whose prior employers would not recommend him? Who sued his previous employer? This is someone you're excited about interviewing?

Only in athletics does this kind of track record get glossed over instead of ending a career. Between the leeway we give athletes and the leeway we give coaches, the world of sports is just screwed up. Just because other institutions gamble on their athletic programs, doesn't mean Duke should. And that is not holier than thou... I'm arguing from strict common sense. How many third chance hires actually work out?

I'd be much more comfortable finding a candidate with less experience but a better track record of judgment and character.

SoCalDukeFan
12-11-2007, 12:05 PM
about participating in a NCAA b ball bracket which apparently a compliance advisor at the athletic department had ok-ed in advance?


He also lied to the Washington AD about interviewing with the NFL.

The point is that Neuheisal promised the Washington AD that he would be honest with her. She was taking a risk with him, and he knew that. He lied anyway and betrayed that trust. JA would be taking a risk with him. Why?

Why did he lie about the basketball pool? He had been told that it was okay but the compliance person.

I understand that the NCAA rules are complex and that you need people to check for compliance, etc. Some of that must depend on the honesty of the coaches. I just find this guy to be untrustworthy.

SoCal

DukeDevilsBB
12-11-2007, 12:19 PM
In what world would you agree to interview a candidate who was fired from his previous job for dishonesty? Who failed to comply with regulations at his previous two jobs? Whose prior employers would not recommend him? Who sued his previous employer? This is someone you're excited about interviewing?


That statement is completely false. If asked they have already said that they would highly recommend him.

and as far as suing his previous employer....He was WRONGFULLY terminated, you would probably do the same....He won the law suit by the way. ;)

RepoMan
12-11-2007, 12:31 PM
To folks saying we absolutely owe this guy an interview, and to the even crazier who say we should flat out hire him: have you ever hired someone for a job?


I don't think people are saying we "owe" him an interview--obviosuly we don't. However, it is delusional to think that the head football coach at Duke is a plum job. Sure, we can hire a no-name up and comer or a lower tier veteran. Maybe that would turn out great. The point, though, is that, given position that the school is seeking to fill, many think that it would be prudent to cast a wide net and to consider candidates who, at first glance, might seem unappealing. Sure, such a hire could be high risk, but it could also be high reward. And it can't hurt to talk to people. See what the guy has to say for himself. See what his references say. If you can get former empoyers to speak, check with them. I, for one, hope the school looks everywhere. We are at a critical point.

blazindw
12-11-2007, 12:32 PM
To folks saying we absolutely owe this guy an interview, and to the even crazier who say we should flat out hire him: have you ever hired someone for a job?

In what world would you agree to interview a candidate who was fired from his previous job for dishonesty? Who failed to comply with regulations at his previous two jobs? Whose prior employers would not recommend him? Who sued his previous employer? This is someone you're excited about interviewing?

Only in athletics does this kind of track record get glossed over instead of ending a career. Between the leeway we give athletes and the leeway we give coaches, the world of sports is just screwed up. Just because other institutions gamble on their athletic programs, doesn't mean Duke should. And that is not holier than thou... I'm arguing from strict common sense. How many third chance hires actually work out?

I'd be much more comfortable finding a candidate with less experience but a better track record of judgment and character.

I've never had to hire anyone, but having been on hundreds of interviews (that's what happens when you don't get a job immediately), I know what goes into hiring someone. You look at everyone's resume. The best resumes you set up interviews with to get to know the person. Sometimes, you dig deep to find out why they did bad in this class, why they got arrested, why they lied about betting on an NCAA tourney pool, etc. The point is, we are in the position to get the best coach we possibly can. If we don't consider EVERYONE, we may not find that person. We all have our doubts about certain "candidates" and we all have our favorites, but I feel we are nowhere near the position of being uber-selective in our process. I don't necessarily know if I would like to see RN as a Duke coach, but what I do know is that he should at least get an interview. A guy with a record of success that is on par and even better than most of the other names that have been thrown out so far, and he wants to come here! You at least have to interview the guy. Sure, I expect the committee to get down to the specifics of what went down at Colorado and Washington. I expect RN to have to provide excellent answers to challenging questions. And, if in the end, they cannot get past that, then don't hire him. But, you will never know how he's changed until you at least meet with the guy. Give him a chance to prove himself, to wow the committee. If RN didn't have the baggage following him that he did, we would be lucky to have him. I understand that some people here don't want that baggage here, but I think that the committee should let RN defend himself and prove to us why this time around it will be different.

As in the Adidas commercials, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. I think Duke needs to take that shot and invite him in for an interview. If you miss, oh well, there are plenty more shots in us. But, if he has improved, if they feel he has shed that negative image, then we may have a chance for a slam dunk.

I'll put it to you like this: upwards of 18,000 high school seniors across the nation send their applications to Duke because they want to be here. Does Duke only interview those who don't want to come, or just a select few? No, they interview EVERYONE. Why? If you didn't, you'd never know the whole story about a person. Now, if Duke can interview 18,000 students to fill the next incoming class of Blue Devils, you mean they can't interview one or 2 more guys who have expressed interest in coming here to help resurrect our football image? I say it's worth it. Give them a chance to be heard, at the very least.


P.S. This same sentiment goes for Terry Bowden as well.

blazindw
12-11-2007, 12:33 PM
I don't think people are saying we "owe" him an interview--obviosuly we don't. However, it is delusional to think that the head football coach at Duke is a plum job. Sure, we can hire a no-name up and comer or a lower tier veteran. Maybe that would turn out great. The point, though, is that, given position that the school is seeking to fill, many think that it would be prudent to cast a wide net and to consider candidates who, at first glance, might seem unappealing. Sure, such a hire could be high risk, but it could also be high reward. And it can't hurt to talk to people. See what the guy has to say for himself. See what his references say. If you can get former empoyers to speak, check with them. I, for one, hope the school looks everywhere. We are at a critical point.

Quicker to the draw than I, but essentially the same message. I agree 100%

MulletMan
12-11-2007, 12:36 PM
I know this is a sticky issue, but for those of you saying that seem so intent on supporting Ricky, I was wondering if you could provide some actual evidence for all these "pro"-arguements... you know, like Paterno reccomending him, and the former UW AD reccomending him after that same AD terminated him for LYING.

You know... I'm just saying.

Oh, and by the way, if he were a college coach out on the recruiting trail, do you really think he'd be bragging about the potent Ravens offense? Or maybe he could brag about the great job that he's done turing Boller into a franchise QB. Oh wait...

Zeb
12-11-2007, 12:49 PM
That statement is completely false. If asked they have already said that they would highly recommend him.

and as far as suing his previous employer....He was WRONGFULLY terminated, you would probably do the same....He won the law suit by the way. ;)

Who is "they"? University adminstrators? If so, care to provide links to back this up? The CU community was very disappointed with how RN handled his departure. He left the cupboard bare and and a lot of angry fans. Who from CU is on record saying they would hire him again?

I think the UW experience speaks for itself... he was FIRED. You're saying UW administrators would give RN a glowing recommendation?

As for the lawsuit... RN did not win that case. The lawsuit was settled. And if you're saying that as a prospective employer the way Rick handled himself at UW was in line with what you'd expect of a head coach, you obviously have different criteria for a head coach than I do.

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 12:55 PM
Possibly a very good football coach? There seems to be conflicting info regarding his "evilness".

52 NCAA Violations. Do you really want to go there? What happened to all of the talk about excellence, standards, academic pride?

OldPhiKap
12-11-2007, 12:57 PM
I understand the emotion and good faith of both sides of this issue. But, with all due respect, Duke is not in a position to say that it refuses to even talk to the guy. Otherwise, given a lot of what I'm reading, we should have just stuck with Roof.

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 01:05 PM
I understand the emotion and good faith of both sides of this issue. But, with all due respect, Duke is not in a position to say that it refuses to even talk to the guy. Otherwise, given a lot of what I'm reading, we should have just stuck with Roof.

Yes they are...as is any institution of integrity.

Zeb
12-11-2007, 01:14 PM
I understand the emotion and good faith of both sides of this issue. But, with all due respect, Duke is not in a position to say that it refuses to even talk to the guy. Otherwise, given a lot of what I'm reading, we should have just stuck with Roof.

If Neuhesiel is the best we can do, I absolutely agree we should have stuck with Roof. We shouldn't interview candidates we are unwilling to hire.

Duke is in a very tough spot. We need someone extraordinary to take a high risk job. This does not mean we have to consider a candidate who has demonstrated poor character and judgment when given the reins of two other Div 1 programs.

I'd rather take a gamble on an unproven assistant with promise than gamble on coaches who have proven problematic to their prior employers.

Stray Gator
12-11-2007, 01:16 PM
I understand the emotion and good faith of both sides of this issue. But, with all due respect, Duke is not in a position to say that it refuses to even talk to the guy. Otherwise, given a lot of what I'm reading, we should have just stuck with Roof.

I disagree 100%. There are candidates out there who have demonstrated the ability to produce winning teams who do not have a track record of recruiting violations that resulted in sanctions, lying to the media and their own administrators, and being terminated (or allowed to "resign") due to misconduct. IMO, merely interviewing someone with that kind of record, who has repeatedly demonstrated utter disdain for the rules and for truthfulness, would be damaging to Duke's integrity and would undermine the school's reputation for its commitment to maintaining high standards in the operation of its athletic programs.

As a Duke alumnus, an Iron Duke, and a season-ticket holder for both football and basketball, I dearly want to see the Blue Devils win on the field; but there's a limit to how much I think the University should sacrifice in order to achieve that success. A reasonable relaxation of admissions standards in line with peer institutions is, IMO, an acceptable accommodation; but a relaxation of our standards for integrity and honesty in the people who lead our student-athletes and who represent our school would, IMO, be far more shameful than a losing record on the field.

RepoMan
12-11-2007, 01:18 PM
Yes they are...as is any institution of integrity.

I never understand how people see things so black and white. What do you know about each violation? What do you know about the circumstances? What do you know about the relationship between those violations and whatever happened at Washington? What do you know about the people at Washington who felt he lied to them? Were you present? Have you heard what the coach has to say? Is he contrite? Does he seem to have learned anything? What do people who have worked with him say about him? Not just the president of the school, what about others? How does he treat people? If he has a flaw, what precisely is its nature? Etc. Etc. I have interviewed 100s of people for jobs. Sometimes, you learn about something that makes you question a candidate. A bad reference. Maybe a terrible one. So, you dig. You learn more. Maybe you become convinced this is a bad candidate. Maybe you come to believe that the context surround the negative report is relevant. Maybe you are trying to fill a tough spot, so you are will to take more risk. Maybe not.

But to imply, based solely on publicly available resources, that "an institution of intergrity" should not even consider this guy, nothwithstanding the difficulties it has faced filling this job over the last 20 years, is, well, amazing to me.

It must be nice to be so certain of things.

OldPhiKap
12-11-2007, 01:19 PM
So . . . I'm assuming that none of you would have interviewed Bobby Knight if K had gone to the Celtics in the 90's?

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 01:20 PM
A reasonable relaxation of admissions standards in line with peer institutions is, IMO, an acceptable accommodation; but a relaxation of our standards for integrity and honesty in the people who lead our student-athletes and who represent our school would, IMO, be far more shameful than a losing record on the field.


