Coach Cutcliffe and recruiting

[CatfiveCane]

Anyone seriously know how good a recruiter he is? I have no doubts that he's a top notch offensive mind and will be a huge UPGRADE. But what about recruiting?

He was fired from Ol'Miss. The team he left was in terrible shape due to lack of recruiting. Anyone read "Meat Market"? It basically follows the life of Ol'Miss head coach after Cutcliff was fired. Doesn't seem to paint a favorable picture of Cutcliff in terms of recruiting.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Anyone seriously know how good a recruiter he is? I have no doubts that he's a top notch offensive mind and will be a huge UPGRADE. But what about recruiting?

He was fired from Ol'Miss. The team he left was in terrible shape due to lack of recruiting. Anyone read "Meat Market"? It basically follows the life of Ol'Miss head coach after Cutcliff was fired. Doesn't seem to paint a favorable picture of Cutcliff in terms of recruiting.

My understanding is that Coach Cutcliffe was fired at Ole Miss because he wasn't willing to sacrifice his assistants as the admin demanded. As to recruiting, let me introduce the Manning family......

If you want more information, search DBR for the multiple threads which have discussed these two points at length.
Regards.

[CatfiveCane]

My understanding is that Coach Cutcliffe was fired at Ole Miss because he wasn't willing to sacrifice his assistants as the admin demanded. As to recruiting, let me introduce the Manning family......

If you want more information, search DBR for the multiple threads which have discussed these two points at length.
Regards.

See I knew someone would use Manning as an example, and I think it's a bad one. Sorry you have to recruit more than QBs. What was Ol'Miss record after Manning left? That's right.... downright awful. Cutcliff really left Ol'Miss in shambles after he was fired with barely any talent left. They still haven't recovered. While Ol'Miss isn't the LSU and UF of the SEC... it is still in the SEC and in a very rich area for talent (Alabama, LA, MS).

Hopefully, he surrounds himself with excellent coordinators that can recuit the heck out of the Carolinas.

[Mike Corey]

Why doesn't Eli Manning count? Is that not the most important position on the field offensively?

And did he not recruit more than quarterbacks? It just so happened that Manning was his "top" prospect.

He also did the yeoman's work for some guy named Michael Oher, and Ed Orgeron finished the job.

[CatfiveCane]

Why doesn't Eli Manning count? Is that not the most important position on the field offensively?

And did he not recruit more than quarterbacks? It just so happened that Manning was his "top" prospect.

He also did the yeoman's work for some guy named Michael Oher, and Ed Orgeron finished the job.



Manning does count.... but let's look at something:
1) Where did Manning's dad play?
2) Who coached his older brother, Payton?

Those two things give Cutcliff a huge advantage, and while that's great if your an Ol'Miss fan.... these kind of advantages are very rare.

As you know Ed Orgeron got fired from Miss. Orgeron, as you know, is known as a big time recruiter that is largely responsible for building up USC's major talent of stockpile in the early 2000s.

[captmojo]

If he can get the best quarterbacks, don't the best offensive players usually like to follow?

[Mike Corey]

Manning does count.... but let's look at something:
1) Where did Manning's dad play?
2) Who coached his older brother, Payton?

Those two things give Cutcliff a huge advantage, and while that's great if your an Ol'Miss fan.... these kind of advantages are very rare.

As you know Ed Orgeron got fired from Miss. Orgeron, as you know, is known as a big time recruiter that is largely responsible for building up USC's major talent of stockpile in the early 2000s.

The clear familial connection aside between Ole Miss and Eli, there's a reason why the Manning brothers will be moving their camp to Duke this summer, and that reason is David Cutcliffe. He didn't land Eli solely because of connections; he did it because he did the best job of selling himself and his school to Eli and Archie.

Further, Orgeron's an outstanding recruiter, no doubt. But he was asked to leave outright. Consider that Cutcliffe only was dismissed because he refused to terminate his assistants.

That all aside, many Mississippi faithful bemoan the recruiting job that Cutcliffe supposedly did while he was in charge there. But the bottom line is that he brought Mississippi more success than anyone had in quite some time, and more so than Orgeron did during his brief tenure.

Cutcliffe's got a great staff in Durham now, and he has been the first to say that he is infinitely more prepared to be a head coach now than he was during his first go-around.

He's already brought one four-star quarterback to campus, drew enough respect to make Duke at least a minimal possibility for the best college prospect since Adrian Peterson, and will be spending every waking moment he's not coaching his current team to earning the right to be called a "good recruiter."

I appreciate the points you're attempting to make, but I humbly submit that a review of Mississippi's recruiting rankings under Cutcliffe are actually quite respectable, and that he's more than worthy of being given the opportunity to recruit at Duke before being shrugged off as an unproven recruiter.

Sure, there were "ins" that he had with Eli Manning. But he made the most of them.

There are ample examples out there of coaches buttressed by similar connections that are unable to capitalize. Cutcliffe did. That says something, IMO.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

The clear familial connection aside between Ole Miss and Eli, there's a reason why the Manning brothers will be moving their camp to Duke this summer, and that reason is David Cutcliffe. He didn't land Eli solely because of connections; he did it because he did the best job of selling himself and his school to Eli and Archie.

Further, Orgeron's an outstanding recruiter, no doubt. But he was asked to leave outright. Consider that Cutcliffe only was dismissed because he refused to terminate his assistants.

That all aside, many Mississippi faithful bemoan the recruiting job that Cutcliffe supposedly did while he was in charge there. But the bottom line is that he brought Mississippi more success than anyone had in quite some time, and more so than Orgeron did during his brief tenure.

Cutcliffe's got a great staff in Durham now, and he has been the first to say that he is infinitely more prepared to be a head coach now than he was during his first go-around.

He's already brought one four-star quarterback to campus, drew enough respect to make Duke at least a minimal possibility for the best college prospect since Adrian Peterson, and will be spending every waking moment he's not coaching his current team to earning the right to be called a "good recruiter."

I appreciate the points you're attempting to make, but I humbly submit that a review of Mississippi's recruiting rankings under Cutcliffe are actually quite respectable, and that he's more than worthy of being given the opportunity to recruit at Duke before being shrugged off as an unproven recruiter.

Sure, there were "ins" that he had with Eli Manning. But he made the most of them.

There are ample examples out there of coaches buttressed by similar connections that are unable to capitalize. Cutcliffe did. That says something, IMO.

You've summed it up quite well, Mike. Thank you!

[CatfiveCane]

The clear familial connection aside between Ole Miss and Eli, there's a reason why the Manning brothers will be moving their camp to Duke this summer, and that reason is David Cutcliffe. He didn't land Eli solely because of connections; he did it because he did the best job of selling himself and his school to Eli and Archie.

Further, Orgeron's an outstanding recruiter, no doubt. But he was asked to leave outright. Consider that Cutcliffe only was dismissed because he refused to terminate his assistants.

That all aside, many Mississippi faithful bemoan the recruiting job that Cutcliffe supposedly did while he was in charge there. But the bottom line is that he brought Mississippi more success than anyone had in quite some time, and more so than Orgeron did during his brief tenure.

Cutcliffe's got a great staff in Durham now, and he has been the first to say that he is infinitely more prepared to be a head coach now than he was during his first go-around.

He's already brought one four-star quarterback to campus, drew enough respect to make Duke at least a minimal possibility for the best college prospect since Adrian Peterson, and will be spending every waking moment he's not coaching his current team to earning the right to be called a "good recruiter."

I appreciate the points you're attempting to make, but I humbly submit that a review of Mississippi's recruiting rankings under Cutcliffe are actually quite respectable, and that he's more than worthy of being given the opportunity to recruit at Duke before being shrugged off as an unproven recruiter.

Sure, there were "ins" that he had with Eli Manning. But he made the most of them.

There are ample examples out there of coaches buttressed by similar connections that are unable to capitalize. Cutcliffe did. That says something, IMO.

