Independence Bowl: Duke 56, Temple 27

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reilly

Duke bowl games

Margin of victory (+) or defeat (-) ... season ... bowl ... SRS rank Duke v SRS rank opponent

+29 ... 2018 ... Independence Bowl ... #42 Duke over #64 Temple
+27 ... 1954 ... Orange Bowl ... #21 Duke over #41 Nebraska
+22 ... 2017 ... Quick Lane Bowl ... #37 Duke over #65 NIU
+03 ... 2015 ... Pnstripe Bowl ... #57 Duke over #59 Indiana
+03 ... 1944 ... Sugar Bowl ... #19 Duke over #18 Alabama
+01 ... 1960 ... Cotton Bowl ... #32 Duke over #12 Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-04 ... 1938 ... Rose Bowl ... #10 Duke lost to #5 Southern Cal
-04 ... 1941 ... Rose Bowl ... #8 Duke lost to #5 Oregon State
-04 ... 2013 ... Chik-fil-A Bowl ...#31 Duke lost to #19 TX A&M
-05 ... 2014 ... Sun Bowl ... #40 Duke lost to #16 Ariz State
-14 ... 2012 ... Belk Bowl ... #68 Duke lost to #31 Cincinnati
-14 ... 1994 ... HOF Bowl ... #27 Duke lost to #22 Wisconsin
-27 ... 1957 ... Orange Bowl ... #15 Duke lost to #2 Oklahoma
-28 ... 1989 ... All-American Bowl ... #36 Duke lost to #22 Texas Tech

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb...uke/bowls.html

---

Some of the team ratings for Duke's long-ago appearances in the highlighted bowls are pretty crazy. I realize it's only one rating system and there is some subjectivity, but it's crazy to see high-double-digit ratings for some of these. I assume the Big Eight might have already had its longstanding (and now long-ago) deal to send its champion to the Orange Bowl, and that could explain #41 (!!) Nebraska being in that contest. Ditto Alabama's Sugar Bowl appearance? But #32 (!!) Duke seems really, really fortunate to have gotten that Cotton Bowl invite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AustinDevil

Some of the team ratings for Duke's long-ago appearances in the highlighted bowls are pretty crazy. I realize it's only one rating system and there is some subjectivity, but it's crazy to see high-double-digit ratings for some of these. I assume the Big Eight might have already had its longstanding (and now long-ago) deal to send its champion to the Orange Bowl, and that could explain #41 (!!) Nebraska being in that contest. Ditto Alabama's Sugar Bowl appearance? But #32 (!!) Duke seems really, really fortunate to have gotten that Cotton Bowl invite.

---

It was worse than you think. The 1950's was the era when Oklahoma dominated everything. In return, the then Big 8 decided that the same team couldn't go to the Orange Bowl in consecutive years. Oklahoma won the Big 8, Nebraska went to the Orange Bowl.

The 1938 and 1941 ratings for Duke, USC and Oregon State are questionnable, IMHO (where the H disappeared from Card Gym, along with Navy goat we stole). No. 2 Duke was a big favorite over #12 Oregon State (losses at UW and at USC) when the two teams lined up at Duke Stadium to play the Rose Bowl 25 days after Pearl Harbor. Turnovers played a big part in the game, after which all the players and coaches went and joined the military (an exaggeration, but not by much).

In 1938, Duke was undefeated and unscored on until the last couple of minutes of the game. Duke was #3 -- USC with two losses but a good win against # 1 Notre Dame was #7.

Cotton Bowl ranking? Duke was #10 in the last AP poll, then laid an egg on the West Coast against UCLA. (I blame Elvis and the visit to the 20th Century Fox studio). Surely, if Oregon State and USC were moved ahead after close wins against Duke in the Rose Bowl, that Duke would get credit for winning the Cotton Bowl over #7 (AP) Arkansas.

23rd best bowl game (ranking all 39): https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...SPM-16-10abi8e

I don't think I saw this linked yet...

TJ Rahming was named 1 of 3 wide receivers on the AP All Bowl team...