Very well put and I'm in 110% agreement

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 01:21 PM
I never understand how people see things so black and white. What do you know about each violation? What do you know about the circumstances? What do you know about the relationship between those violations and whatever happened at Washington? What do you know about the people at Washington who felt he lied to them? Were you present? Have you heard what the coach has to say? Is he contrite? Does he seem to have learned anything? What do people who have worked with him say about him? Not just the president of the school, what about others? How does he treat people? If he has a flaw, what precisely is its nature? Etc. Etc. I have interviewed 100s of people for jobs. Sometimes, you learn about something that makes you question a candidate. A bad reference. Maybe a terrible one. So, you dig. You learn more. Maybe you become convinced this is a bad candidate. Maybe you come to believe that the context surround the negative report is relevant. Maybe you are trying to fill a tough spot, so you are will to take more risk. Maybe not.

But to imply, based solely on publicly available resources, that "an institution of intergrity" should not even consider this guy, nothwithstanding the difficulties it has faced filling this job over the last 20 years, is, well, amazing to me.

It must be nice to be so certain of things.

It is, but please pay attention to what i said...

OldPhiKap said:


I understand the emotion and good faith of both sides of this issue. But, with all due respect, Duke is not in a position to say that it refuses to even talk to the guy.

And I responded...


Yes they are...as is any institution of integrity.

yes they are what...? "in a position to say that it refuses to even talk to the guy" They are under no obligation to talk to anyone...no matter how bad the team they can still hold out standards.

I never sad, as you claim, that they "should not even consider this guy" i said they are in a position not to...that they have the right not to if it is their desire.

Duvall
12-11-2007, 01:22 PM
I'd rather take a gamble on an unproven assistant with promise than gamble on coaches who have proven problematic to their prior employers.

I doubt we have to go that far. I'm sure there are plenty of coaches that have proven themselves at the FCS level that would be willing to take on this challenge for a shot at the big leagues.

Defenserules
12-11-2007, 01:42 PM
Reading this board makes me feel like I'm re-living the Duke Lacrosse debacle all over again. People are basically posting what amounts to half truths or allegations and are taking them as fact. One poster even said that Rick N. had not won his case against UW. That might be technically true, but neither did the Lacrosse guys ever get proven innocent in a court of law. Cases are dropped, charges are dropped. From my understanding UW settled because Rick N. had pretty clear evidence that he had in fact informed them that he was talking to the 49ers and that a compliance officer had approved his participation in a NCAA tournament bracket. As an attorney I can say that you don't drop cases during discovery unless you find that the documents produced have killed the case for your client.

Regardless, I think this board should at least concede that allegations can be false, that any link to a news story should be highly questionable, and that Duke of all places owes people that have been accused of things that were never proven, the opportunity to explain why they deserve a second chance.

I think Rick N. would be a great candidate for Duke’s next head coach. I think he is better than any individual we have interviewed thus far. There are other good candidates no doubt, but please let's stop talking about dirty coaches and Duke's integrity being such that Rick N should not even be considered. In my estimation, I think Alleva could use hiring Rick N as an object lesson from Duke's recent past his presser could go like this: “We've made mistakes as an Athletic Department in the past, we as a University have accepted allegations as truth in the past, and we were wrong, and to show that we have learned our lesson we are taking a chance on a young man that rightly or wrongly believes that he can be redeemed by his actions here as a coach a Duke University. Hopefully, through this action the AD and the University community as a whole can be redeemed as well.” If any university administration in the nation right now needs to believe in the power of redemption it is the Duke Athletic Department and the office of the President.

Duvall
12-11-2007, 01:48 PM
Apparently, athletics is the pursuit of culture war by other means.

In any event, if Olympic Fan's claim (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=72481&postcount=62) that Neuheisel lied to an NCAA investigator is true, then why are we even having this conversation? That has to be a dealbreaker.

throatybeard
12-11-2007, 01:49 PM
This guy went to UCLA as an out-of-state studen from Arizona, without an athletic scholarship. So, he got in, he had high SATs, and while at UCLA, notwithstanding working his way to a starting position as QB his senior year, he earned a 3.4 GPA before grade inflation....Interview the guy. I say hire the guy.


The score a football coach made on a standardized test people take at age 17 is about the last qualification that should be even remotely relevant.

Stray Gator
12-11-2007, 01:50 PM
So . . . I'm assuming that none of you would have interviewed Bobby Knight if K had gone to the Celtics in the 90's?

How many times has Bob Knight been cited for NCAA infractions that resulted in sanctions against a school's program, or been caught in a public lie? For all the controversy surrounding Knight because of his personality and his lack of "diplomacy" in dealing with certain people, I don't believe anyone ever questioned his integrity, or disputed that he has adhered strictly to the rules and has been completely honest (sometimes abrasively so). I might not have favored interviewing him for the head coaching position at Duke, but not for the reasons that I oppose interviewing Neuheisel.

OldPhiKap
12-11-2007, 02:22 PM
How many times has Bob Knight been cited for NCAA infractions that resulted in sanctions against a school's program, or been caught in a public lie? For all the controversy surrounding Knight because of his personality and his lack of "diplomacy" in dealing with certain people, I don't believe anyone ever questioned his integrity, or disputed that he has adhered strictly to the rules and has been completely honest (sometimes abrasively so). I might not have favored interviewing him for the head coaching position at Duke, but not for the reasons that I oppose interviewing Neuheisel.

I think you can ask the kid he choked about that. Oh wait, it didn't happen because Knight said it didn't.

I'm not saying we have to hire Neuheisel. I'm saying we should hear what he has to say, and see if he has learned his lesson. Some people seem to assume that, if he comes as a coach, the university will lose all institutional control over the program and he will run wild. The AD's job is to prevent that, IF they believe that he is capable of running the program cleanly.

rockymtn devil
12-11-2007, 02:31 PM
If you want the petition to be taken seriously--as if that's even a possibility--you may want to remove Chuck Norris, Jack Meoff, and Ted Roof from the list of signatories.

As has been stated, RN has a lot of baggage. Further, even if he has learned his lesson, what has this guy done to merit another HC position? He was okay at Colorado when the Buffs had just recently won a national title. He took over a team that should've won more titles, or at least competed. They didn't. Neuheisel is an after thought here in Colorado, and there's a reason for it.

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 02:56 PM
I think you can ask the kid he choked about that. Oh wait, it didn't happen because Knight said it didn't.

I'm not saying we have to hire Neuheisel. I'm saying we should hear what he has to say, and see if he has learned his lesson. Some people seem to assume that, if he comes as a coach, the university will lose all institutional control over the program and he will run wild. The AD's job is to prevent that, IF they believe that he is capable of running the program cleanly.

Published reports say that they have spoken by phone....that shoud be good enough to meet your standard.


In a telephone conversation Monday, I asked Neuheisel if he had told Alleva by phone last week, "I want the [Duke] job, and I will make you proud," and the coach said "yes."
Hearald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com/sports/18-906285.cfm)

formerdukeathlete
12-11-2007, 03:02 PM
A reasonable relaxation of admissions standards in line with peer institutions is, IMO, an acceptable accommodation

Talk with Kennedy about your suggestion. Admissions standards for Football have been reduced to the point of being lower than the service academies, Stanford, Rice and maybe Northwestern. They are at the point now where to lower any further would admit students who would have difficulty doing the work at Duke, and even more likely, would not enjoy their college experience even if they were able to scrape by. Who else are our peers, Wake, UVa, UNC, Ga Tech, which admit the NCAA minimum? It is not necessary. I assure you this is not necessary. And, I have some fairly direct experience with who Duke has offered, even this year, from my high school, and Duke is not requiring a very high threshold, I would submit, to say the least.

This man has Joe Pa's support. He is an excellent coach, as well as a bright man. The question is, has he redeemed himself enough for a chance to coach at Duke? Perhaps, and the least we could do is interview.

OldPhiKap
12-11-2007, 03:10 PM
This man has Joe Pa's support. He is an excellent coach, as well as a bright man. The question is, has he redeemed himself enough for a chance to coach at Duke? Perhaps, and the least we could do is interview.

You have said it much better than I. Agree 100%.



Re: Bluedawg: "Published reports say that they have spoken by phone....that shoud be good enough to meet your standard."

Were all of the folks on the steering committee on the line, or was it just Alleva? That would make a big difference on whether we agree on that point or not. If the whole group talked to him at length by phone, I would feel that he had a chance to fully present his case. If it was a few minutes on the line with Alleva being the breakwall -- no.

DukeDevilsBB
12-11-2007, 03:32 PM
Published reports say that they have spoken by phone....that shoud be good enough to meet your standard.

Like I asked before Bluedawg- Who do you think Duke should hire? you seem to be the one that has all the answers.

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 03:32 PM
You have said it much better than I. Agree 100%.



Re: Bluedawg: "Published reports say that they have spoken by phone....that shoud be good enough to meet your standard."

Were all of the folks on the steering committee on the line, or was it just Alleva? That would make a big difference on whether we agree on that point or not. If the whole group talked to him at length by phone, I would feel that he had a chance to fully present his case. If it was a few minutes on the line with Alleva being the breakwall -- no.

The poster i responded to said that he should have a chance to explain himself. Just talking with Joe would do that.

Bluedawg
12-11-2007, 03:33 PM
I am opposed to Rick Neuheisel getting the job, but for the record, as a fan, I would support the coach... I may not be happy with the choice...but I'd support him.

DukeDevilsBB
12-11-2007, 03:34 PM
The poster i responded to said that he should have a chance to explain himself. Just talking with Joe would do that.

LOL....Alleva surely has proven his competence over the course of his tenure hasn't he? That's the last person I would want to make that decision on his own.

Olympic Fan
12-11-2007, 03:54 PM
Apparently, athletics is the pursuit of culture war by other means.

In any event, if Olympic Fan's claim (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=72481&postcount=62) that Neuheisel lied to an NCAA investigator is true, then why are we even having this conversation? That has to be a dealbreaker.

Audio tapes, released under Washington's freedom of information act, prove that Neuheisel "lied numerous times" to NCAA investigators on June 4, 2003:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskies/136045_uw20.html

The Washington AD testified under oath that Neuheisal not only lied to the NCAA about his gambling, but he also lied to university officials about his contacts with the San Francisco 49ers:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1982599

You guys want to hire:

(1) a guy that has committed NCAA recruiting violations at both of his schools

(2) a guy who has lied to an NCAA investigator

(3) a guy who has lied to his own school

And even if you throw that stuff out, this guy is Larry Coker with a guitar -- his record looks good until you examine it closely and see that he weakened both programs.

He inherited a Colorado program that was 11-1 and No. 3 in the nation the year before he got there. He went 10-2, 10-2 his first two years ...then 5-6 his third year and 8-4 in his fourth. Gary Barnett, who suceeded him had to endure two losing seasons before he could get the program back on its feet.

He inherited a Washington program that was coming off a 6-6 season, but had averaged eight wins a season in the previous six years. Neuheisel was 7-5, 11-1, 8-4, 7-6 and left the program in a mess when he was fired.

I hope we can do better than Bobby Johnson or Kark Dorrell or Rod Broadway. But I KNOW we can do better than this lying piece of trash.