So you saying if Archie never played at Miss and his older never was coached by Cutcliff, he would have gotten Eli? I doubt it. But yes, he got him and that does count for something. You state Cutcliff's recruiting is "Respectable". How do you justify this? You say he shouldn't be shrugged off as an unproven recruiter. Well he is a proven recruiter. He's proven to be an average one at best.

Cutcliff is going to find it even harder to recuit at Duke compared to Miss. What happens in 1-2 years when he no longer has the Tennessee badge to whip out. I guess we shall see. Hopefully, he has learned from his mistakes and becomes a monster recruiter.

[Truth]

The clear familial connection aside between Ole Miss and Eli, there's a reason why the Manning brothers will be moving their camp to Duke this summer, and that reason is David Cutcliffe.

Is this similar to when former Duke greats come back to campus early in the year and scrimmage with the team, or is this an official camp that Peyton and Eli will be participating in? Will this have any tangible benefit to our current football team?

[Mike Corey]

Catfive,

To be fair, it doesn't sound like you truly were asking a question, but merely are seeking to disagree with those that do not share your previously-reached conclusion that Cutcliffe is an "average recruiter." And that's fine, I respect your opinion, just want to get that out of the way before responding further.

I did not say that Archie's connection to Mississippi didn't have an impact on Eli's ultimate decision. I did say, however, that it clearly wasn't the only item of significance in Eli's recruitment. I tend to think that Cutcliffe had a great deal to do with that. Of course, the best way to resolve this would be to speak with Eli himself, and perhaps once he's finished with his current season, I'll attempt to do just that.

That aside, you've asked me to justify my conclusion that his recruiting was "respectable."

Here's the best I can do in a few minutes:

Rivals.com, which has at least a modicum of respectability when it comes to football recruiting rankings, has team recruiting rankings tabulated from 2002 on.

Ole Miss was rated as 33rd in 2002, with one five-star recruit, eight four-star recruits and seven three-star recruits.

2003 brought a less impressive haul, with Cutcliffe's class ranking 38th, with zero five-star recruits, two four-star recruits and 14 three-star recruits.

And in 2004, Cutcliffe brought in the 30th-best haul in America, with three four-star recruits and 11 three-stars.

If that doesn't qualify as, at least, "respectable," I'm not sure what does.

To be thorough, let's also consider the team rankings from Scout.com, another football recruiting outlet that has, at least, a modicum of respectability with regards to rankings such as these. Its records also begin in 2002.

2002: 26th - 1 five-star; 5 four-star; 9 three-star
2003: 32nd - 3 four-star; 7 three-star
2004: 39th - 1 four-star; 11 three-star

For good measure, I think it's also worth noting the 2005 recruiting class, of which Cutcliffe and his staff undoubtedly did a great deal of work. Yes, that classes pair of five-star recruits committed after Cutcliffe had been forced out. So with the caveat that I reserve the right to be proven wrong by someone privy to the ins and outs of Ole Miss recruiting in '04-'05, I think it's fair to give Cutcliffe at least a scintilla of credit for laying the groundwork for that class.

All that said, who failed to capitalize on all of that talent post-Eli? It wasn't Cutcliffe--he wasn't given the chance.

I'm thrilled that Cutcliffe has the chance to prove his mettle--both as a coach and as a recruiter--at Duke.

[A-Tex Devil]

So you saying if Archie never played at Miss and his older never was coached by Cutcliff, he would have gotten Eli? I doubt it. But yes, he got him and that does count for something. You state Cutcliff's recruiting is "Respectable". How do you justify this? You say he shouldn't be shrugged off as an unproven recruiter. Well he is a proven recruiter. He's proven to be an average one at best.

Cutcliff is going to find it even harder to recuit at Duke compared to Miss. What happens in 1-2 years when he no longer has the Tennessee badge to whip out. I guess we shall see. Hopefully, he has learned from his mistakes and becomes a monster recruiter.

I've been pretty close to Ole Miss football -- my ex-wife was a graduate and her dad is in the administration. By the way -- if you've never been to the Grove for a pregame -- that's up there with Duke UNC at Cameron, Ohio State Michigan as a college sports must.

Cutcliffe had some less than stellar recruiting by SEC standards, but pulled in teams that Duke would be thrilled to have. Recruiting at the 2 Mississippi SEC schools is a very very difficult job. There isn't alot of in state talent and what is there is constantly raided by the border states.

Cutcliffe got a screw job the season after Eli left. But Orgeron was an unmitigated disaster. He had no control over the team and used Cutcliffe's failure to recruit as an excuse for his inability to get the team to execute -- especially on offense. If Cutcliffe's recruits were really the reason Orgeron couldn't win, he'd still be there.

Orgeron is a great assistant, but a joke of a head coach. Check out http://everydayshouldbelemsday.blogspot.com. It's a pardoy site but not far off. It's based on the portrayal of Orgeron in "The Blind Side." Great stuff. Better yet - check this song out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nACZJ5x_wBY

Cutcliffe can recruit. He's not Nick Saban or Pete Carroll in that respect, but offensive talent wants to play for him, and hopefully his defensive staff will be up to the challenge as well.

[CatfiveCane]

Cutcliffe had some less than stellar recruiting by SEC standards, but pulled in teams that Duke would be thrilled to have. Recruiting at the 2 Mississippi SEC schools is a very very difficult job. There isn't alot of in state talent and what is there is constantly raided by the border states.



Well Cutcliff is probably going to have an even more difficult task of getting talent to commit to Duke. North Carolina really isn't a bastion of football talent. The you have teams like Clemson, USC, Georgia, UVA, Virginia Tech and now UNC (with Butch Davis) taking all the local talent away.

[Mike Corey]

Well Cutcliff is probably going to have an even more difficult task of getting talent to commit to Duke. North Carolina really isn't a bastion of football talent. The you have teams like Clemson, USC, Georgia, UVA, Virginia Tech and now UNC (with Butch Davis) taking all the local talent away.

This is a problem any Duke football coach would face and has faced, however.

Cutcliffe and his staff are as equipped and experienced as any I can imagine to combat the challenges at hand.

[A-Tex Devil]

Well Cutcliff is probably going to have an even more difficult task of getting talent to commit to Duke. North Carolina really isn't a bastion of football talent. The you have teams like Clemson, USC, Georgia, UVA, Virginia Tech and now UNC (with Butch Davis) taking all the local talent away.

I disagree. Duke can recruit nationally in a way that Ole Miss never has. That's the main advantage. We get PA, TX, Fla, IL, NJ, CA. Now we don't always get the best talent, but we recruit a much broader geography than what you can at Ole Miss. If we can step up the talent, we'll be in good shape.

[cbfx3]

Ole Miss didnt have the luxury of offering a free ride to a Duke education..

[crote]

A related question:

At the game last night, Coach Cut announced his staff, including his recruiting coordinator whose name I don't recall but came from Cornell. Academically it seems like a good hire, as he would presumably know how to find student athlete that can succeed in the classroom at a school like Duke. Athletically, though, I have no idea.

Is there anyone here that follows Ivy football closely enough to wager a guess at whether or not this is a good hire?

[A-Tex Devil]

Ole Miss didnt have the luxury of offering a free ride to a Duke education..

True. But Ole MIss has other "perks" often found in sundresses on gameday at the Grove. A prettier site I don't think I've ever seen.

Seriously, though, I'm excited. Cutcliffe is a name guy, who has had success. Those Eli Manning led teams were well coached. It wasn't all Eli, although he was ver very good.

I'm hoping for some surprises on 2/2, but even if not, I bet we start hearing some surprising verbal commits over the next year for class of 2009.

[crote]

True. But Ole MIss has other "perks" often found in sundresses on gameday at the Grove. A prettier site I don't think I've ever seen.


EDSBS did a thorough job (http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2007/01/11/clay-travis-evolutions-fool/) debunking this myth. Caveat emptor, Grove attendee.

[CatfiveCane]

Supposedly, Ole Miss has the one of the best female looking coed groups around. Never under estimate the power of the female gender.