***********
Wide receiver

T.J. Rahming, Duke (Independence): Rahming caught 12 passes for 240 yards and two touchdowns in a 56-27 victory over Temple.
***********

https://www.apnews.com/112290944b924065ae2fc0c6d9b89305

More recognition for DUKE Football...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gep

I don't think I saw this linked yet...

TJ Rahming was named 1 of 3 wide receivers on the AP All Bowl team...

***********
Wide receiver

T.J. Rahming, Duke (Independence): Rahming caught 12 passes for 240 yards and two touchdowns in a 56-27 victory over Temple.
***********

https://www.apnews.com/112290944b924065ae2fc0c6d9b89305

More recognition for DUKE Football...

---

Great to see this. He made a whole lot of big plays for us throughout his career. Kept improving. He ended up, what, 3rd on our all-time catches list?

Great career for a smaller guy with big heart. Thanks, T.J.!

Posting this here since it is the last team oriented thread.

Duke earns a "B+" for their 2018 season from USA Today.

Quote:

---

Remember that grades are subject to how each team was predicated to fare back in August. For example, Baylor finishing 7-6 is different than Miami (Fla.) doing the same, since the Bears were coming off a 1-11 season and Miami was predicted to contend for a conference championship and New Year's Six bowl berth. Baylor drew an A- while the Hurricanes earned a D+ grade.

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nca...VnN?li=BBnb7Kz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred

Posting this here since it is the last team oriented thread.

Duke earns a "B+" for their 2018 season from USA Today.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nca...VnN?li=BBnb7Kz

---

We had a very good year. And it could've been even better without the injuries.

Not sure if the SRS is done calculating yet -- right now we are #41 (yesterday we were #39): https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb...8-ratings.html

We're in the middle of the ACC + ND group of 15:

1 - Clemson
6 - ND
19 - Syracuse
35 - UVA
38 - NCSU
40 - Miami
41 - DUKE
44 - Pitt
48 - BC
58 - GT
60 - WFU
74 - VT
83 - FSU
93 - UNC
108 - L'ville

Miami, GT, UNC, and Lville all have coaching changes.

It would've been nice to have a Coastal championship like Pitt or beat an SEC team in a bowl like UVa, and I think we would've had those accomplishments if we had been healthy.

Still, a better year than a lot of our brethren -- pretty nice when we are significantly better than *all* of VT, FSU, UNC, and L'ville.

And nationwide, plenty of P5 teams clearly had lesser years than Duke (rated 50+ in the SRS): Baylor, TCU, Ole Miss, KState, MD, Nebraska, SoCal, Indiana, Cal, Tenn, Ariz, Colorado, UCLA, Arkansas, Illini, Rutgers, Oregon State.

And we're enjoying about as good of Duke football these days as we have in 45 years.

Duke's SRS rank going back to 1971 (I read that scholarship limits were introduced for the first time in 1973 so some date the 'modern era' of CFB to then):

2018: 41
2017: 37
2016: 77
2015: 57
2014: 40
2013: 31
2012: 68
2011: 98
2010: 84
2009: 75
2008: 67 = Cut's first season
2007: 100
2006: 112
2005: 101
2004: 94 = Roof's first full season
2003: 76
2002: 82
2001: 107
2000: 104
1999: 78 = Franks's first season
1998: 82
1997: 74
1996: 98
1995: 83
1994: 27 = Goldsmith's first season (highest final SRS)
1993: 75
1992: 72
1991: 67
1990: 57 = Wilson's first season
1989: 36
1988: 51
1987: 48 = Spurrier's first season
1986: 78
1985: 73
1984: 88
1983: 64 = Sloan's first season
1982: 39
1981: 52
1980: 81
1979: 89 = Red's first season
1978: 76
1977: 38
1976: 42
1975: 65
1974: 41
1973: 81
1972: 50
1971: 41 = McGee's first season

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reilly

We had a very good year. And it could've been even better without the injuries.