I don't think I'm holier than thou ... I wouldn't mind George O'Leary if he was interested. I'm in favor of giving the new coach flexibility in admissions. But I think Duke should have some standards -- and you couldn't get much lower than Rick Neuheisel.

365Duke
12-11-2007, 03:57 PM
Audio tapes, released under Washington's freedom of information act, prove that Neuheisel "lied numerous times" to NCAA investigators on June 4, 2003:


And even if you throw that stuff out, this guy is Larry Coker with a guitar

just too funny

Classof06
12-11-2007, 04:01 PM
I'd take Neuheisel in a second, better yet, half a second. This shouldn't even be a debate; if he wants the job, I say give it to him....please...

Duvall
12-11-2007, 04:01 PM
Audio tapes, released under Washington's freedom of information act, prove that Neuheisel "lied numerous times" to NCAA investigators on June 4, 2003:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskies/136045_uw20.html

Well, that's that.

killerleft
12-11-2007, 04:02 PM
Discount football and the lax stuff and Alleva has a good record as AD. I doubt he is stupid. I'd rather have Leo Hart as AD, but you can't always get what you want.

Even with the negative comments (and excellent points), I still hope Duke formally interviews Neuheisel. Despite other opinions, his credentials will probably beat anyone else's whom we might hire.

If all the negative stuff is as advertised, Duke won't hire him. Let him have his say, investigate, and then decide whether he is the right man for the job.

Just talking to him won't, in my opinion, hurt Duke in any way. And whether he is seriously considered or not, it will send a message that Duke is trying to get a high-profile coach and will leave no stone unturned in their search.

Carlos
12-11-2007, 04:08 PM
I'm starting another petition: www.hirebobbycollins.com I'm sure he's learned his lesson plus he was 43-14 at SMU.

Here's another: www.getdennisericksonawayfromASU.com. 63-9 at Miami, 2 National Championships, and 3 years probation. Plus, 31-17 at Oregon State and just a handful of guys arrested.

Anyone know if I can get the domain: www.louholtzforduke.com. He may have left every school he ever went to on probation, but he's such a lovable old coot it would be a great hire.




If we're going to sell out let's at least go all the way with it.

Classof06
12-11-2007, 04:09 PM
And LOL at Duke football fans getting on their high horse. I'm not saying let any old bum off the street coach Duke football but comparing him doing an NCAA pool to Jerry Tarkanian is joke. The guy's made mistakes, let's not condemn him. He could do a lot of good for this program, which if you haven't heard, is the laughing stock of college football.

Bring him in and let's start getting some respectability back to this program...

Sir Stealth
12-11-2007, 04:12 PM
Discount football and the lax stuff and Alleva has a good record as AD.

Baseball scandals?

Sir Stealth
12-11-2007, 04:13 PM
Is it true that RN picked Duke to win in the NCAA tourney bracket that he got in trouble for?

Defenserules
12-11-2007, 04:20 PM
to the last poster.... Booooooooooooo.


I have seriously considered of late that maybe it would be better for us to pick a loser like Bobby Johnson so that I can just start acting like I went to UGA and pull for the dawgs during football season.

Neuheisel is not even my first choice, Logan is, and after that Cutcliffe, but for gosh sake if we are going to hire a coach from Vandy who has never been to a bowl or a coach from UCLA who has, let's at least hire the coach from UCLA - he beat USC at least. Maybe we should throw a ton of $$$ at the Stanford Coach too. I hear Navy has a new coach that will basically follow the PJ mold. Let's hire him. I don't care at this point, but hiring a Vandy coach that has never been to a bowl even when all they had to do is beat MTSU, well from my perspective that is basically saying that Duke considers a dream season to be 4 or 5 wins. I do need to point out that Vandy produced a DVD about its season the year they won 5 games and beat UT. Maybe we could do the same. We can call it Duke is not half bad - the story of the 2008 Blue Devils.

Here's an idea let's get Goldsmith back. That guy has two national coach of the year awards!

diablesseblu
12-11-2007, 04:23 PM
Not to worry.

throatybeard
12-11-2007, 04:31 PM
Head over to TDD and you'll find this Neuheisel idea is being taken a lot more seriously over there. Interesting.

Chicago 1995
12-11-2007, 05:02 PM
why are we so interested in Karl Dorrell?

Are we to think Neuheisel's offensive coordinator at Colorado didn't know about the violations occurring that left the Buffs on probabtion once Rick went to Seattle?

Dorrell was the OC for the first year at UW too, so he would have had to have not known about the violations that occurred at UW too to come out clean.

If Neuheisel's *that* dirty that we can't even talk to him, why the heck is Karl Dorrell getting driven around Durham?

Sir Stealth
12-11-2007, 05:07 PM
to the last poster.... Booooooooooooo.


Hehe, I honestly didn't even mean that as a dumb joke - was just trying to verify an equally dumb rumor.

Defenserules
12-11-2007, 05:27 PM
Sorry - I was not refering to your post but the post concerning new petitions.....

DukeDevilsBB
12-11-2007, 08:03 PM
Discount football and the lax stuff and Alleva has a good record as AD.


I seem to remember a particular boating incident as well as a baseball scandal.

ArkieDukie
12-11-2007, 08:13 PM
And LOL at Duke football fans getting on their high horse. I'm not saying let any old bum off the street coach Duke football but comparing him doing an NCAA pool to Jerry Tarkanian is joke. The guy's made mistakes, let's not condemn him. He could do a lot of good for this program, which if you haven't heard, is the laughing stock of college football.

Bring him in and let's start getting some respectability back to this program...

With all due respect, would it really get respectability back to our program if we hire a coach with Neuheisel's history of NCAA violations, minor though they may be? I can't help but wonder if the Georgia and Rhode Island fans expressed similar sentiments before they hired Jim Harrick as their head basketball coach. Granted, that may be an extreme comparison, but I would imagine that having a coach with a history of any type of NCAA violations would bring additional investigative attention to programs they're associated with. We'll call it the Tarkanian/Harrick Rule.

diablesseblu
12-11-2007, 08:18 PM
"Quote:
Originally Posted by killerleft
Discount football and the lax stuff and Alleva has a good record as AD."


Others have mentioned the boating incident and baseball. Let me add that I find it hard to discount Coach G's leaving.

killerleft
12-12-2007, 06:22 AM
Was Alleva giving people steroids? He knew about it?

Coach G left because of Alleva?

The boating incident I'll grant was embarrasing.

I said GOOD. Not great. His role in the lax case (IF he had any choice in the matter) was terrible.

Personally, I would much rather have, say, Leo Hart as AD. There are 6 (?) guys on the committee. If you believe Alleva is dumb as dirt, relax, there'll be back-up to keep him in line.

I never said Neuheisel should be hired. Just interviewed. Then the committee could separate the wheat from the chaff and decide whether he could be considered. Doubtless he has made mistakes. Has he learned from them?

Mother Teresa is gone. But she might have forgiven Neuheisel, you never know.

Bluedawg
12-12-2007, 08:09 AM
Head over to TDD and you'll find this Neuheisel idea is being taken a lot more seriously over there. Interesting.

Myabe so, but DBR is taken seriously:


On Saturday, a petition surfaced on the Duke Basketball Report Web site that aims to push Alleva to interview current Baltimore Ravens offensive coordinator Rick Neuheisel.

Raleigh News and Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/825186.html)

DukeDevilsBB
12-12-2007, 08:30 AM
Coach G left because of Alleva?




You pretty much nailed it. The answer to that question is yes.

speedevil
12-12-2007, 09:36 AM
Bobby Petrino...

nevermind.

killerleft
12-12-2007, 10:39 AM
Goestenkors was at Duke a long time, much of it with Alleva. She gave up a top-flight program and went to Texas because of Alleva? I guess that could be true, but I don't remember anything other than unfounded opinions about her reasons for leaving. I took her at her word.

diablesseblu
12-12-2007, 10:46 AM
Goestenkors was at Duke a long time, much of it with Alleva. She gave up a top-flight program and went to Texas because of Alleva? I guess that could be true, but I don't remember anything other than unfounded opinions about her reasons for leaving. I took her at her word.


Don't assume because she did not say so that her relationship with Alleva was not part of the problem. How would it have served her, her team, Duke and her successor to have been more forthcoming about her real reasons for leaving?

Coach G is too classy for that.

Bluedawg
12-12-2007, 11:13 AM
Don't assume because she did not say so that her relationship with Alleva was not part of the problem. How would it have served her, her team, Duke and her successor to have been more forthcoming about her real reasons for leaving?

Coach G is too classy for that.

This does not need to become a smash Alleva or Coach G thread, and if the mods need to delete these, including mione, feel free,

However, the word on the street is that no one in the department was unhappy to see her leave. And i'll leave it at that.

diablesseblu
12-12-2007, 11:24 AM
This does not need to become a smash Alleva or Coach G thread, and if the mods need to delete these, including mione, feel free,

However, the word on the street is that no one in the department was unhappy to see her leave. And i'll leave it at that.


Agree completely and do not want this thread to devolve into that. However, there are many sides to every issue. Alleva does not deserve a pass on Gail's leaving any more than she does.

I was just saying she handled it in a classy manner and should not have expounded on her reasons. I personally wish people in the athletic department would just shut up about her. She's gone...let the woman be happy at TX.

Mods please delete if you choose.

DukeDevilsBB
12-12-2007, 11:38 AM
This does not need to become a smash Alleva or Coach G thread, and if the mods need to delete these, including mione, feel free,

However, the word on the street is that no one in the department was unhappy to see her leave. And i'll leave it at that.


I have heard otherwise from people that have no reason to lie about the situation and are very close to the situation I might ad.

And are a mod here? b/c if not, I'm not sure where you get off sending me PM's telling me what I will not be allowed to do.

Bluedawg
12-12-2007, 11:59 AM
I have heard otherwise from people that have no reason to lie about the situation and are very close to the situation I might ad.

And are a mod here? b/c if not, I'm not sure where you get off sending me PM's telling me what I will not be allowed to do.

like I said in my response to you...just trying to be helpful. You are on your own now brother.

ugadevil
12-12-2007, 12:00 PM
Now that this thread seems to be veering way off track.

If Neuheisel were able to get the head job at Duke, is he well respected among his coaching peers? What kind of staff would he be able to assemble? I'm just curious as to whether or not his previous actions have put him in a situation where good coordinators would not want to work with him.

Genedoc
12-12-2007, 01:11 PM
The "Hire Neuheisal" petition should be forwarded to all athletic department administration, Duke faculty, Board members, supporters, and Regents as a list of "People of limited influence and highly questionable ethics to be generally ignored".

Why Neuheisal - did Bobby Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Collins_(football_coach)) already turn us down?

DukeDevilsBB
12-12-2007, 01:15 PM
Now that this thread seems to be veering way off track.

If Neuheisel were able to get the head job at Duke, is he well respected among his coaching peers? What kind of staff would he be able to assemble? I'm just curious as to whether or not his previous actions have put him in a situation where good coordinators would not want to work with him.



Let's just say that some very very well respected coaches have voiced their approval of Rick N. to Pres Broadhead. (Spurrier, Joe Paterno etc....)