Duke might be able to recruit more nationally then Ole Miss. But that doesn't mean it gets any easier. In fact Cutcliff would probably be smarter to recruit South and not North (PA, NY, NJ). Still tons of talent in FL who never get picked by the big three. These are the kids Duke could really build a very competitive and successful program with.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Catfive,

To be fair, it doesn't sound like you truly were asking a question, but merely are seeking to disagree with those that do not share your previously-reached conclusion that Cutcliffe is an "average recruiter." And that's fine, I respect your opinion, just want to get that out of the way before responding further.


Catfive,

I don't mean to be fair. I don't respect you. You sound like a troll to me and I would appreciate it if you would take your vitriol elsewhere. Moderators, please delete his posts in this thread.

[A-Tex Devil]

EDSBS did a thorough job (http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2007/01/11/clay-travis-evolutions-fool/) debunking this myth. Caveat emptor, Grove attendee.

That's awesome. I love EDSBS, but I'll have to respectfully disagree. I think they were just a bit upset that Clay Travis had the Gators next to last in his little poll. Great writers can make great arguments, but I'll take personal experience over that each time.

[wilson]

FWIW, I found myself randomly talking to a couple of Tennessee fans tonight who noticed my Duke hat and remarked on our having "taken" their OC. They said that they'll really miss him and that we'll be really happy with him in all aspects of the program, recruiting being an important one.

[formerdukeathlete]

Supposedly, Ole Miss has the one of the best female looking coed groups around. Never under estimate the power of the female gender.

Duke might be able to recruit more nationally then Ole Miss. But that doesn't mean it gets any easier. In fact Cutcliff would probably be smarter to recruit South and not North (PA, NY, NJ). Still tons of talent in FL who never get picked by the big three. These are the kids Duke could really build a very competitive and successful program with.

I disagree about Duke's prospects in PA, NY and NJ. But, add Ohio, Michigan, Illinois to the mix.

I also disagree about Florida. Tyler Rice was a highly sought after player from South Florida - Duke beat out better football programs in landing him. Hopefully, he is now finally healthy and will contribute. Another south Floridian left the Duke program early - dont know the reason for this, but he also was highly recruited. Tons of programs hit the recruiting trail in Florida, After all of these hit, after FAU and FIU take what is left over, especially, when focusing on whether there are academcially qualified prospects left over in this mix, there really is not much left over for Duke to recruit.

But, you will find 3 star rated top 10% of high school class players in the northeast and midwest who may choose Duke over top programs. My only reservation about Cut was that I thought we would have been better hiring a northeasterner or midwesterner in terms of recruiting - because I disagree with you - we will do our best recruiting outside the South, ONCE we have an improved program.

[Capn Poptart]

If the videos and interviews I've seen of Cutcliffe are indicative of his personality, I think we'll be just fine. :)

[OrangeDevil]

This is a very interesting discussion. I have maintained for some time now that the major deficiency in Duke football has been a recent history of abyssmal recruiting. Can Coach Cutcliffe recruit the caliber of athletes needed to compete successfully in the Atlantic Coast Conference and nationally? The answer is we don't know, but almost certainly this will determine whether or not the football program will succeed under the new coaching staff.

I propose a practical test of Cutcliffe's recruiting ability. Initially, is not whether or not he can bring some of the best players from Texas, California, New York, Florida, etc. to Durham. You have to walk before you can run. In this sense, it seems more plausible to expect success, much closer to home. To establish a solid foundation, Cutcliffe needs to bring to Durham some players from Durham and Triangle area programs. Annually, there are some at excellent prospects produced by Durham high schools and adjacent schools. How many of these even consider Duke as a football destination? Here's the test. His name is Desmond Scott. Next year, he will be a senior at Durham Hillside. Rivals has him listed as the #15 prospect in the class of 2009. He's a smallish but explosive running back who's being recruited by most of the top programs in the country. Along the list of schools that he's presently considering are Alabama, Clemson, Florida, UNC, State, Tennessee, and Virginia. He also sports a 3.7 GPA and should qualify for admission. There is no reason a player of this caliber should not be giving Duke strong consideration. Presently, Duke seems to be nowhere in site with him. We absolutely have to get some players of such skill and prominence to consider and then sign with Duke. I wonder if Greg Little gave Duke as much as a sniff before verballing to Notre Dame and matriculating to UNC?

Of course, there are additional benefits to be realized from recruiting Durham area players. It would aid in reestablishing a positive rapport between the Duke community and black Durham and remind everyone that Duke is not just in Durham, but that it is also of Durham.

[RepoMan]

Obviously, good recruiting is essential for success. It is hard to quantify recruiting success though. I tend to think that the best way to quantify that success is through results on the field. I'm no expert, but rankings skew heavily toward the 5 star recruits, and my sense is that, in football, moreso than in say basketball, 5 star status is by no means a sure sign of college greatness.

In any event, looking at Rivals, here are the class rankings since 2002 for a BCS school that rarely gets 5 star recruits, but throughout that time has challenged for and/or won conference titles just about every year:

27
41
14 (had a 5 star)
29
32


Those are the rankings for the Virginia Tech Hokies. All of which is to say that there is no reason to believe that the class rankings achieved by Cut at Ole Miss (for whatever the rankings are worth) are not more than adequate for success. Was the post Cut Ole Miss failure a result of recruiting mistakes or poor coaching? Beats me, but the data seems to suggest the latter.

[RugbyDevil05]

While I don't know much about football recruiting, and whether Cutcliffe is any good, he was shown several times during the Giants-Packers NFC Championship game yesterday sitting with the Mannings in their luxury box. Since the Giants won, it's likely we'll see him again during the Super Bowl. I can't imagine that regular exposure on national tv as the Mannings' mentor will hurt him on the recruiting trail.

[CatfiveCane]

college football recruiting is pretty tough to measure success with based solely on Rivals or Scout.com's star system. They never take into account transfers, players that never qualify, etc... For instance I was reading about UF's recruiting class under Zook and Urban Meyer. You look at Zook's last recruiting year and Meyer's first recruiting year at Florida and you say "great success" based on Rival's stars. But when you take a closer look at thing you see that about 75% of the players in that class have either transferred, quit, or never even played for Florida. Hardly a "successful" class in hindsight. Same is true for Miami. Miami pulled some of their best rated classes between 2002-2005, yet they find themselves depleted of talent.

So in short, we just can't look at stars to measure a recruiting class. Player development is also very important.

In terms of Duke recruiting the South. While there are tons of talent up North, it's a pretty common notion in the college football world that you go recruiting south, not north. Although Florida seems to be overcrowded with teams like FIA, FAU, UF, FSU, Miami, USF, and now central Florida.... there are still tons of talent in the state. If Duke wants to be successful, the can start by beating out the USF, FIA, FAU, Rutgers of the world for the talent. I doubt Duke can beat out FL's big three or when schools like LSU, Ohio State or Notre Dame come cherry picking but still tons of talent in the state.

[CatfiveCane]

Catfive,

I don't mean to be fair. I don't respect you. You sound like a troll to me and I would appreciate it if you would take your vitriol elsewhere. Moderators, please delete his posts in this thread.

I appreciate your contribution to the thread. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

[formerdukeathlete]

........In terms of Duke recruiting the South. While there are tons of talent up North, it's a pretty common notion in the college football world that you go recruiting south, not north. Although Florida seems to be overcrowded with teams like FIA, FAU, UF, FSU, Miami, USF, and now central Florida.... there are still tons of talent in the state. If Duke wants to be successful, the can start by beating out the USF, FIA, FAU, Rutgers of the world for the talent. I doubt Duke can beat out FL's big three or when schools like LSU, Ohio State or Notre Dame come cherry picking but still tons of talent in the state.