Not sure if the SRS is done calculating yet -- right now we are #41 (yesterday we were #39): https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb...8-ratings.html

We're in the middle of the ACC + ND group of 15:

1 - Clemson
6 - ND
19 - Syracuse
35 - UVA
38 - NCSU
40 - Miami
41 - DUKE
44 - Pitt
48 - BC
58 - GT
60 - WFU
74 - VT
83 - FSU
93 - UNC
108 - L'ville

Miami, GT, UNC, and Lville all have coaching changes.

It would've been nice to have a Coastal championship like Pitt or beat an SEC team in a bowl like UVa, and I think we would've had those accomplishments if we had been healthy.

Still, a better year than a lot of our brethren -- pretty nice when we are significantly better than *all* of VT, FSU, UNC, and L'ville.

And nationwide, plenty of P5 teams clearly had lesser years than Duke (rated 50+ in the SRS): Baylor, TCU, Ole Miss, KState, MD, Nebraska, SoCal, Indiana, Cal, Tenn, Ariz, Colorado, UCLA, Arkansas, Illini, Rutgers, Oregon State.

And we're enjoying about as good of Duke football these days as we have in 45 years.

Duke's SRS rank going back to 1971 (I read that scholarship limits were introduced for the first time in 1973 so some date the 'modern era' of CFB to then):

2018: 41
2017: 37
2016: 77
2015: 57
2014: 40
2013: 31
2012: 68
2011: 98
2010: 84
2009: 75
2008: 67 = Cut's first season
2007: 100
2006: 112
2005: 101
2004: 94 = Roof's first full season
2003: 76
2002: 82
2001: 107
2000: 104
1999: 78 = Franks's first season
1998: 82
1997: 74
1996: 98
1995: 83
1994: 27 = Goldsmith's first season (highest final SRS)
1993: 75
1992: 72
1991: 67
1990: 57 = Wilson's first season
1989: 36
1988: 51
1987: 48 = Spurrier's first season
1986: 78
1985: 73
1984: 88
1983: 64 = Sloan's first season
1982: 39
1981: 52
1980: 81
1979: 89 = Red's first season
1978: 76
1977: 38
1976: 42
1975: 65
1974: 41
1973: 81
1972: 50
1971: 41 = McGee's first season

---

Great summary. Those Roof/Franks and late Goldfish years really stand out. Seems there’s a common denominator regarding the AD during that timeframe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arnie

Great summary. Those Roof/Franks and late Goldfish years really stand out. Seems there’s a common denominator regarding the AD during that timeframe.

---

What stood out to me is the success that both Red Wilson had, as well as Cut. As I recall, and I was young, and had no connections inside - that Red was booted to the side NOT because of his coaching ability, but because certain donors or administrators didn't like his "good ole boy" image and so on. So they got rid of Red in favor of nice corporate looking Steve Sloane, who destroyed Red's momentum.

Now if that's true - and I'm only claiming that I heard that from a couple of people who might be in the know - it would be interesting because Cut certainly has that grandfatherly good ole boy thing going on too. Perhaps people have gotten over it....

I'm betting a few around here are very well qualified to talk about this...I'm only qualified to deal in heresay...:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK

What stood out to me is the success that both Red Wilson had, as well as Cut. As I recall, and I was young, and had no connections inside - that Red was booted to the side NOT because of his coaching ability, but because certain donors or administrators didn't like his "good ole boy" image and so on. So they got rid of Red in favor of nice corporate looking Steve Sloane, who destroyed Red's momentum.

Now if that's true - and I'm only claiming that I heard that from a couple of people who might be in the know - it would be interesting because Cut certainly has that grandfatherly good ole boy thing going on too. Perhaps people have gotten over it...

I'm betting a few around here are very well qualified to talk about this...I'm only qualified to deal in heresay...:cool:

---

What stands out to me is that regardless of how much Cut has turned the program around, we seem to have a ceiling that means we will never seriously contend for an expanded P5 (mega conferences) conference title, let alone a national championship unless something very fundamental changes. What that change is, I have no idea, but it won't happen in the current environment.