Duvall
12-12-2007, 01:17 PM
Let's just say that some very very well respected coaches have voiced their approval of Rick N. to Pres Brodhead. (Spurrier, Joe Paterno etc....)

The last coach recommended by Steve Spurrier was Carl Franks.
The last coach to get a vote of confidence from Joe Paterno was Rene Portland.

Good luck with that.

DukeDevilsBB
12-12-2007, 01:21 PM
The last coach recommended by Steve Spurrier was Carl Franks.
The last coach to get a vote of confidence from Joe Paterno was Rene Portland.

Good luck with that.

The question was whether or not he was respected by his peers. I think he has already proven his ability to coach. (see: 2000 Rose Bowl)

rockymtn devil
12-12-2007, 01:46 PM
The question was whether or not he was respected by his peers. I think he has already proven his ability to coach. (see: 2000 Rose Bowl)

I'm not so sure about this. He inherited a top-notch program at Colorado and left it as a mediocre one. At Washington he took over a team in the decline, but, outside of one season, did nothing to improve it.

Colorado Football from 1992 to 2000 (this includes 3 seasons prior to Neuheisel and 2 seasons after Neuheisel)

1992: 9-2-1
1993: 8-3-1
1994: 11-1
1995: 10-2 (RN's 1st as Buff's HC)
1996: 10-2
1997: 5-6
1998: 8-4 (RN's last as Buff's HC)
1999: 7-5
2000: 3-8

Washington Football from 1996 to 2004 (this includes 3 seasons prior to Neuheisel and 2 seasons after Neuheisel)

1996: 9-3
1997: 8-4
1998: 6-6
1999: 7-5(RN's 1st as Huskies' HC)
2000: 11-1
2001: 8-4
2002: 7-6 (RN's last as Huskies' HC)
2003: 6-6
2004: 1-10

In both situations the limited success he had (1995, 1996 at CU; 2000 at UW) can be attributed to the quality of players left over from previous coaches. Both schools went into a decline with RN's players filling the roster, both when he was coaching and when the next coach was in charge.

DukeDevilsBB
12-12-2007, 04:16 PM
1998: 8-4 (RN's last as Buff's HC)
2002: 7-6 (RN's last as Huskies' HC)



Now compare those #'s to Roof #'s and Franks #'s....enough said.

jimsumner
12-12-2007, 04:21 PM
Compare Dorrell's numbers or Gailey's numbers or Cutliffe's numbers to those of Franks and Roof. But none of those guys got anybody put on probation.

Have we really reached the point when we think that Duke can only hire successful coaches if they have ethical lapses in their background and nobody else wants them? I hope not and I don't subscribe to that view.

Indoor66
12-12-2007, 04:40 PM
Compare Dorrell's numbers or Gailey's numbers or Cutliffe's numbers to those of Franks and Roof. But none of those guys got anybody put on probation.

Have we really reached the point when we think that Duke can only hire successful coaches if they have ethical lapses in their background and nobody else wants them? I hope not and I don't subscribe to that view.

I don't particularly want to support such a program. Let's not buy into problems at the front end.

rockymtn devil
12-12-2007, 04:42 PM
Now compare those #'s to Roof #'s and Franks #'s....enough said.

But it's not a zero-sum game. It isn't as if there are two extremes--greatness and futility--and a coach is either one or the other. It's possible--and indeed, the reality of the situation--that RN can be a mediocre coach despite having a better record than Carl Franks and Ted Roof. Roof and Franks (in bad situations) had bad records. Neuheisel, in good to very good situations, had okay records. In Boulder he was given a Porsche and turned it into a Volkswagon. That program is still trying to get back on track.

If you look to the average win-loss records pre, during, and post Neuheisel (based on the records I posted above, adding one year on the back end to make it more even), it's tough to argue that he has proven to be anything other than ordinary. These are rounded up/down.

Colorado:
Average record in the 3 years prior to RN: 9-2-1
Average record during RN's tenure: 8-4
Average record in the 3 years after RN: 7-5

Washington:
Average record in the 3 years prior to RN: 8-4
Average record during RN's tenure: 8-4
Average record in the 3 years after RN: 3-8

DukeDevilsBB
12-12-2007, 06:07 PM
Have we really reached the point when we think that Duke can only hire successful coaches if they have ethical lapses in their background and nobody else wants them? I hope not and I don't subscribe to that view.


I just find it hard to believe that an AD with a questionable ethical background (that was just given an extention non the less) can stonewall a coach from even getting an interview just b/c of questionable issues that took place 7+ years ago.

jimsumner
12-12-2007, 06:12 PM
Just curious but exactly how many NCAA probations has Joe Alleva been responsible for? Has he ever been publically censured by his peer group? I question some of the decisions the man has made but what evidence--as opposed to conjecture--do you have that he is ethically compromised?

And if you want to talk lacrosse, the questionable decision-making went higher than the AD's office.

Carlos
12-12-2007, 06:47 PM
Or, even more appropriate, if you feel that Alleva is ethically bankrupt it green lights us to pursue a coach that's had NCAA violations and has lied on multiple occasions?

Let's hope Tark's all rested up for the day that K retires!

Defenserules
12-12-2007, 10:25 PM
After reading these boards I can only say there is a reason why this page is called DBR instead of DFR. I think there is a huge number of people out there in DBR land that would be really worried if people were talking about Duke football playing a game in late December because it might take away from the Duke v. Albany game. I hope this isn't taken to mean that I want Rick N only, heck I think I would rather have Cutcliffe, but all this talk about Broadway and healing Durham from DBR earlier in the week - well that just pissed me off. I say get the best coach we can get that will make us win and I don't think that is Broadway. Nonetheless, for my money I'd trade all the final fours in the world for a shot at a BCS bowl, basketball is fun but Cameron (and Cameron is the best) isn't nearly as much fun of an overall experience as about 15 college football game days.

ugadevil
12-12-2007, 11:04 PM
Nonetheless, for my money I'd trade all the final fours in the world for a shot at a BCS bowl, basketball is fun but Cameron (and Cameron is the best) isn't nearly as much fun of an overall experience as about 15 college football game days.

As someone who goes to a school where football is God and there really is no other sport (The sections of campus are labeled as to their relation to the football stadium: north of the stadium=north campus), I must say that I completely disagree with that statement. It's certainly a matter of preference but I've been in electric football stadiums on gameday, and only one of them came close to the amount of fun I've had at games in CIS.

OrangeDevil
12-13-2007, 12:26 AM
As the person who was possibly the first on this board to suggest Rick Neuheisel as a possible replacement coach (Sept. 5 “Three Considerations”), I want to accept my share of responsibility for the rancor that has ensued as it appears he might become a serious candidate. And despite the contentiousness and occasional denunciation of opposing ideas, I think the concerns expressed here do speak to the two conflicting sets of values that are in play as Duke attempts to reinvent a dormant football program. Our problem here might be stated as, depending on one’s point of view, “what price football excellence,” or, “do we really want football excellence?” There is a growing tendency in our discussions to cast aspersions upon the ethical sensibilities, or conversely, the true commitment to fielding a winning program, of those with whom we disagree. I want to engage the issues while, hopefully, understanding and respecting the best intentions of those on each side.

On one side are those who might be called “purists,” traditionalists with a visceral fear that Neuheisel represents a compromise and possible debasement of the exemplary ethical standards they identify as a core principle of Duke Athletics. This is a perfectly valid and reasonable concern that has been movingly voiced by several participants. On the other side are those who might be called “maximizers” (i.e. those giving primacy to factors that might maximize the opportunities to field a winning team). I contend that these positions are not mutually exclusive. I believe that each of us (or at least most of us) desire and value each of these in terms of how we view Duke University and its athletic programs.

I especially want to speak to the concerns and allegations of the first grouping, the “purists,” because I am not in that camp. I ask you to consider that your position largely reflects the policy toward football that has been held by the administration (power brokers both inside and outside the athletic department) for what is now a very long time. Ironically, many of the anti-Neuheisel partisans on this board have long castigated the Administration and Joe Alleva for their seeming indifference in refusing to do what it takes to produce a truly competitive program. But, and I will repeat myself from my first ever posting on the board, perhaps this has been the result of a conscious, deliberate choice of the administration (supported by faculty leadership) echoed by the concerns (fears) now being heard here via the Neuheisel controversy. What the powers that be seem to have long considered is that fielding an ACC (and thus nationally) competitive football program means running a variety of risks. These risks extend far beyond the significance of the ethical acumen of the coach that is the source of our present consternation. I have spoken to these previously so I will not recite the full litany but they include the compromise of academic standards, possibly academic fraud, and the specter of increased levels of student misconduct, violence, and lawbreaking. Some in the Duke hierarchy asked earlier whether such a football program was worth these risks and the answer was a clear and unequivocal NO. The result was a policy of benign neglect to pursue a goal of mediocrity (“neither very good nor very bad”). But if the highest expectation is mediocrity, failure to achieve it can lead to the embarrassment of catastrophic failure that has become the status quo of our present state. Apparently, the status quo is no longer acceptable and the issue must be revisited.

Maybe they were right. Maybe the risks, the price, are too steep. But gentlemen (ladies too), let me tell you in no uncertain terms that if Duke is to produce the kind of program you seem to desire (one on par with our other nationally prominent teams) these risks, others too, will have to be incurred. They are unavoidable. But in this sense, Coach Neuheisel (and let me be the first here to call him “Coach”) would be the least of the risks. After all, we already have a sense of the possible issues we might face with him. They are a matter of record and can and should be addressed forthrightly. Strangely though, as we debate the necessary changes to the program, no one here has expressed much concern, much less indignation, at the apparent intention to further dilute and diminish the academic expectations for prospective football recruits. I personally find this offensive because, if true, it represents a supine surrender to a palpably false proposition: that there isn’t an adequate pool of Duke eligible quality recruits unless we further erode our standards. Don’t believe me? Again, check the Rivals and Scout lists and note how many opting for Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Texas, SC, etc. could qualify under the existing requirements at Duke. You’ll be surprised. For those “purists” interested in maintaining Duke’s heralded standards, how does Coach Neuheisel measure up on the academic litmus test? While progressing from a walk-on to Rose Bowl MVP at UCLA, he earned a B.A. in political science (3.4 GPA) and followed that up with a law degree from SC and is eligible to practice law in Arizona and D.C. Many college coaches (including some we reportedly have considered) go academically unchallenged and choose the intellectual path of least resistance. Neuheisel projects the kind of profile of impressive accomplishment as a student, player, and coach that comports with what Duke has traditionally been identified.

I‘ve gone on far enough for now. There are still other questions to be addressed (the issue of “ethical lapses” are not so clear cut as Jim Sumner and others seem to think). I also want to eventually speak to the cultural landscape that is Duke Football.

I am not calling for Rick Neuheisel to be hired. I am calling for him to be interviewed. He is in many ways a very strong candidate, perhaps a better one than Duke in its present state deserves. But he does deserve a chance to be interviewed on the same terms as other candidates—fairly, honestly, and without prejudice. And remember the outstanding advantage he unquestionably brings to the table: he isn’t Karl Dorrell.

OldPhiKap
12-13-2007, 09:46 AM
OrangeDevil:

Nail
Head

killerleft
12-13-2007, 09:53 AM
No doubt, it would be very strange to have a top-tier program. I'm not sure that things have to change as much as OrangeDevil thinks.