And, Duke's advantages apply equally everywhere in the country. The question is, where are the recruits, particularly the maintstay, bread and butter, recruits (top 10% of high school class, 90 percentile college boards), who will be interested in and receptive to Duke's advantages? I submit that these recruits are not necessarily in the South, and particularly not necessarily in Florida where public education is not up to the same standards as in PA, NJ, NY, MA, OH, MI. Duke has some great kids out of St. Thomas Acquinas in Fort Lauderdale. Tyler Rice from Pinecrest in Boca Raton. Hopefully, more highly rated players from all over the country will become interested in Duke with winning games. I don't know if there is much more that Duke can do in FL. We already out recruit USF, UCF, FAU and FIU, IF the kids are better students.

[CatfiveCane]

And, Duke's advantages apply equally everywhere in the country. The question is, where are the recruits, particularly the maintstay, bread and butter, recruits (top 10% of high school class, 90 percentile college boards), who will be interested in and receptive to Duke's advantages? I submit that these recruits are not necessarily in the South, and particularly not necessarily in Florida where public education is not up to the same standards as in PA, NJ, NY, MA, OH, MI. Duke has some great kids out of St. Thomas Acquinas in Fort Lauderdale. Tyler Rice from Pinecrest in Boca Raton. Hopefully, more highly rated players from all over the country will become interested in Duke with winning games. I don't know if there is much more that Duke can do in FL. We already out recruit USF, UCF, FAU and FIU, IF the kids are better students.

How is it that you say Duke out recruits these schools already? Also what is a good student? Last time I checked USF was ranked #2 during this past season with almost all FL students... all of them NCAA eligible of course. We out recruiting USF too?

Sorry if Duke is only looking to recruit the top 10% in their HS class and 90 percentile college boards... and still be success... we might as well move to Div II football right now.

[77devil]

Supposedly, Ole Miss has the one of the best female looking coed groups around. Never under estimate the power of the female gender.

Duke might be able to recruit more nationally then Ole Miss. But that doesn't mean it gets any easier. In fact Cutcliff would probably be smarter to recruit South and not North (PA, NY, NJ). Still tons of talent in FL who never get picked by the big three. These are the kids Duke could really build a very competitive and successful program with.

Duke must recruit on a national level given its academic standards. Avoiding large states with established high school football traditions like PA, NY, and NJ would be foolish and counter productive.


How is it that you say Duke out recruits these schools already? Also what is a good student? Last time I checked USF was ranked #2 during this past season with almost all FL students... all of them NCAA eligible of course. We out recruiting USF too?

Sorry if Duke is only looking to recruit the top 10% in their HS class and 90 percentile college boards... and still be success... .

If you are not cognizant of the fact that admission standards at Duke for athletes is substantially above NCAA eligibility, and consistent with top 10% high school rank, 90 percentile boards mentioned by FDA, you have no business commenting.

[Jumbo]

You need to calm down. The man not only hasn't coached a game at Duke, he hasn't even run a practice yet. You've made your point about some recruiting concerns about Ole Miss. Everyone gets it. He can't do anything to change your view for at least another year. So, please, let it go. Everyone knows your stance. Try to lighten your tone a bit, and move on to something else.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

How is it that you say Duke out recruits these schools already? Also what is a good student? Last time I checked USF was ranked #2 during this past season with almost all FL students... all of them NCAA eligible of course. We out recruiting USF too?

Sorry if Duke is only looking to recruit the top 10% in their HS class and 90 percentile college boards... and still be success... we might as well move to Div II football right now.

I'm curious about when you were at Duke, CatfiveCane. Sometimes the era when we were there seems to influence our perspective.

[CatfiveCane]

Duke must recruit on a national level given its academic standards. Avoiding large states with established high school football traditions like PA, NY, and NJ would be foolish and counter productive.



If you are not cognizant of the fact that admission standards at Duke for athletes is substantially above NCAA eligibility, and consistent with top 10% high school rank, 90 percentile boards mentioned by FDA, you have no business commenting.

Oh please. Show me in writing where this is law. As far as I know, Duke is able to recruit 4-5 players a year who meet baseline NCAA sliding scale rules. This is fact and was published in the New & Observer about 1-2 years ago. Granted, I do know that Duke's standards are higher then the NCAA minimum, but no where do I recall reading top 10% rank etc. If that's the point, why even higher Cutcliff. He can't work miracles.

[CatfiveCane]

I'm curious about when you were at Duke, CatfiveCane. Sometimes the era when we were there seems to influence our perspective.

Except for the brief years of Spurrier... it seems like Duke Football has been the same in all eras for the past 30+ years.

[CatfiveCane]

You need to calm down. The man not only hasn't coached a game at Duke, he hasn't even run a practice yet. You've made your point about some recruiting concerns about Ole Miss. Everyone gets it. He can't do anything to change your view for at least another year. So, please, let it go. Everyone knows your stance. Try to lighten your tone a bit, and move on to something else.

Huh? Where are we? We are on a message board. The point is to discuss things. 90% of the items on this DBR board can never be proven. Plus I like football. And as long as I'm able to discuss football, I will.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Except for the brief years of Spurrier... it seems like Duke Football has been the same in all eras for the past 30+ years.
My question wasn't about the history of Duke football. What is your connection with Duke?

[rockymtn devil]

So in short, we just can't look at stars to measure a recruiting class. Player development is also very important.

In terms of Duke recruiting the South. While there are tons of talent up North, it's a pretty common notion in the college football world that you go recruiting south, not north. Although Florida seems to be overcrowded with teams like FIA, FAU, UF, FSU, Miami, USF, and now central Florida.... there are still tons of talent in the state. If Duke wants to be successful, the can start by beating out the USF, FIA, FAU, Rutgers of the world for the talent. I doubt Duke can beat out FL's big three or when schools like LSU, Ohio State or Notre Dame come cherry picking but still tons of talent in the state.

1. Let me get this straight: Cutcliffe is, in your eyes, a bad recruiter because Ole Miss fell of the map after he left (with Orgeron coaching the remnants Cut's players). But, it's not just about stars because "player development is also very important" (important to what, I'm not sure, because you seem to have veered off your original course). So why are you willing to condemn Coach Cut's recruiting based on the results of players he didn't get to develop? Based on your ever-evolving theory of football recruiting success, the only basis for evaluating Coach Cut as a HC/recruiter is what was done by the players he both recruited and developed--the players that he won the SEC West with in 2003/4 and players that he led to bowl games every year but one.

2. I'm not sure why it's a "common notion" that you recruit south but not north. Outside of the big 3 (California, Texas, Florida) the best high school football is played in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. If you want Duke to neglect these states (and I do agree that Cut needs to tap into regional talent), you're cutting off a huge segment of the football talent in this country. I think Jim Tressell might disagree with some of your theories.

[Carlos]

Anyone seriously know how good a recruiter he is? I have no doubts that he's a top notch offensive mind and will be a huge UPGRADE. But what about recruiting?

He was fired from Ol'Miss. The team he left was in terrible shape due to lack of recruiting. Anyone read "Meat Market"? It basically follows the life of Ol'Miss head coach after Cutcliff was fired. Doesn't seem to paint a favorable picture of Cutcliff in terms of recruiting.

Are you saying that a book written by a guy who was given full access by Orgeron doesn't paint a favorable picture of Cutcliffe? Color me shocked... shocked I say.

Cutcliffe was run off from Ole Miss because he wouldn't throw his assistants under the bus after one losing season. But if you're a college AD or president it sounds much better to say "we didn't feel his recruiting was strong enough" than to say "he didn't fire all his assistants." And if you're a college coach who comes in and goes 3-8 your first year it certainly sounds better to say "that last guy sure didn't leave me with much" than to say "wow, maybe I wasn't ready for a head coaching job."

Interestingly enough, despite having two of his own recruiting classes in there, the recruiting genius Orgeron could never do any better than the worst of all of Cutcliffe's years. You can't lay that all at the feet of Cutcliffe.

BTW - saying that Ole Miss is in the SEC and therefore should have recruited better talent ignores the fact that no coach has done well there.