And no, I am in no way saying we need a different coach. Maybe it's admission standards (we used to say that all the time), maybe we can't attract because Duke is just too hard a school academically, or harder than typical players want to deal with. Maybe it's the overall system that will forever make it hard for relatively small, private institutions to compete with the huge state schools. I don't know. But it is a little frustrating when the best, it seems, we can hope for is maybe a division title and a shot at a behemoth like FSU or Clemson in the conference championship and a bowl game close to new year's day.

I'd love to see ending ranks regularly in the 20's and teens and sometimes in the single digits. That just doesn't seem realistic for Duke in football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereBeforeCoachK

What stood out to me is the success that both Red Wilson had, as well as Cut. As I recall, and I was young, and had no connections inside - that Red was booted to the side NOT because of his coaching ability, but because certain donors or administrators didn't like his "good ole boy" image and so on. So they got rid of Red in favor of nice corporate looking Steve Sloane, who destroyed Red's momentum.

Now if that's true - and I'm only claiming that I heard that from a couple of people who might be in the know - it would be interesting because Cut certainly has that grandfatherly good ole boy thing going on too. Perhaps people have gotten over it...

I'm betting a few around here are very well qualified to talk about this...I'm only qualified to deal in heresay...:cool:

---

Red Wilson is a fine man. David Cutcliffe is as well. David Cutcliffe also projects considerable strength and depth of knowledge. Red Wilson was called up to coach at Duke when a decline in football fit what some folks in Allen Building and on the BOT wanted. David Cutcliffe with his Alabama and SEC roots was called up when decision makers at Duke were ready to fund a better program.

As for coaches who didn't do well as HC at Duke, Ted Roof in particular was promised so much that never materialized. He never had the resources needed to play big time football. Instead of being angry at him and blaming him, I think those feelings are more appropriately directed at Duke administrators and the BOT of the time who were miserly and unwilling to follow through on promises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reilly

We had a very good year. And it could've been even better without the injuries.

Not sure if the SRS is done calculating yet -- right now we are #41 (yesterday we were #39): https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb...8-ratings.html

We're in the middle of the ACC + ND group of 15:

1 - Clemson
6 - ND
19 - Syracuse
35 - UVA
38 - NCSU
40 - Miami
41 - DUKE
44 - Pitt
48 - BC
58 - GT
60 - WFU
74 - VT
83 - FSU
93 - UNC
108 - L'ville

Miami, GT, UNC, and Lville all have coaching changes.

It would've been nice to have a Coastal championship like Pitt or beat an SEC team in a bowl like UVa, and I think we would've had those accomplishments if we had been healthy.

Still, a better year than a lot of our brethren -- pretty nice when we are significantly better than *all* of VT, FSU, UNC, and L'ville.

And nationwide, plenty of P5 teams clearly had lesser years than Duke (rated 50+ in the SRS): Baylor, TCU, Ole Miss, KState, MD, Nebraska, SoCal, Indiana, Cal, Tenn, Ariz, Colorado, UCLA, Arkansas, Illini, Rutgers, Oregon State.

And we're enjoying about as good of Duke football these days as we have in 45 years.

---

It is nice to be rated significantly higher than VT, FSU, UNC, and L'ville, but extremely disheartening that we got drummed by two teams ranked way below us (VT and Wake) plus a closer loss to one team slightly below us (Pitt). I recognize that this is somewhat balanced by beating two teams ranked somewhat higher (Northwestern and Army), but I don't think those wins are enough to offset the bad losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devil in the Blue Dress

Ted Roof in particular was promised so much that never materialized. He never had the resources needed to play big time football. Instead of being angry at him and blaming him, I think those feelings are more appropriately directed at Duke administrators and the BOT of the time who were miserly and unwilling to follow through on promises.

---

This bears repeating, so I'm repeating it. Duke's results were commensurate with its investment and interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BandAlum83

What stands out to me is that regardless of how much Cut has turned the program around, we seem to have a ceiling that means we will never seriously contend for an expanded P5 (mega conferences) conference title, let alone a national championship ...