But our expectations would have to rise, for sure. Been a lot of years since we have expected very much. Maybe that's been part of the problem. We never gave up hope on the basketball program. But we have been unintentionally programmed to expect a bad football team.

diablesseblu
12-13-2007, 10:29 AM
Appreciate your posting some of the more erudite comments I've read in a long time.

I agree there are more academically competitive candidates out there than we may have thought. My guess is that a lot of them anticipate the sacrifices involved in balancing academics and athletics. They're willing to do it but just not at a place where they are signing up to lose on Saturdays.

In terms of coaches...agree that the ones who did not "skate" through their own UG are better fits for Duke. Coach K is a prime example.

Stray Gator
12-13-2007, 10:56 AM
In essence, OrangeDevil's reasoning appears to be along these lines: (a) for Duke to realize significant improvement in its football program, we'll need to accept certain risks of adverse consequences that were previously not countenanced by the Administration; (b) we could risk an embarrassing decline in our players' academic performance by lowering our admissions standards, or we could risk an embarrassing decline in Duke's reputation for running a "clean" program, in which the coaches play by the rules and the players stay relatively free of trouble off the field, by hiring a head coach who understands and is willing to do what it takes to win at the BCS conference level; (c) there is no need to sacrifice Duke's admissions standards, because an adequate number of academically qualified recruits are available; and therefore (d) the better option is to take the other risk by hiring a head coach who may attract NCAA scrutiny because of past transgressions, but who may have learned his lesson and prove to be no trouble at all. (And I recognize that Neuheisel advocates keep saying "just interview him," but let's be forthright--if we're not willing to hire him, it would be pointless and misleading to interview him.)

I do not agree with OrangeDevil's premises. First, while there are plenty of recruits who are both talented and academically qualified, I don't believe we have a realistic prospect of bringing enough of them to Duke to produce marked improvement in the football team until after we get the W-L record and reputation for ineptitude turned around. That leads to the dispositive issue--what must we do to change direction? Would hiring a "big name" coach be enough to turn the program around if we are still recruiting from the same pool of players? Or should we cast a broader recruiting net, take a risk with more physically talented but less academically qualified players who may require closer monitoring and more help with their class work, but who can win games for a less illustrious coach?

I agree that Duke must sacrifice something. But I happen to believe that the risk of adopting more lenient admissions requirements is easier to manage and thus preferable to the risk of relaxing the standards of integrity we demand of the coaches who will be leaders and teachers of our student-athletes, and representatives of Duke University. There are some fine head coaching candidates out there who, IMO, could produce more competitive teams and win more games for Duke if allowed to recruit a richer talent pool of players, and who come to the table without the baggage of repeated past infractions and a record of dishonesty.

Coach K has shown that we can take individuals who would fall short of qualifying academically and provide them the resources and encouragement to succeed in the classroom at Duke. So we know that the "academic qualification" risk is one Duke is capable of managing. And even when we've had the occasional failure in the classroom, the resulting damage was measured in levels of disappointment only.

But the "coaching misconduct" risk is not one with which Duke has any real familiarity or experience. How confident are you that Joe Alleva can manage any problems that might arise? I can tell you this from my experience as a Gator football fan during the dark days in the 1980s after UF was put on NCAA probation for the transgressions of the Charley Pell era--Duke alumni and fans have no concept of the enduring damage and disgrace that NCAA probation can cause. As a Duke alumnus, a longtime Iron Duke, and a season-ticket holder for Duke football and basketball, the choice between those risks is not even close. In fact, if it comes right down to it, I'd rather accept long-term mediocrity on the field, if that's the best a relaxed admissions standard and less-than-illustrious head coach can produce, than risk damaging Duke's institutional integrity by hiring a head coach with a shady reputation and dubious trustworthiness.

diablesseblu
12-13-2007, 11:02 AM
Reading OrangeDevil and StrayGator's comments are what I love about this board. People actually take the time to write well and informatively.

I think Duke should interview RN to hear his ideas and to acknowledge the men who called on his behalf. Do I want him to be Duke's next football coach? No, the upside is not worth the risk.

The one candidate I've wanted since the beginning is Clawson. However, people seem to very hung up on a "splash" hire so my guess is he has little chance (if he's indeed interested).

Bluedawg
12-13-2007, 11:27 AM
Maybe they were right. Maybe the risks, the price, are too steep. But gentlemen (ladies too), let me tell you in no uncertain terms that if Duke is to produce the kind of program you seem to desire (one on par with our other nationally prominent teams) these risks, others too, will have to be incurred. They are unavoidable.

I don't think I have ever disagreed with any statement more. I am not as verbose as OD so this won’t be as long. However, let me say that to believe that for a program to be successful they must lower their standards to allow what amounts to cheating, expecting and accepting NCAA sanctions is flat out wrong. To think a program of integrity cannot succeed in major conference football is the most cynical concept I can think of and I flatly this post and this concept.

Bluedawg

Carlos
12-13-2007, 11:28 AM
OrangeDevil - what exactly is the connection between winning football (or even respectable football) and this litany of risks which you listed. Why, if there is an adequate pool of players out there right now who are of the type of recruit we're getting presently (with the exception of football ability perhaps), is there an increased risk of possible academic fraud and increased levels of student misconduct, violence, and lawbreaking that's associated with a winning program? And why, if you can even establish a correlation between the two, are those risks somehow mitigated by hiring someone who has had ethical lapses in the past? Wouldn't a more logically sound reasoning be that if you are dealing with someone who has a history of lying and cheating the potential for those risks to be realized would be greater?

As for the issue of "ethical lapses" being not so clear, I think that's more a reflection on where you set your own personal bar. I've read the defense of Neuheisel's past being put forth by his apologists and I'm unmoved by their rationalizations. It's easy to parse out things and view them as isolated and insignificant incidents. But taken as a whole they do not paint the picture of the kind of person I would want representing Duke as a head coach. I'm all for redemption and everything, but the idea of giving someone a shot at redemption when they are in charge of the program seems a bit too risky for me. If we were talking about Neuheisel coming in as an offensive coordinator and then becoming a head coach I may feel differently.

You may feel that Neuheisel at least deserves an interview but what exactly do you get out of that? It all comes down to how convincing he would be when he says that he won't repeat the same practices that led to violations at each of his last two schools. But at the end of it all those are just words just like it was just words when he lied to NCAA investigators about the Final Four pool.

Bluedawg
12-13-2007, 11:38 AM
OrangeDevil:

Nail
Head

If having a winning, successful football program means buying into OD's world I'd rather dump football, drop out of the ACC and make basketball independent.

DukeDevilsBB
12-13-2007, 12:59 PM
It is irrelevant now...an offer has been made.

Acymetric
12-13-2007, 01:09 PM
Is there anything definite about that, or just "reports"? Because especially in college football until the coach and school both acknowledge it and they show the coach in his new home its tough to be certain about new coaches.

Bluedawg
12-13-2007, 01:26 PM
It is irrelevant now...an offer has been made.

To Whom?

Bluedawg
12-13-2007, 01:44 PM
It is irrelevant now...an offer has been made.



To Whom?

I see you deleted your "never mind it's not official" post. However, do you mean Cutcliffe (http://dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=73756&postcount=634)?

Don't worry, pratt '04 beat you to it.

Now I'm looking to confirm

YmoBeThere
12-13-2007, 01:46 PM
Now I'm looing to confirm

Must be good bathrooms if they have the answers to our football coach dilemma.

OldPhiKap
12-13-2007, 01:49 PM
If having a winning, successful football program means buying into OD's world I'd rather dump football, drop out of the ACC and make basketball independent.

I think we could agree that maintaining the status quo is leading us nowhere, and that we need to make some changes (read:compromises) to our concept of how we are going to approach fielding a major football program. There appear to be two competing arguments:

1. Those who would compromise their standards on the student-athletes we admit to the university in order to get more competitive, but want a perfect coach.

2. Those who would consider taking a chance on a coach who has made some past mistakes, and wish to maintain the level of student-athlete we bring into the university.

I do not want to compromise on the level of student that attends the university. That leads me with two choices -- either accept the fact that someone with a problem in their past may have learned their lesson and may be able to reestablish the program, or otherwise do what my other alma mater (Emory) did -- refuse to have a football program because "it is not academic enough."

Again, I'm not saying that RN is the man for the job. What I am saying is that (1) everyone is capable of redemption, and (2) when your program is in the shape ours is in, you might need to look at some used cars and not just the shiny ones in the main showroom.

DukeDevilsBB
12-13-2007, 01:59 PM
Now I'm looking to confirm



Get on it buddy, I'm sure you have many ways to confirm http://www.webis.cz/manual/webis_devel/img/icon_emoticon_rolleyes.png

rockymtn devil
12-13-2007, 02:03 PM
What I find most interesting about this thread is that Neuheisel's supporters seem more than willing to address his ethical questions head-on and yet none of the legitimate questions about his actual coaching abilities have been answered. That seems backwards to me. But, by showing a willingness to argue the ethical issues and not the abilities issue, I get the sene it's because the ethical argument is actually the stronger of the two. If that's the case--that RN is a more ethical coach than he is a good coach--then this discussion should be over. We know he's not ethical. Myself, and a handful of others, have said it before: his success on the field, given the circumstances, isn't all that impressive.

Compare him to Cutcliffe, who apparently interviewed for the job. They had similar records as head coaches, but Cutcliffe did it at a far more difficult school to win at (not to mention a more rabid, unrealistic fan base) than Neuheisel did.

Duvall
12-13-2007, 02:07 PM
What I find most interesting about this thread is that Neuheisel's supporters seem more than willing to address his ethical questions head-on and yet none of the legitimate questions about his actual coaching abilities have been answered. That seems backwards to me. But, by showing a willingness to argue the ethical issues and not the abilities issue, I get the sene it's because the ethical argument is actually the stronger of the two. If that's the case--that RN is a more ethical coach than he is a good coach--then this discussion should be over. We know he's not ethical. Myself, and a handful of others, have said it before: his success on the field, given the circumstances, isn't all that impressive.

Compare him to Cutcliffe, who apparently interviewed for the job. They had similar records as head coaches, but Cutcliffe did it at a far more difficult school to win at (not to mention a more rabid, unrealistic fan base) than Neuheisel did.

Exactly. At best, Cutcliffe and Neuheisel had similar results as head coaches, though winning at Ole Miss is harder than winning at Colorado or Washington. Then throw in the fact that Neuheisel was fired for allegedly lying to his bosses and the NCAA while Cutcliffe was fired for refusing to throw his assistant coaches under the bus.

DukeDevilsBB
12-13-2007, 02:21 PM
For the record I am in no way opposed to Cutcliffe. I actually think would be a really good hire IF we can bring in a solid DC.

Stray Gator
12-13-2007, 02:43 PM
1. Cutcliffe has a very good reputation as an offensive coordinator and seems to be well-liked and highly respected in the college football community throughout the South, which should help to attract good recruits on that side of the ball and put points on the board. If he can bring in solid assistants to handle the defense and special teams--and based on his reputation and experience I expect he'll have the ability to accomplish that--it'll represent a major overall upgrade in Duke's coaching staff.