So you want to know what kind of recruiter Cutcliffe is but you discount the Mannings because it doesn't support your belief. You also discount the rankings from the recruiting services. It seems that anything that doesn't play into your idea that Cutcliffe can't recruit isn't worth talking about.

BTW - the fact that a number of kids who committed to Zook transferred or never played for Florida is hardly surprising since the coach and the style of play are two important factors in where a kid will go.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Pete Carroll was not going to leave USC to come to Duke.
Urban Meyer was not going to leave Florida, nor was Jim Tressel going to leave Ohio State. Belechick was staying with the Patriots.

I think we were very very lucky to find and get Cutcliffe. If he had a perfect record he would be a successful head coach in the SEC or elsewhere and unavailable to Duke. He seems like a man of talent and integrity. He has some great connections. I think he is competitive and knows how to win. I am sure he learned some things from this Mississippi experience, and also his stints after Mississippi.

Look at the pool of the coaches that was reasonably available to Duke. They all had "flaws" ranging from previous NCAA sanctions to never having coached in a BCS league. According to "rumors" Karl Dorrell was second on the list. I am much much happier with Cutcliffe than I would have been with Dorrell.

I am not buying my tickets to the next BCS National Championship game but I am looking forward to improvement in Duke football. I think he was an excellent hire.

SoCal

[wilko]

When Cut gets things moving in the right direction it will be on us as a fanbase to support the team. They have to do their part and get some wins and be competitive, but assuming they do THAT...

We have to fill the stands and go to some games or we wont be able to keep him. He'll get hired away. The next coach that can win at Duke... what will he be worth? It made Spurrier a household name.

Soon (I hope) we will have to honor our part of the bargain

[A-Tex Devil]

Pete Carroll was not going to leave USC to come to Duke.
Urban Meyer was not going to leave Florida, nor was Jim Tressel going to leave Ohio State. Belechick was staying with the Patriots.

I think we were very very lucky to find and get Cutcliffe. If he had a perfect record he would be a successful head coach in the SEC or elsewhere and unavailable to Duke. He seems like a man of talent and integrity. He has some great connections. I think he is competitive and knows how to win. I am sure he learned some things from this Mississippi experience, and also his stints after Mississippi.

Look at the pool of the coaches that was reasonably available to Duke. They all had "flaws" ranging from previous NCAA sanctions to never having coached in a BCS league. According to "rumors" Karl Dorrell was second on the list. I am much much happier with Cutcliffe than I would have been with Dorrell.

I am not buying my tickets to the next BCS National Championship game but I am looking forward to improvement in Duke football. I think he was an excellent hire.

SoCal

Exactly. Cutcliffe brings credibility. Cutcliffe brings experience. Cutcliffe brings connections. We've tried to catch lightning in the bottle with our last 2 hires, and as great of people as they were, they simply weren't chief executives ready to lead a D1 team.

Cutcliffe has led teams to bowl games and won them. Cutcliffe has had his hand in some MAJOR recruiting wars, some he's lost, some he's won, but he's gotten his foot in the door and is battle tested. What I'm most optimistic about, though, and what I think you'll see immediately next year is how prepared we will be for games. Fewer mental mistakes, fewer silly penalties, fewer avalanches a la the end of the first half of the Clemson game. Even if we wind up 3-9 or 4-8, what you will see will be a true D1A caliber football team. I'm not sure you could have said that for the most part of this decade.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

When Cut gets things moving in the right direction it will be on us as a fanbase to support the team. They have to do their part and get some wins and be competitive, but assuming they do THAT...

We have to fill the stands and go to some games or we wont be able to keep him. He'll get hired away. The next coach that can win at Duke... what will he be worth? It made Spurrier a household name.

Soon (I hope) we will have to honor our part of the bargain

Does this mean you feel no loyalty unless the team wins?

[CatfiveCane]

Cutcliff defin brings credibility to the Duke program. Way more than Franks or Roof could. That's why I'm asking serious questions here: The lifeblood of college football... recruiting.

Now the only two things people here have said is this: Manning and Rivals/Scout's star system. I contend that the Manning situation is a very rare one and will unlikely repeat itself and the star system from Rivals in unreliable (The Florida example was from TWO recruiting classes, not just Zook's class). I could care less about Ole Miss' record after Cutcliff left. All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent. It took Butch Davis 5 years to recover Miami after the Dennis Erickson fiasco... and that's being able to recruit in talent rich South FL. So my orginial question was whether anyone had any real ideas as him as a recruiter. Obviously not. I will try the Ole Miss and Tennessee boards for more info.

Now the issue of where Duke should recruit. Well Duke should recruit where ever it can find talent. But that's clearly not in the North. Let's look at he BCS winners since 1998

1998 - Tennessee
1999 - FSU
2000 - Oklahoma
2001 - Miami
2002 - OSU (although Miami probably should have won)
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - UF
2007 - LSU

You see a trend here? Besides 2002, all these schools are NOT from PA, NJ, Michigan, or Ohio or other Northern States. They are basically from FL, TX, CA, and LA. That's where the talent is... and that's where Duke needs to recruit. Granted in an ideal world Duke could recruit everywhere, but granted limited time, NCAA rules, and manpower.... Duke needs the best bang for the money. Plus Duke is still a Southern School, in a southern conference (ignoring BC)

[Mike Corey]

Cutcliff defin brings credibility to the Duke program. Way more than Franks or Roof could. That's why I'm asking serious questions here: The lifeblood of college football... recruiting.

Now the only two things people here have said is this: Manning and Rivals/Scout's star system. I contend that the Manning situation is a very rare one and will unlikely repeat itself and the star system from Rivals in unreliable (The Florida example was from TWO recruiting classes, not just Zook's class). I could care less about Ole Miss' record after Cutcliff left. All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent. It took Butch Davis 5 years to recover Miami after the Dennis Erickson fiasco... and that's being able to recruit in talent rich South FL. So my orginial question was whether anyone had any real ideas as him as a recruiter. Obviously not. I will try the Ole Miss and Tennessee boards for more info.

Now the issue of where Duke should recruit. Well Duke should recruit where ever it can find talent. But that's clearly not in the North. Let's look at he BCS winners since 1998

1998 - Tennessee
1999 - FSU
2000 - Oklahoma
2001 - Miami
2002 - OSU (although Miami probably should have won)
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - UF
2007 - LSU

You see a trend here? Besides 2002, all these schools are NOT from PA, NJ, Michigan, or Ohio or other Northern States. They are basically from FL, TX, CA, and LA. That's where the talent is... and that's where Duke needs to recruit. Granted in an ideal world Duke could recruit everywhere, but granted limited time, NCAA rules, and manpower.... Duke needs the best bang for the money. Plus Duke is still a Southern School, in a southern conference (ignoring BC)

Not sure what your motive is here, but I'll take the bait anyway:

1) Rivals and Scout rankings aside--which you've failed to delegitimize aside from your digital shoulder shrug--your assertion that Cutcliffe left the program "in shambles" is conspicuously unfounded, unfair and outrageous.

2) Your twisted use of logic in only considering the BCS winner fails to consider where those kids came from, and who also fielded competitive teams that year. Talent exists outside of the national champions, and the suggestion of otherwise is downright mind-boggling.

Similarly, dismissing the talent out of non-Southern states is, quite frankly, foolish, if you're doing so simply because of geography...which is apparently what you're doing.

Consider NFL draft picks in recent years, look at all of the players born and bred in the Midwest and northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and kindly consider reconsidering your inconsiderate conclusions.

[A-Tex Devil]

All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent.

Patrick Willis (and several other NFL players recruited by Cutcliffe, coached by Orgeron) says hello. Orgeron was awful. Period. The offensive coaching staff he brought in was overwhelmed and outmatched. They had a Tebow like (not as good, but same skill set) QB named Lane that they basically ruined in just a couple of years. Cutcliffe didn't leave Ole Miss in shambles. He was prematurely fired and replaced by someone who wasn't as good of a coach and the results spoke for themselves. Would Ole Miss have been a perennial bowl contender if Cutcliffe stayed? I can't speak to that, but I can say they'd be better off today.