---

How many expanded P5 (mega conferences) members will seriously contend for a football conference title, let alone a national championship? In other words, I don't think we're alone in being in a P5 conference, but having some sort of unwritten ceiling that it'll be hard to get through to regularly compete for a conference title or a national championship. I think the same is sort of true with respect to P5 members and realistic chances of championships in hoops (although we are on the other side of the ceiling, or the roof, or something, there), and it is easier to make a run in hoops.

One of the more annoying, long-running sports debates I've had with a Clemson alum is which sport is it harder to win a national championship in: hoops or football? In hoops, 350 teams literally can gain entry to the tourney and win it all, whereas in football it is 129. So, by that metric, hoops is harder (more competition). In hoops, the entry costs are lesser so there are more competitors (give me a good coach and three good players, and I might make some noise in the NCAAs), whereas in football the entry costs are higher (need 20+ stellar players and more staff), so there are fewer competitors in football, and hoops is the more competitive environment. In hoops, you see a little guy rise up and make a run and be in the conversation for a championship -- at least to the Sweet 16 level -- and you don't really see that in football. I see more potential champions in hoops -- schools that spend a sufficient amount, and take it seriously enough, and if the stars aligned with a coach and a couple recruits, could win it all. I see fewer potential champs in football -- some behemoths who spend ungodly sums, pay ungodly salaries, and bring in anybody and everybody recruit-wise to build a tough, solid, deep team. So, I see Duke's basketball dominance as more impressive than some power football team's dominance -- Duke hoops has to run the 6-game gauntlet, and Duke hoops has more competitors who can catch them. For the really big football factories, those 20-30-ish teams spend enough and say "wow, we've really made it" though they may not win all that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reilly

One of the more annoying, long-running sports debates I've had with a Clemson alum is which sport is it harder to win a national championship in: hoops or football?

---

Until the FBS playoffs are expanded to at least 8 teams, the football championship is a made up designation in my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldPhiKap

This bears repeating, so I'm repeating it. Duke's results were commensurate with its investment and interest.

---

That can't be emphasized too much. Cut has done a marvelous job, but couldn't have done so without the administration finally realizing they were going to have to open up the wallet and support
football with vastly higher coaching salaries, facility upgrades, and a bunch of other things. With the support Roof and Franks got, no one was going to do well (the world changed a lot, the football arms
race in particular, from when Spurrier and Wilson were able to cobble together good teams. )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reilly

One of the more annoying, long-running sports debates I've had with a Clemson alum is which sport is it harder to win a national championship in: hoops or football? In hoops, 350 teams literally can gain entry to the tourney and win it all, whereas in football it is 129. So, by that metric, hoops is harder (more competition). In hoops, the entry costs are lesser so there are more competitors (give me a good coach and three good players, and I might make some noise in the NCAAs), whereas in football the entry costs are higher (need 20+ stellar players and more staff), so there are fewer competitors in football, and hoops is the more competitive environment. In hoops, you see a little guy rise up and make a run and be in the conversation for a championship -- at least to the Sweet 16 level -- and you don't really see that in football. I see more potential champions in hoops -- schools that spend a sufficient amount, and take it seriously enough, and if the stars aligned with a coach and a couple recruits, could win it all. I see fewer potential champs in football -- some behemoths who spend ungodly sums, pay ungodly salaries, and bring in anybody and everybody recruit-wise to build a tough, solid, deep team. So, I see Duke's basketball dominance as more impressive than some power football team's dominance -- Duke hoops has to run the 6-game gauntlet, and Duke hoops has more competitors who can catch them. For the really big football factories, those 20-30-ish teams spend enough and say "wow, we've really made it" though they may not win all that much.

---

I was thinking about this during the week. It seems to me that it's apples and oranges in a lot of ways. As you alluded to, it takes far fewer people in place and a lot less money and a lot less time to become a national contender, and potentially a winner, in hoops of course. As such, you can say it's maybe "easier" to get there in one way - but since there are several hundred teams who can potentially do that, it's easier to get knocked off along the way. Once you've "arrived" in CFB, because that involves so much in the way of talent accumulation, coaches, facilities, etc...you can stay there for a while by simple momentum. With bball, especially in OAD era, you have to keep starting over almost. No holding onto your superstars for 3 years minimum.