2. Cutcliffe has been a head coach who achieved moderate success at an SEC program that is relatively disadvantaged in resources. IMO, that puts him far ahead of Dorrell, who underachieved at a Pac 10 program with great resources.

3. So far as I am aware, Cutcliffe has no "negative history" with NCAA compliance officials or prior employers. IMO, that puts him far ahead of Neuheisel.

In sum, I think Cutcliffe would be a fine choice for Duke. If he's offered the job, I'll hope he accepts; and if he does, I'll look forward to next season with renewed enthusiasm.

DukeDevilsBB
12-13-2007, 02:46 PM
1. Cutcliffe has a very good reputation as an offensive coordinator and seems to be well-liked and highly respected in the college football community throughout the South, which should help to attract good recruits on that side of the ball and put points on the board. If he can bring in solid assistants to handle the defense and special teams--and based on his reputation and experience I expect he'll have the ability to accomplish that--it'll represent a major overall upgrade in Duke's coaching staff.

2. Cutcliffe has been a head coach who achieved moderate success at an SEC program that is relatively disadvantaged in resources. IMO, that puts him far ahead of Dorrell, who underachieved at a Pac 10 program with great resources.

3. So far as I am aware, Cutcliffe has no "negative history" with NCAA compliance officials or prior employers. IMO, that puts him far ahead of Neuheisel.

In sum, I think Cutcliffe would be a fine choice for Duke. If he's offered the job, I'll hope he accepts; and if he does, I'll look forward to next season with renewed enthusiasm.


I think you make several good points.

As far as Dorrell is concerned, those who are opposed to looking at Rick N. should realize that Dorrell was on Rick's staff and was mentioned in the majority of the "bumping" violations that were recieved by Rick N.

Bluedawg
12-13-2007, 02:48 PM
Get on it buddy, I'm sure you have many ways to confirm http://www.webis.cz/manual/webis_devel/img/icon_emoticon_rolleyes.png

Actually, what I have found out is that the Cutliffe interview went well and that he appears to be the leader at this time.

DukeDevilsBB
12-13-2007, 02:50 PM
Actually, what I have found out is that the Cutliffe interview went well and that he appears to be the leader at this time.


Right, that was confirmed yesterday. The fact that he is going to be offered is the news that is being reported today.

Bluedawg
12-13-2007, 02:53 PM
Right, that was confirmed yesterday. The fact that he is going to be offered is the news that is being reported today.

Well...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

DukeDevilsBB
12-13-2007, 02:59 PM
Well...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

So you are saying you do not believe that he will be offered? :confused:

OldPhiKap
12-13-2007, 03:08 PM
So you are saying you do not believe that he will be offered? :confused:

I think he's funnin' 'ya.


I would be very happy with Cutcliffe. He took his teams to bowls four of his six years as HC (and one year they missed, they were 7-4). If he's good enough for the Peytons', he's good enough for me.

Bluedawg
12-13-2007, 03:09 PM
So you are saying you do not believe that he will be offered? :confused:

Never said that...

Carlos
12-13-2007, 03:13 PM
I think we could agree that maintaining the status quo is leading us nowhere, and that we need to make some changes (read:compromises) to our concept of how we are going to approach fielding a major football program. There appear to be two competing arguments:

1. Those who would compromise their standards on the student-athletes we admit to the university in order to get more competitive, but want a perfect coach.

2. Those who would consider taking a chance on a coach who has made some past mistakes, and wish to maintain the level of student-athlete we bring into the university.



The logical fallacy of this is that those who support the approach of option 2 want to frame the argument so that there are only those two alternatives. I don't buy into the concept that the only alternate to dropping the admission standards is to hire a guy who has been found to abuse the NCAA rules and who has lied to his former employers.

OldPhiKap
12-13-2007, 03:42 PM
The logical fallacy of this is that those who support the approach of option 2 want to frame the argument so that there are only those two alternatives. I don't buy into the concept that the only alternate to dropping the admission standards is to hire a guy who has been found to abuse the NCAA rules and who has lied to his former employers.


Given the state of our program, almost any coach that we can get has some dents of some sort. Some have no D-I experience. Some are assistant coaches with little or no head coaching experience. Some have been fired from head coaching jobs. Some are considered too old to take the job. Etc. etc. etc. My point: they all have warts of some sort.

Those who are against RN contend that his warts are so bad that he is beyond redemption. That may ultimately be true or false, I don't know. But no one will know without interviewing him. That's all I'm asking. I again use the analogy of Bobby Knight, who I love but who was fired from a job after choking a player, lying about it, and going to war with his own AD and administration. Do you contend that Texas Tech made a mistake in interviewing someone like him, given his past unpardonable sins?

-bdbd
12-13-2007, 04:06 PM
Rick Neuheisel is undoubtedly a very qualified HC candidate. One poster here compared him to a football version of Tarkanian, which really isn't fair. I see nothing in his background akin to Tark's very long and consistent history of NCAA violations and "around the edges" behavior. The fact that he was endorsed for Duke as our HC by Paterno and Spurrier speaks volumes (they know a little something about standards for HC behavior and Duke expectations (at least SS). Given that he keeps getting hired for solid positions also speaks volumes for the respect he has in the industry.

The parallel drawn to Duke bringing in Sheldon Williams after allegations were raised is apt -- he was nothing but a stand up guy at Duke, for 4 years, all-time-leader in more than one statistical area, jersey retirement, etc. Likewise, his accomplishments and recommendations have earned RN the right to get an interview. In the interview, as I'm sure was done with SW (on a different level), I'm certain RN will get the tough questions on that subject.

While some here seem to fret over, "Duke must be above even the appearance of impropriety," I would look at the other side of that same coin: That Duke is exactly the kind on place that is strong enough by reputation and experience - one of the few really - that it actually COULD hire someone with any such questions, but with tons of upside.

Be fair. Give him the opportunity to explain himself. Given his accomplishments, he could be a really good one.

-BDBD :rolleyes:

OrangeDevil
12-13-2007, 11:56 PM
Thanks for the comments and criticisms. Each raises important and valid concerns. But first, an important clarification. By now, I am certainly old enough to understand the distinction between how things appear to be and how I would like them to be. Let me be clearer about what I personally would like to see happen with the future of Duke Football. Like Stray Gator and to a certain extent, Bluedawg, I am willing to accept mediocrity (defined as an average of 4-8 wins per year and the prospect of a lesser bowl once or twice a decade). To realize such mediocrity, requires striving for a higher standard called “excellence” while finding a way to be satisfied with something a bit less. The key, I think, lies in establishing a psychology of true competitiveness where every game is a possible win if we execute well and get our share of the breaks. Stray Gator’s statement on his devotion to preserving “Duke’s institutional integrity” is eloquent and right on the mark. I agree with each and every word. I too do not wish to risk “more lenient admissions standards.” I do feel, however, that the fears that a willingness to interview and possibly hire RN means that this will become reality are unmerited and exaggerated. Whoever Rick Neuheisel is, he is not Charley Pell. To compare him to Jerry Tarkanian, as some have, is asinine.

Bluedawg mistakes my “world.” I am actually closer to his neighborhood than he knows. When feeling particularly pessimistic about the long term prospects of Duke football or fuming about the rabid hostility targeted at our players in certain ACC arenas, I too think about dropping out and going independent. I also imagine abandoning the ACC and forming a conference of similar schools (Wake, Vandy, Tulane, Rice, Northwestern, Stanford). Then I come back to reality: Duke will never, repeat never, leave the ACC. The day after such a move, Mike Krzyzewski would resign as coach and the Trustees would face a full-blown alumni rebellion. However, I appreciate the vehemence with which Bluedawg makes his point.

Carlos astutely calls attention to the apparent contradiction in my claims that pursuit of football excellence is possible through an outstanding pool of recruits already available to Duke, while simultaneously maintaining that pursuit of such excellence risks inviting a serious compromise of our academic mission. He’s right. What explains the contradiction? I am deeply conflicted in that I want it both ways. I want to preserve (restore) traditional standards for recruits more in keeping with those expected of the general undergraduate population, and do what it takes (much more than has been done over the past quarter century) to win football games. I want solid citizen-students who can compete with and defeat the Techs, FSUs, and Miamis on the gridiron. I am zealously devoted to the first, but fear the possibility (reality) of the second as we begin to taste the fruits of victory. (Can you imagine the euphoria and rising tide of expectations when the Devils defeat a #2 Virginia Tech in Blacksburg and then thrash a #8 Florida State before a packed house in Wallace Wade?) Right now, such a scenario sounds like mind-boggling fantasia. It can happen. Are we ready for the consequences? The thrill of victory and its indelible impact on campus culture and academic integrity concerns me greatly. It hasn’t happened at Wake, you say. But let’s wait to see if the Deacs can sustain their recent success and what concessions they might be willing to make to do so.

As Carlos well knows, at Duke, the abiding ethos is a commitment to excellence in every aspect of the university and its programs. I welcome the putative commitment to football excellence, but I fret about what it might generate as requisites for sustainability. Each fall, Mike Krzyzewski tells his players a story that ends with this: “There’s already been a decision made here at Duke that we’re going to have a basketball team. So we’re going to have the best damn team we can possibly have.” (Wow! I’m with you Coach! Let’s go!) Now, what we are proposing here is to substitute the word “football” for basketball. Problem is, football is an entirely different animal. Numbers are far more critical (both in terms of recruiting and attendance count), and it tends to generate a much more frenzied culture that often brings in those with little understanding and appreciation for the larger mission of a university. And despite my assertion about the numbers of high quality prospective recruits available to Duke, like Stray Gator I am not at all sanguine about the possibilities that we can persuade enough of them on an annual basis to come to Duke instead of Ann Arbor, Austin, Gainesville, South Bend, or LA where hyper football cultures are well established and national titles are a yearly ambition. But I want to win too. This is why I find Rick Neuheisel such an intriguing candidate. Any chance of establishing a nationally competitive program hinges on tremendously improved recruiting. I believe this is his strong suit. And I still think this makes him someone to consider.

In closing, I want to thank each of you and express my appreciation for your thoughtful heartfelt observations. Go Duke!

P.S. The quote is found in Leading With the Heart. (6)

Bluedawg
12-14-2007, 07:50 AM
Thanks for the comments and criticisms. Each raises important and valid concerns. But first, an important clarification. By now, I am certainly old enough to understand the distinction between how things appear to be and how I would like them to be. Let me be clearer about what I personally would like to see happen with the future of Duke Football. [1]Like Stray Gator and to a certain extent, Bluedawg, I am willing to accept mediocrity (defined as an average of 4-8 wins per year and the prospect of a lesser bowl once or twice a decade). To realize such mediocrity, requires striving for a higher standard called “excellence” while finding a way to be satisfied with something a bit less. [2]The key, I think, lies in establishing a psychology of true competitiveness where every game is a possible win if we execute well and get our share of the breaks. Stray Gator’s statement on his devotion to preserving “Duke’s institutional integrity” is eloquent and right on the mark. I agree with each and every word. I too do not wish to risk “more lenient admissions standards.” I do feel, however, that the fears that a willingness to interview and possibly hire RN means that this will become reality are unmerited and exaggerated. Whoever Rick Neuheisel is, he is not Charley Pell. To compare him to Jerry Tarkanian, as some have, is asinine.