Now the issue of where Duke should recruit. Well Duke should recruit where ever it can find talent. But that's clearly not in the North. Let's look at he BCS winners since 1998

1998 - Tennessee
1999 - FSU
2000 - Oklahoma
2001 - Miami
2002 - OSU (although Miami probably should have won)
2003 - LSU
2004 - USC
2005 - Texas
2006 - UF
2007 - LSU

You see a trend here? Besides 2002, all these schools are NOT from PA, NJ, Michigan, or Ohio or other Northern States. They are basically from FL, TX, CA, and LA. That's where the talent is... and that's where Duke needs to recruit. Granted in an ideal world Duke could recruit everywhere, but granted limited time, NCAA rules, and manpower.... Duke needs the best bang for the money. Plus Duke is still a Southern School, in a southern conference (ignoring BC)

If you don't believe OH, NJ, PA, IL have talent worth pursuing, I don't know what to tell you. We're Duke. We should recruit nationally (in fact, we have to). NOthing compares to TX, FL and CA, and then GA and NC, but after that, we have the resources and alumni base to start cherry picking those states that the other "southern" ACC schools don't even bother with. I don't mind concentrating on NC, GA and FL (I think if you look at our roster, we already do), but we've had too many good players come from the midwest and northeast to ignore that pipeline.

[formerdukeathlete]

.......
Now the issue of where Duke should recruit. Well Duke should recruit where ever it can find talent. But that's clearly not in the North. Let's look at he BCS winners since 1998.......

Granted in an ideal world Duke could recruit everywhere, but granted limited time, NCAA rules, and manpower.... Duke needs the best bang for the money. Plus Duke is still a Southern School, in a southern conference (ignoring BC)

in 2005 Duke's incoming class was ranked 31 by scout - USF, the highest ranking among the second tier in Florida, was 54. The next year Duke was 36 and USF was 56.

Duke's academic restrictions which limit the prospects are also its strengths. This is why a kid in Washington state who is a good student will be interested in Duke (as long as its football program is contending) who might also be recruited by USC, Notre Dame. Duke is more highly regarded and has better graduate schools, should the kid be interested in becoming a doctor after football, for example. Yes, the administration has given the football coaches more leeway, and Duke's football team SAT averages have declined a bit, but its team average is still probably among the top 3 of all BCS programs.

I think considering basketball is useful. Some comment on the basketball team - that not all of the kids are straight A students - well sure. However, Trajan Langdon, Shane Battier had high pushing 1400 SATs, and Brian Zoubek has 1490 on a 1600 scale. Trajan Langdon came all the way from Alaska. Why? Of course, K is an excellent coach, but it was also to attend a top 10 academic institution. You have one other choice in the BCS - Stanford.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Patrick Willis (and several other NFL players recruited by Cutcliffe, coached by Orgeron) says hello. Orgeron was awful. Period. The offensive coaching staff he brought in was overwhelmed and outmatched. They had a Tebow like (not as good, but same skill set) QB named Lane that they basically ruined in just a couple of years. Cutcliffe didn't leave Ole Miss in shambles. He was prematurely fired and replaced by someone who wasn't as good of a coach and the results spoke for themselves. Would Ole Miss have been a perennial bowl contender if Cutcliffe stayed? I can't speak to that, but I can say they'd be better off today.

If you don't believe OH, NJ, PA, IL have talent worth pursuing, I don't know what to tell you. We're Duke. We should recruit nationally (in fact, we have to). NOthing compares to TX, FL and CA, and then GA and NC, but after that, we have the resources and alumni base to start cherry picking those states that the other "southern" ACC schools don't even bother with. I don't mind concentrating on NC, GA and FL (I think if you look at our roster, we already do), but we've had too many good players come from the midwest and northeast to ignore that pipeline.

I understand that the Nigerian community in different parts of the country is a good source of football recruits whose families value education. This is a talent base likely overlooked and under appreciated. (Think Oghobaasee, Aye-Darko, Akinbiyi, Okpokowuruk.)

[Zeb]

I could care less about Ole Miss' record after Cutcliff left. All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent...

So my orginial question was whether anyone had any real ideas as him as a recruiter. Obviously not. I will try the Ole Miss and Tennessee boards for more info.

I suggest you do that. Obviously the detailed answers on this board showing him producing well-rated recruiting classes had no impact on your religious belief that he is a bad recruiter. To counter that, your argument is what--recruiting rankings don't mean much because they don't take into account transfers? Then you try to turn the discussion into where Duke should focus its recruiting efforts based on the location of recent BCS champions. Yeah--we'll definitely miss your contributions to this board. Go ahead and share your wisdom elsewhere.

[RepoMan]

All I do know is he left it in shambles with minimal to no talent.

We are three pages in to this thread now, and you still have not offered any support for your theory, other than the fact that Ole Miss lost after Cut left, a fact which, under your evolving theories, you appear to concede may say more about the development and utilization of talent than about the existence of talent in the first place. Sure, rankings may not be a great metric, but that, combined with the coach's record while coaching, is about all we have to go on -- and those factors paint a favorable picture of Cut. Like someone else said, its hard to argue that this was a great hire for Duke, and your unsupported critiques of his prior recruiting prowess don't really suggest otherwise.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

CatfiveCane: What is your connection, if any, to Duke?

[jimsumner]

"When Cut gets things moving in the right direction it will be on us as a fanbase to support the team. They have to do their part and get some wins and be competitive, but assuming they do THAT..."

Perhaps I'm misreading this but on the surface this seems very disturbing. It seems to say that Duke fans have no obligation to support the team until it starts winning. Hopefully, this sentiment is not widespread.

[Jumbo]

Huh? Where are we? We are on a message board. The point is to discuss things. 90% of the items on this DBR board can never be proven. Plus I like football. And as long as I'm able to discuss football, I will.

Apparently you had difficulty understanding my first message, so let me try again. Your tone is unacceptable. The fact that a number of us are questioning whether you are a troll is not a good thing. Yes, we're here to discuss things. You're not discussing. You're ranting. Change your tone now or you'll need to find a new place to "discuss" Duke football shortly. Got it?

[wilko]

Does this mean you feel no loyalty unless the team wins?

I suppose that came off more harshly than I intended.

Depends on how you define loyalty. Excited about the future. Listening to games on the radio. Participating in discussion forums. Consume every free news item and recuiting nugget that I can find...


Perhaps I'm misreading this but on the surface this seems very disturbing. It seems to say that Duke fans have no obligation to support the team until it starts winning. Hopefully, this sentiment is not widespread.

Im not going to go as far as to say what other folks should be obligated to do.. But as far as this fan...

I'll go to more games when they start winning. Dang Skippy. I've gone to a handful of games under Roof's tenure and heck, I even brought a friend to 2 of them. But its no fun to always lose. It'll be much nicer to have a chance at a win and see some good football.

Maybe it was just me but the largest crowd I personally experienced at Wallace Wade was for the Stones. Maybe I went to the wrong games, but I dont think Im alone here. I just happen to have a big mouth and a willingness to speak what I see as the truth.

Its odd to me that 2 folks would choose to comment on this point.

The reality is that the Admin. just paid bucks to get the football program moving forward. Unless Wallace Wade gets as full as it was for the Stones a couple of times for Football we are fooling ourselves that this is a permanent change for the better. I think fans need to step up and justify the investment. Myself included. Maybe not so much for alot of you reading this but some (and you know who you are...) are in the same boat Im in.

I plan on taking my boys 5 and 3 to a game this year. I think they will LOVE it.

Im hopeful... ever hopeful

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

I suppose that came off more harshly than I intended.

Depends on how you define loyalty. Excited about the future. Listening to games on the radio. Participating in discussion forums. Consume every free news item and recuiting nugget that I can find...