Big time football is a massive undertaking, and only Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Clemson, Notre Dame, Oklahoma and a few others do at the highest (ie, most expensive) level. It is a financial arms race of unimaginable proportions...we could probably come up with a list of six teams and be pretty certain that most or all of the next ten national titles will come from that group. Heck, maybe only two teams...but you get my drift. There's simply not gonna be a VCU or George Washington (or was it Mason) to the final four stories in CFB. Not even a Villanova or Butler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reilly

How many expanded P5 (mega conferences) members will seriously contend for a football conference title, let alone a national championship? In other words, I don't think we're alone in being in a P5 conference, but having some sort of unwritten ceiling that it'll be hard to get through to regularly compete for a conference title or a national championship. I think the same is sort of true with respect to P5 members and realistic chances of championships in hoops (although we are on the other side of the ceiling, or the roof, or something, there), and it is easier to make a run in hoops.

One of the more annoying, long-running sports debates I've had with a Clemson alum is which sport is it harder to win a national championship in: hoops or football? In hoops, 350 teams literally can gain entry to the tourney and win it all, whereas in football it is 129. So, by that metric, hoops is harder (more competition). In hoops, the entry costs are lesser so there are more competitors (give me a good coach and three good players, and I might make some noise in the NCAAs), whereas in football the entry costs are higher (need 20+ stellar players and more staff), so there are fewer competitors in football, and hoops is the more competitive environment. In hoops, you see a little guy rise up and make a run and be in the conversation for a championship -- at least to the Sweet 16 level -- and you don't really see that in football. I see more potential champions in hoops -- schools that spend a sufficient amount, and take it seriously enough, and if the stars aligned with a coach and a couple recruits, could win it all. I see fewer potential champs in football -- some behemoths who spend ungodly sums, pay ungodly salaries, and bring in anybody and everybody recruit-wise to build a tough, solid, deep team. So, I see Duke's basketball dominance as more impressive than some power football team's dominance -- Duke hoops has to run the 6-game gauntlet, and Duke hoops has more competitors who can catch them. For the really big football factories, those 20-30-ish teams spend enough and say "wow, we've really made it" though they may not win all that much.

---

I am talking about football and only football. I was not comparing to basketball or anything for that matter.

I just wish we could look forward to possibly realistically contending for and ACC title from time to time. And maybe be a consistent entry in the top 25, occasionally higher.

There are structural impediments to entry to that group, and I accept that. It doesn't mean I can't be annoyed or frustrated by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by budwom

That can't be emphasized too much. Cut has done a marvelous job, but couldn't have done so without the administration finally realizing they were going to have to open up the wallet and support
football with vastly higher coaching salaries, facility upgrades, and a bunch of other things. With the support Roof and Franks got, no one was going to do well (the world changed a lot, the football arms
race in particular, from when Spurrier and Wilson were able to cobble together good teams. )

---

Can you provide any sort of order of magnitude? What are the approximate budgets for our football program vs the big boys, or even the rest of the ACC?

If i'm asking you to do research, sorry. If you have it at your fingertips, great.

I'm not sure I would know where to start. I suppose, also, that as a private institution our budget may not even be readily available (just like we don't know Ks salary, for sure).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BandAlum83

Can you provide any sort of order of magnitude? What are the approximate budgets for our football program vs the big boys, or even the rest of the ACC?

If i'm asking you to do research, sorry. If you have it at your fingertips, great.

I'm not sure I would know where to start. I suppose, also, that as a private institution our budget may not even be readily available (just like we don't know Ks salary, for sure).

---

My wild speculation is that our budget is off from Clemson's by a factor of 10. Maybe as much as 20x the budget. I would be even more confident in that if tuition cost were not included.

Actually, that is an interesting question. Do athletic scholarships for out of state students use out of state tuition costs? The difference in tuition costs would not be at large if so, assuming a significant portion of Clemson's roster is out of state (although there would still be a gap).