Bluedawg mistakes my “world.” I am actually closer to his neighborhood than he knows. When feeling particularly pessimistic about the long term prospects of Duke football or fuming about the rabid hostility targeted at our players in certain ACC arenas, I too think about dropping out and going independent. I also imagine abandoning the ACC and forming a conference of similar schools (Wake, Vandy, Tulane, Rice, Northwestern, Stanford). Then I come back to reality: [3]Duke will never, repeat never, leave the ACC. The day after such a move, Mike Krzyzewski would resign as coach and the Trustees would face a full-blown alumni rebellion. However, I appreciate the vehemence with which Bluedawg makes his point.

Carlos astutely calls attention to the apparent contradiction in my claims that pursuit of football excellence is possible through an outstanding pool of recruits already available to Duke, while simultaneously maintaining that pursuit of such excellence risks inviting a serious compromise of our academic mission. He’s right. What explains the contradiction? I am deeply conflicted in that I want it both ways. I want to preserve (restore) traditional standards for recruits more in keeping with those expected of the general undergraduate population, and do what it takes (much more than has been done over the past quarter century) to win football games. I want solid citizen-students who can compete with and defeat the Techs, FSUs, and Miamis on the gridiron. I am zealously devoted to the first, but fear the possibility (reality) of the second as we begin to taste the fruits of victory. [4] (Can you imagine the euphoria and rising tide of expectations when the Devils defeat a #2 Virginia Tech in Blacksburg and then thrash a #8 Florida State before a packed house in Wallace Wade?) Right now, such a scenario sounds like mind-boggling fantasia. It can happen. Are we ready for the consequences? The thrill of victory and its indelible impact on campus culture and academic integrity concerns me greatly. It hasn’t happened at Wake, you say. But let’s wait to see if the Deacs can sustain their recent success and what concessions they might be willing to make to do so.

As Carlos well knows, at Duke, the abiding ethos is a commitment to excellence in every aspect of the university and its programs. I welcome the putative commitment to football excellence, but I fret about what it might generate as requisites for sustainability. Each fall, Mike Krzyzewski tells his players a story that ends with this: “There’s already been a decision made here at Duke that we’re going to have a basketball team. So we’re going to have the best damn team we can possibly have.” (Wow! I’m with you Coach! Let’s go!) Now, what we are proposing here is to substitute the word “football” for basketball. Problem is, football is an entirely different animal. Numbers are far more critical (both in terms of recruiting and attendance count), and it tends to generate a much more frenzied culture that often brings in those with little understanding and appreciation for the larger mission of a university. And despite my assertion about the numbers of high quality prospective recruits available to Duke, like Stray Gator [5]I am not at all sanguine about the possibilities that we can persuade enough of them on an annual basis to come to Duke instead of Ann Arbor, Austin, Gainesville, South Bend, or LA where hyper football cultures are well established and national titles are a yearly ambition. But [6]I want to win too. This is why I find Rick Neuheisel such an intriguing candidate. Any chance of establishing a nationally competitive program hinges on tremendously improved recruiting. I believe this is his strong suit. And I still think this makes him someone to consider.

In closing, I want to thank each of you and express my appreciation for your thoughtful heartfelt observations. Go Duke!

P.S. The quote is found in Leading With the Heart. (6)

[1] I'm sorry if anything I've said led you to think that I'd accept mediocrity. That is the farthest thing from the truth. As a lifelong Braves fan [remember I'm 50, so it's a long time] i want Bobby Cox fired because of mediocrity, 1 WS ring in 15 years won't cut it. i wanted Sendick fired from NCSU because all he could do is first round NCAAs. I've been critical of any Duke fan who is willing to accept 4-6 wins a year. I've said Duke could be a bowl team every year, challenge for the ACC championship and be top a 15 team regularly. Is that mediocrity?

What I've said is that I think we can achieve this without sacrificing our integrity. This is where you and I disagree.

[2] This I can agree with. A winning team expects to win. Going back to my Braves, during their run they were called cocky only because they expected to win. 9th inning, down by 10 they still expected to win. The one thing TR could not install is that swagger, that expectation of winning. Coach K has installed that culture in the WBB, Coach G did with WBB and we just need a football coach who can do that.

[3] You are correct in that Duke will not leave the ACC and i don;'t feel they should. My point, as you acknowledged, is to show how strongly i feel that we must protect the integrity of the school and that i feel we can have a coach who can do that and still win. I'm also a big UGA fan and they went through a spell where their integrity was questioned. now they have a coach is is rebuilding that and winning. Duke can do that also, and should expect to do that.

[4] There you go again. i feel it is possible to beat both VA tech, FSU, Miami, and UNC and still maintain that high level of integrity. Do you think BC has lowered it's standards and expectations?

[5] I think we can..once we get a coach in who can create the same culture of winning that Coach K has with MBB you will see it. I reject the notion that a winning football program has to constantly flirt with NCAA violations to be successful.

[6] as do i but not at any cost, which is where i think we part ways.

Duke has been a national power in football, and it can be again. We had a coach in Ted Roof who started us down that road, and if the news out of Knoxville is correct then I think we have a coach (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/dec/13/cutcliffe-offered-duke-job-expected-accept-positio/)who can continue and expand on what he started. When Duke reaches that level i don't want TR's accomplishments lost.

Stray Gator
12-14-2007, 08:19 AM
Just to clarify my position on "accepting mediocrity," I said:

"In fact, if it comes right down to it, I'd rather accept long-term mediocrity on the field, if that's the best a relaxed admissions standard and less-than-illustrious head coach can produce, than risk damaging Duke's institutional integrity by hiring a head coach with a shady reputation and dubious trustworthiness."

I do not accept the premise that, to achieve success in football, Duke must necessarily sacrifice the standards of academic excellence and honorable conduct and good character to which we quite properly ascribe higher value. I believe restoring the program to competitive respectability will certainly require a greater commitment of time, attention, and financial resources from the Duke community; and I'm delighted that the Duke community seems genuinely prepared to make those kinds of sacrifices, because I very much want to see the Blue Devils enjoy winning records and bowl appearances, as they did when I was much younger. If forced to make a choice, however, I would certainly prefer to compromise the football team's won-loss record than to compromise the University's integrity. And I'm gratified to see that most Duke alumni and fans agree with those priorities.

Carlos
12-14-2007, 08:21 AM
Given the state of our program, almost any coach that we can get has some dents of some sort. Some have no D-I experience. Some are assistant coaches with little or no head coaching experience. Some have been fired from head coaching jobs. Some are considered too old to take the job. Etc. etc. etc. My point: they all have warts of some sort.

Those who are against RN contend that his warts are so bad that he is beyond redemption. That may ultimately be true or false, I don't know. But no one will know without interviewing him. That's all I'm asking. I again use the analogy of Bobby Knight, who I love but who was fired from a job after choking a player, lying about it, and going to war with his own AD and administration. Do you contend that Texas Tech made a mistake in interviewing someone like him, given his past unpardonable sins?

I actually agree with you that anyone we would get have some sort of dents. Steve Spurrier isn't walking through that door.

Where we diverge is that the acceptance of a person who has been caught cheating at not one but two institutions would fall under the heading of an acceptable risk to take. I'll take my chances with someone has a history that's more in line with what I would hope to be the culture at Duke - namely that if you were to list the goals of any of the sports programs the first should be "don't cheat" and the second would be "win."

As for whether Texas Tech made a "mistake" in interviewing Bob Knight that analogy seems flawed and also benefits from the advantage of hindsight. I find it flawed from the standpoint that while both Knight and Neuheisel did lie in the course of investigations (although with Knight I think there is considerably more of a gray area there), the nature of their past and how those incidents impact a university are considerably different. Simply put, Knight may embarrass your university but Neuheisel will leave it on probation.

The other part of your analogy that I mentioned is that you're benefiting from hindsight. At the time Knight took his playbook and shotgun to Texas nobody knew if he was going to have the same problems there that he did in Bloomington. Thus far you haven't seen anything like that but if you cracked open tomorrow's sports page and found a story about him punching a ref in the middle of a game would your opinion about Texas Tech having made a mistake change at that point?

The problem with using Knight as an analogy is that it is hardly an indicator of what Neuheisel might do if he were to return to a head coaching position. Did South Carolina make a mistake when they hired Lou Holtz? He had left two other schools on probation and when he left USC they were on probation as well?

Carlos
12-14-2007, 08:28 AM
The parallel drawn to Duke bringing in Sheldon Williams after allegations were raised is apt -- he was nothing but a stand up guy at Duke, for 4 years, all-time-leader in more than one statistical area, jersey retirement, etc. Likewise, his accomplishments and recommendations have earned RN the right to get an interview. In the interview, as I'm sure was done with SW (on a different level), I'm certain RN will get the tough questions on that subject.

There is no parallel to a young man who was accused of a crime but never charged and a man who was accused and found to have committed a violation (actually, multiple violations).

OldPhiKap
12-14-2007, 09:09 AM
I actually agree with you that anyone we would get have some sort of dents. Steve Spurrier isn't walking through that door.

Where we diverge is that the acceptance of a person who has been caught cheating at not one but two institutions would fall under the heading of an acceptable risk to take. I'll take my chances with someone has a history that's more in line with what I would hope to be the culture at Duke - namely that if you were to list the goals of any of the sports programs the first should be "don't cheat" and the second would be "win."

As for whether Texas Tech made a "mistake" in interviewing Bob Knight that analogy seems flawed and also benefits from the advantage of hindsight. I find it flawed from the standpoint that while both Knight and Neuheisel did lie in the course of investigations (although with Knight I think there is considerably more of a gray area there), the nature of their past and how those incidents impact a university are considerably different. Simply put, Knight may embarrass your university but Neuheisel will leave it on probation.

The other part of your analogy that I mentioned is that you're benefiting from hindsight. At the time Knight took his playbook and shotgun to Texas nobody knew if he was going to have the same problems there that he did in Bloomington. Thus far you haven't seen anything like that but if you cracked open tomorrow's sports page and found a story about him punching a ref in the middle of a game would your opinion about Texas Tech having made a mistake change at that point?

The problem with using Knight as an analogy is that it is hardly an indicator of what Neuheisel might do if he were to return to a head coaching position. Did South Carolina make a mistake when they hired Lou Holtz? He had left two other schools on probation and when he left USC they were on probation as well?

Carlos: I don't think our views are that far apart. (And, I am hopeful that it is about to become irrelevant if other news reports pan out).

I love my university and the high standards it sets. Where I guess we differ is on two points. First, there is a difference as to how we view the severity of what RN has done in the past. Others have addressed that better than I can; suffice it to say that there is grounds for honest disagreement and I do not quibble with whichever side anyone comes down on. I do think that folks need to realize that a football program has more inherent risk of problems than a basketball program, if for no other reason than you are dealing with 60-80 plyers and not 12. As I understand it, Colorado's probation stemmed from a prior coach's screw-up and Washington's problems stemmed from him participating in what we will be venerating in March -- hoops pools. Sorry, I can't throw a stone in that glass house, but that may just be me. Again, if reasonable minds differ I won't quibble.