Its odd to me that 2 folks would choose to comment on this point.

The reality is that the Admin. just paid bucks to get the football program moving forward. Unless Wallace Wade gets as full as it was for the Stones a couple of times for Football we are fooling ourselves that this is a permanent change for the better. I think fans need to step up and justify the investment. Myself included. Maybe not so much for alot of you reading this but some (and you know who you are...) are in the same boat Im in.

I see nothing wrong with having differing points of view. My view of supporting the football team happens to be ongoing, not just when we win. Having gotten to know many football players over the years, I respect the hard work and commitment they devote to preparing week after week in addition to their course work. As for fooling myself about what the future holds, I'm willing to take a chance on whatever will unfold.

I think it was in a recent Duke publication that I read an article which reported that over the years our former football players as a group give disproportionately more money to Duke and hold more alumni leadership positions than other groups.

It's my choice to support them by attending the games. Different people make different choices according to their own beliefs and what's important to them.

[Zeb]

Perhaps I'm misreading this but on the surface this seems very disturbing. It seems to say that Duke fans have no obligation to support the team until it starts winning. Hopefully, this sentiment is not widespread.

I would have to ask what do you mean by support? I am definitely intrigued by the new coach and excited about our prospects. I will always support our football team, if support is defined as "wishing them the best", but I certainly will spend more time following their fortunes and watching their exploits on the field when their performance improves. Is my preference for watching our basketball team over our football team really "very disturbing"? To me it seems very obvious.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Apparently you had difficulty understanding my first message, so let me try again. Your tone is unacceptable. The fact that a number of us are questioning whether you are a troll is not a good thing. Yes, we're here to discuss things. You're not discussing. You're ranting. Change your tone now or you'll need to find a new place to "discuss" Duke football shortly. Got it?

Thank you Jumbo.

[CatfiveCane]

Not sure what your motive is here, but I'll take the bait anyway:

1) Rivals and Scout rankings aside--which you've failed to delegitimize aside from your digital shoulder shrug--your assertion that Cutcliffe left the program "in shambles" is conspicuously unfounded, unfair and outrageous.

2) Your twisted use of logic in only considering the BCS winner fails to consider where those kids came from, and who also fielded competitive teams that year. Talent exists outside of the national champions, and the suggestion of otherwise is downright mind-boggling.

Similarly, dismissing the talent out of non-Southern states is, quite frankly, foolish, if you're doing so simply because of geography...which is apparently what you're doing.

Consider NFL draft picks in recent years, look at all of the players born and bred in the Midwest and northeast and Mid-Atlantic, and kindly consider reconsidering your inconsiderate conclusions.


I would have to disagree with you.

1) I think I have explained this well. While in the grand scale of things Rival star rating might be a decent indicator... it is not a good one. I pointed out UF's recruiting class the last year of Zook and first year of Meyer. I then pointed out Miami's recruiting class from 2002-2005. All these classes are "busts" yet were ranked very highly. Some people point to Duke's higher ranked classes vs USF. This is another prime example as to why "star rating" means very little. Also take a look at Virginia Tech (as someone already pointed out) and their "low" annual rankings. I think I have proven that stars mean very little in specific cases.

Cutcliff left the team in shambles. I base this on the records of Ole Miss 1-2 years after he left. Sorry but this is not basketball. Football talents takes 2-3 years to develop. Thus it's not unusual for a new Head coach to get 2-3 years free ride until he can bring in his own talent and development. You disagree? Urban Meyer won 2 years after Zook left, yet many still say he won with Zook's players. Same with Larry Coker at Miami. He won with Miami's players. I can almost guarantee if Pete Carroll left USC tomorrow, the Trojans would still be a great football team for the next 2-3 years. That's a reflection of Carroll and not the new Head Coach. That's college football.

2) I use BCS winners as an easy example. But I can list far more detailed examples. What were the top teams of this year? LSU, Georgia, USC, West Virginia, Oklahoma Missouri. Same may argue for Ohio State, but I think we all saw they were overmatched, and they would probably have lost to Georgia, West Virginia, Oklahoma and USC in my opinion.

Sorry, but the bulk of great football talent is in the Southern States. Of Course not all. And there are tons of great talent up north. But no school can recruit the entire nation. Recruiting is not just giving a kid a phone call 2-3 times a week and expecting him to fall in your lap. It requires constant attention. Developing connections to the community, high school coaches, and family. You really think Duke should spend all this time/energy for some kid in Washington and run the risk he ends up at Stanford, Oregon, Colorado, etc? Then what? There's probably only 3-4 programs that can really cherry pick (UF, USC, LSU, Notre Dame) at this time. Or should they focus in the South... building up contacts, getting to know coaches, the community. That's the best bang for Duke's buck. They are more easily able to follow a kid from NC, GA, and FL compared to come kid in WA or CA. Plus it is my belief that that kids from upnorth have a bias against southern schools and a real affinity to their northern football schools (i.e. PA star recruits will goto Penn State).

[77devil]

Oh please. Show me in writing where this is law. As far as I know, Duke is able to recruit 4-5 players a year who meet baseline NCAA sliding scale rules. This is fact and was published in the New & Observer about 1-2 years ago. Granted, I do know that Duke's standards are higher then the NCAA minimum, but no where do I recall reading top 10% rank etc. If that's the point, why even higher Cutcliff. He can't work miracles.

Your ignorance is exceeded by your pomposity. I am not a triangle resident nor an N&O reader, but a search of the archives found no article with the assertion you contend is fact.

The essential point remains that Duke must cast a wide, (i.e., national) net to recruit from a limited number of academically qualified and athletically gifted students.

[CatfiveCane]

Patrick Willis (and several other NFL players recruited by Cutcliffe, coached by Orgeron) says hello. Orgeron was awful. Period. The offensive coaching staff he brought in was overwhelmed and outmatched. They had a Tebow like (not as good, but same skill set) QB named Lane that they basically ruined in just a couple of years. Cutcliffe didn't leave Ole Miss in shambles. He was prematurely fired and replaced by someone who wasn't as good of a coach and the results spoke for themselves. Would Ole Miss have been a perennial bowl contender if Cutcliffe stayed? I can't speak to that, but I can say they'd be better off today.



In some ways I want to agree with you and disagree with you at the same time. I mean Orgeron brought in Werner and Kehoe as his OC and Line coach. Now I was never a fan of Werner, but Kehoe being overwhelmed and outmatched? That's just absurd. I do know that Kehoe is/was a lazy recruiter.

College football is 90% about talent, 10% coaching. It's amazing how great talent can make you look like a great coach. And how bad talent makes a great coach look bad. I'm not saying that Orgeron was a great coach, but he didn't have a lot of talent to work with.

[CatfiveCane]

Your ignorance is exceeded by your pomposity. I am not a triangle resident nor an N&O reader, but a search of the archives found no article with the assertion you contend is fact.

The essential point remains that Duke must cast a wide, (i.e., national) net to recruit from a limited number of academically qualified and athletically gifted students.

I'm being pompous? Let's make a bet of $500. If I find the article you pay up. If I can't find it... I pay up.

[dyedwab]

You really think Duke should spend all this time/energy for some kid in Washington and run the risk he ends up at Stanford, Oregon, Colorado, etc? Then what? Or should they focus in the South... building up contacts, getting to know coaches, the community. That's the best bang for Duke's buck. They are more easily able to follow a kid from NC, GA, and FL compared to come kid in WA or CA. Plus it is my belief that that kids from upnorth have a bias against southern schools and a real affinity to their northern football schools (i.e. PA star recruits will goto Penn State).

Um, Duke "recruits" nationally in everything, because it is a national school. Since you seem not to understand what people are saying to you, let me take a walk with you from my part of the world, Northern New Jersey. Now, where I'm from, there are are great football programs at the high school level, but in reality, there are two legit college programs that to go to - Penn State and Rutgers (maybe Syracuse) so there could be three.

Now, here's the thing. Lots of kids, even great football players who want to play in the NFL, don't want to spend 3 or 4 years in New Brunswick or Happy Valley. And, tell me if I'm running ahead here, let's say these kids are also really good students. Where I'm from, almost no school in the South, particularly the SEC has a shot at these guys. Except Duke and a couple of others. But mostly Duke.

You say that the bulk of the football talent is in the South. Maybe. That's also where the bulk of the major college football programs are. So perhaps recruiting MD, DC, PA, NJ, and NY where there are fewer options is the right place.

I like what I've seen so far from Cutcliffe. The best thing is that he seems to understand what Duke's strengths are as a University, not just what its weaknesses are as a football program.

[CatfiveCane]

Um, Duke "recruits" nationally in everything, because it is a national school. Since you seem not to understand what people are saying to you, let me take a walk with you from my part of the world, Northern New Jersey. Now, where I'm from, there are are great football programs at the high school level, but in reality, there are two legit college programs that to go to - Penn State and Rutgers (maybe Syracuse) so there could be three.

Where I'm from, almost no school in the South, particularly the SEC has a shot at these guys. Except Duke and a couple of others. But mostly Duke.


Well I'm not too sure where you get your info, but the last time I checked Duke hasn't done a very decent job recruiting... period. However the good players they have gotten are either from TX, GA, or FL. Not New Jersey.

And the fact you say Rutgers is a "legit" college program makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. Granted they had one good year last year. What else they do? Is Hawaii a legit program now too?

Now let me think of all the "decent" programs up North: Penn State obviously. Syracuse is a "big" name even though they were awful. Rutgers. Boston College. I would consider UConn a decent program now. Pittsburgh is a good program. Maryland a "northern" school? Plus they have all those Ivy league schools that attract some decent players who want the Ivy League education.

"Where I'm from, almost no school in the South, particularly the SEC has a shot at these guys. Except Duke and a couple of others. But mostly Duke."

How can you say this? What proof? As far I can tell Duke has not done a good job recruiting any northern state well.

[CatfiveCane]

I just want to say I'm not here to get into some pissing contest with anyone here. But I do like football and have been watching college and Duke football for a LONG time.

I think Cutcliff is a HUGE upgrade compared to Roof... but that doesn't equal instant success. I view recruiting as his primary weakness.

I guess we will just have to wait and see for the next 2-3 years..

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

I just want to say I'm not here to get into some pissing contest with anyone here. But I do like football and have been watching college and Duke football for a LONG time.

I think Cutcliff is a HUGE upgrade compared to Roof... but that doesn't equal instant success. I view recruiting as his primary weakness.

I guess we will just have to wait and see for the next 2-3 years..

Other than watching Duke football, what is your connection to Duke?

[CatfiveCane]

Other than watching Duke football, what is your connection to Duke?

What point are you trying t make here? You sound like a broken record.

[dyedwab]

Well I'm not too sure where you get your info, but the last time I checked Duke hasn't done a very decent job recruiting... period. However the good players they have gotten are either from TX, GA, or FL. Not New Jersey.

Right. And that's a failure of both imagination and execution. Lennie Friedman, former Duke offensive lineman who played years as a pro - New Milford, NJ. Chris Port, former New Orleans Saint - Wanaque. Billy Granville- Trenton. The point is that Duke used to have success recruiting really good players from NJ and it is my view that we haven't harvested that field well enough because, we have clearly focused elsehwere


And the fact you say Rutgers is a "legit" college program makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about. Granted they had one good year last year. What else they do? Is Hawaii a legit program now too?

Um, yeah. Rutgers is legitimate enough that there coach has turned down opportunities from Miami and Michigan in consecutive years. And those of us who have followed HS football up there have always believed that keeping NJ kids home might actually provide good raw material for a nice program. Oh yeah, 3 straight years in bowl games for the first time in school history - for the school that played the first ever college football game




Ok. I missed a few (though if your not giving me Rutgers, I'm not giving you UConn). But for these kids we are talking about - its Stanford, Northwestern, and Duke. THAT's our universe

"Where I'm from, almost no school in the South, particularly the SEC has a shot at these guys. Except Duke and a couple of others. But mostly Duke."

How can you say this? What proof? As far I can tell Duke has not done a good job recruiting any northern state well.

Not recently, but we used to. Duke used to have a pipeline of a few guys a year from NJ schools - schools at which many other students attended Duke.

My point is that Duke can recruit up there by focusing on what attracts people to Duke - interestingly enough, it can also work on football players

[Carlos]

I would have to disagree with you.

1) I think I have explained this well. While in the grand scale of things Rival star rating might be a decent indicator... it is not a good one. I pointed out UF's recruiting class the last year of Zook and first year of Meyer.

No, actually you haven't explained that well at all. First off, as I noted earlier, the transfer's from Zook's last class wouldn't be unusual at all. A coaching change - and the change in the style of play - would certainly bring about transfers. But when you said you were also factoring in the first year of Meyer's recruiting into your 75% figure I did a little checking.

The stats you cited as the first year of Meyer's recruiting were for the class signed in 2005. Given that Meyer didn't actually start coaching the Gators until after Utah's Fiesta Bowl win and the national signing day for the football is typically in the first week of February, it's difficult to credit that class to Meyer, much like next year's freshman class at Duke will have been mostly signed by Roof.

Oddly enough, in Meyer's first full year of recruiting (2006), all but one of the 27 players he signed are still on the roster.

So you haven't done anything to show that the stats from Zook's last two years of recruiting are the norm rather than simply the result of the coaching change.

Likewise, you haven't done anything to show that Cutcliffe's recruiting classes suffered from the same sort of attrition that you use to devalue the rankings.

[Jumbo]

What point are you trying t make here? You sound like a broken record.

The poster has been asking you a question. You have ignored it repeatedly. This thread has run its course and will now be closed, but your tone has been noted and a number of mods are concerned about it. Suffice it to say we'll be keeping a closer eye on your posts going forward.

[Stray Gator]

IMO, the rationale that a program's won-loss record for the first two years after a coaching change should be attributed mainly to the recruiting skills of the former head coach, on the theory that winning college football games depends only 10% on coaching and 90% on the level of talent, reflects a failure to account for the more subtle dynamics and multiple factors that often accompany a coaching change. At UF, for example, the transition from Zook to Meyer entailed not only the obvious dramatic change in offensive systems, but also a less evident but equally impactful shift in coaching psychology--i.e., Zook was a "player's coach" who allowed his guys lots of slack and always took their side when trouble arose (like the time he went over to confront a fraternity in defense of his players); Meyer is a strict, no-nonsense disciplinarian who demands hard work and adherence to the rules. A number of the players recruited by Zook simply didn't fit or weren't comfortable with the new system and coaching regime under Meyer. Everyone agrees that both Zook and Meyer are superb recruiters and are loved by their players; they just have different systems and different personal leadership styles.

When a coaching change occurs, many factors other than talent level of the holdover players can affect the team's performance. Based on my observations as an avid college football fan for almost 50 years, the most significant influences are adjustments to (a) changes in offensive/defensive schemes, and (b) changes in position coaches, both of which can result in underutilization or diminished performance of existing talent. In addition, I think in fairness you have to look at such factors as difficulty of schedule and relative strength of opponents, which can change from one season to the next.

What I don't understand is why anyone would be motivated to express a negative assessment of Coach Cutcliffe's recruiting ability and make pessimistic predictions about his prospects of success even before he's had an opportunity to demonstrate what he's capable of achieving at Duke. Maybe you thought another candidate might have been a better recruiter; but what conceivable purpose does it serve to gripe about it now? Coach Cutcliffe has given Duke fans no reason to doubt that he will do a great job--as a recruiter, as a motivator, as a program-builder, as a game-day coach, and as a leader who will make us proud of our team and the stuident-athletes who wear the Duke uniform. At the very least, I think it's premature, and unjustified, and unseemly, to start criticizing him for anticipated failings.