Second, I believe that your two analogies prove my point. You can gain FORESIGHT by talking to the guy, as opposed to waiting to see in hindsight what happened. You are correct in what you say about Knight and Holtz. However, I would posit that the reason they were hired at TT and SC respectively is because they were interviewed and the administrations were convinced that they would not have any problems at their schools. I think we are looking at different ends of the same stick. I believe that you can gain a comfort level on the front end by at least interviewing him. I take your point to be that you want to wait and see what happens given his history. Again, reasonable minds can differ on it.

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I am glad that most posters have kept this issue on a very high level. I am also glad that it's about to become moot. (fingers crossed).

-- OPK

SoCalDukeFan
12-14-2007, 10:10 AM
I would like to see Duke go independent in football only, play the Stanfords and Northwesterns etc of the world and have Notre Dame play football in the ACC and everything else in the Big East.

SoCal

Duvall
12-14-2007, 10:20 AM
I would like to see Duke go independent in football only, play the Stanfords and Northwesterns etc of the world and have Notre Dame play football in the ACC and everything else in the Big East.

SoCal

If we want to play academically strong private schools, we might as well stay in the league with Wake Forest and Boston College, and play Stanford and Northwestern out of conference.

OrangeDevil
12-14-2007, 10:46 AM
I really like Duvall's idea. I think we should schedule and play some combination of Northwestern, Vandy, Rice, Tulane, Stanford twice each season. I am particularly keen to renew an ongoing series with the Cardinal.

Carlos
12-14-2007, 10:57 AM
Second, I believe that your two analogies prove my point. You can gain FORESIGHT by talking to the guy, as opposed to waiting to see in hindsight what happened. You are correct in what you say about Knight and Holtz. However, I would posit that the reason they were hired at TT and SC respectively is because they were interviewed and the administrations were convinced that they would not have any problems at their schools. I think we are looking at different ends of the same stick. I believe that you can gain a comfort level on the front end by at least interviewing him. I take your point to be that you want to wait and see what happens given his history. Again, reasonable minds can differ on it.

-- OPK

But how much foresight do you think USC gained when they talked with Holtz? Or, do you think they could see that he was going to lead them to probation and they were willing to accept that?

You could talk with Michael Vick and he may sound all contrite but are you still going to hire him to be your dogsitter?

OldPhiKap
12-14-2007, 01:30 PM
But how much foresight do you think USC gained when they talked with Holtz? Or, do you think they could see that he was going to lead them to probation and they were willing to accept that?

You could talk with Michael Vick and he may sound all contrite but are you still going to hire him to be your dogsitter?


So . . . once a sinner, always a sinner. Got it.

And I'm sure no one here has ever bet on a March Madness pool.

Bluedawg
12-14-2007, 01:59 PM
So . . . once a sinner, always a sinner. Got it.

And I'm sure no one here has ever bet on a March Madness pool.

First, I haven't but it is different when the rules of your origination forbid it. You keep overlooking that he violated NCAA rules for coaches.

Tommac
12-14-2007, 02:08 PM
The ban on NCAA pools is a joke. I've worked at several places in the past that also prohibited all kinds of on site gambling, but there were always pools established for NCAA and professional sports. And guess what, supervisors and upper management winked and particpated just the same.

Genedoc
12-14-2007, 02:28 PM
So . . . once a sinner, always a sinner. Got it.

And I'm sure no one here has ever bet on a March Madness pool.

So just how many demonstrable examples of cheating are required for some to simply be not worth the risk? If Jim Harrick called and said "This time, I promise I won't cheat", would you believe him? What about Steve Howe? "No no, this time, I PROMISE I won't do drugs". Darryl Strawberry?

That's the problem with being a proven liar - your words are meaningless moving forward. Rick Neuheisal is a proven liar. The most disgraceful part of this whole affair has been watching a substantial number of alleged Duke supporters jump on board and explicitly advocate that we give a known liar a third chance. That is precisely how schools end up on probation. I mean, you really want Duke to win, and everyone else is doing it - what's the harm in buying a kid a nice dinner when he's visiting and showing him a good time! Boosters like you, Duke could do without.

jimsumner
12-14-2007, 02:41 PM
"And I'm sure no one here has ever bet on a March Madness pool."

Why do people keep alluding to this as if this the only or even primary reason some of us are cool on RN? Read the thread and address the entire body of criticism or don't bring it up.

Look, you're gonna have me some latitude here to not name names or give too much away, but I've talked to a fair number of folks with some knowledge of what's going on, and not one of these people think that Rick Neuheisel and Duke are a good fit.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but evidently the selection committee agrees, as he was not brought it for an interview. I'm not sure there was ever as much interest on the Duke side as some thought. It seems like whatever interest there was was generated from the other side of the equation.

I don't think the man is the anti-christ, people can and do change for the better, and I have no problem with somebody else giving him a shot. But I don't think Duke is the school to do that.

OldPhiKap
12-14-2007, 02:47 PM
Boosters like you, Duke could do without.

I think you're going a bit far there, my friend, or perhaps you haven't read my prior posts. But I appreciate you holding that moral line for all of us.

Re: "proven liar" allegation -- who are you voting for in the next Presidential election? The guys who lied to their preachers about "until death do us part"? Or maybe the gal who lied about planting questions at press conferences? Or maybe the guy who got caught plagurizing a few years ago? I'm sure the guy/gal you're supporting has never lied. Nope. Not one little bit. Because only perfect people hold jobs as important as Commander in Chief or, even more prestigious, Duke's football coach.

Since you obviously have not read my last posts, let me state: I am not defending RN or his past. I am not saying that he should be hired without proper vetting. I do think that Spurrier and Paterno's recommendations carry some weight, especially since both know what it takes to run programs at good institutions. I'll take their considered opinions over either your or mine. In any event, I have not lived such a chaste life that I can automatically eliminate folks from consideration because of what they may have done in the past. If you are blessed to be in a position to do so, thank your lucky stars.

Bluedawg
12-14-2007, 02:57 PM
Boosters like you, Duke could do without.

A bit over the top isn't this? I've made it clear that I disagree with this premise, but Duke football always needs passionate people.

OldPhiKap
12-14-2007, 03:00 PM
A bit over the top isn't this? I've made it clear that I disagree with this premise, but Duke football always needs passionate people.

Bluedawg -- when I referred in a prior post to folks who were keeping this on a high level, you were one of the ones I had in mind. We may disagree on this point, but we both want what is best for the university and our programs.

GTHC. (that aughta bring us all together, right?)

OldPhiKap
12-14-2007, 03:17 PM
Why do people keep alluding to this as if this the only or even primary reason some of us are cool on RN? Read the thread and address the entire body of criticism or don't bring it up.

The thread displays a wide variety of opinion on the matter, and it seems to be pretty fully discussed. My point in raising the March Madness issue was not to encapsulate all that RN is accused of. It was to gently point out the glass house that many find themselves in here. I am sorry if my purpose was not clear, but if you re-read it in that light (and my follow-up response to another poster) I think you will get my drift.



Look, you're gonna have me some latitude here to not name names or give too much away, but I've talked to a fair number of folks with some knowledge of what's going on, and not one of these people think that Rick Neuheisel and Duke are a good fit.

I accept your word on that and will not ask for greater detail, because I respect your opinion and information.



And, not to put too fine a point on it, but evidently the selection committee agrees, as he was not brought it for an interview. I'm not sure there was ever as much interest on the Duke side as some thought. It seems like whatever interest there was was generated from the other side of the equation.

I asked some time ago whether the decision not to talk to RN was made by JA or the whole committee, because that goes a long way to answering the question. I did not see any response to that, and initial reports indicated a split of opinion on the matter. If you are saying that they all considered it and decided not to talk to him, that answers the question I have been asking since the beginning. If on the other hand it is simply a matter of JA deciding unillaterally, I don't think he's getting fair consideration.



I don't think the man is the anti-christ, people can and do change for the better, and I have no problem with somebody else giving him a shot. But I don't think Duke is the school to do that.

Fair enough. As I have previously stated, reasonable minds can differ and I do not quibble with those who come down on the other side of the question. No worries.

Bluedawg
12-14-2007, 03:33 PM
Bluedawg -- when I referred in a prior post to folks who were keeping this on a high level, you were one of the ones I had in mind. We may disagree on this point, but we both want what is best for the university and our programs.

GTHC. (that aughta bring us all together, right?)

Always!

jimsumner
12-14-2007, 04:13 PM
It's possible that a member or two wanted to interview RN but they apparently were neither admant nor persuasive on the matter.

We do know that Duke interviewed

Rod Broadway
Paul Johnson
Bobby Johnson
Karl Dorrell
David Cutcliffe
Hue Jackson

Am I leaving anyone out?

Chan Gailey apparently cancelled an interview and there are conflicting reports on what happened on that prospective Lou Holtz interview.

And backdoor contacts were made with a number of other people, including Steve Spurrier. In fact, talks with Spurrier might have constituted an interview but why quibble?

The point is, this search was neither hasty nor cursory and there is no reason to believe that any viable candidates were eliminated without being offered an interview. So there's no reason to think RN was that viable a candidate.

Genedoc
12-14-2007, 06:03 PM
A bit over the top isn't this? I've made it clear that I disagree with this premise, but Duke football always needs passionate people.

Not in my opinion, or I wouldn't have stated it. Duke football most certainly does not need people, passionate or otherwise, who are willing to hire a proven cheater in order to win a few football games. Hiding behind "I don't want to hire him, just interview him" is preposterous. Why interview someone you aren't interest in hiring?

Passionate boosters who are willing to blur the ethical lines are exactly the reason programs end up on probation. I'm dead serious when I say that the petition circulated should serve the athletic department as a watch list of boosters who may be willing to cheat - and put Duke's reputation at risk - in the name of winning.

I'm not saying the new hire needs to be a saint. However, I wouldn't hire a lawyer who'd been twice disbarred, an MD who'd had his license suspended twice, and I certainly think that any coach who's twice left programs after cheating should be eliminated from coaching Duke.

captmojo
12-14-2007, 06:10 PM
Isn't this all sort of a moot point now?

YmoBeThere
12-14-2007, 07:00 PM
Is it too late to sign the petition?

SoCalDukeFan
12-14-2007, 07:57 PM
According to this story http://www.dailynews.com/sports/ci_7717424 UCLA is going to interview Neuheisel.

Would be an interesting hire for them and would give the LA area two charismatic college football coaches. I personally doubt if he will get the job but he does have strong support from some UCLA alumni I know, including a former player.

SoCal

Bluedawg
12-15-2007, 09:12 AM
Isn't this all sort of a moot point now?

yes it is, even though the underlying concepts may linger.

I think Duke staked out it's place in college football (http://www.newsobserver.com/737/story/831539.html)...


Brodhead also reiterated Friday that Duke will not change its admissions policy or its standards to boost the football program.

"I'll tell you that not a single coach has said that lowering academic standards is necessary for Duke to succeed in football ... no one," Brodhead said. "Everyone [we've interviewed] has said that it's not necessary and that it would be a mistake for us."


"We're looking at people who are committed to being coaches of student-athletes," Brodhead said. "That's been very important for us and for them."

...NCAA violations will not be accepted and coaches who cannot demonstrate their ability to win without them will not be considered.