Is Duke FB worse at home than on the road?

[Bluedog]

I think we may be giving too much credit/blame to football crowds in determining the outcomes of games. This isn't basketball. Home field in football even among the most raucous intense crowds is usually worth like three points... Sure, it'd be nice to have nice crowds at Wally Wade to support the players and show that the program has a lot of followers, but I don't think it's going to influence outcomes too much at all.

[devildeac]

The 300ish UVA fans in attendance were louder than the Duke fans. But, they had some football plays for which to cheer.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I think we may be giving too much credit/blame to football crowds in determining the outcomes of games. This isn't basketball. Home field in football even among the most raucous intense crowds is usually worth like three points... Sure, it'd be nice to have nice crowds at Wally Wade to support the players and show that the program has a lot of followers, but I don't think it's going to influence outcomes too much at all.

To me it's got very little to do with the outcomes of specific games - it's all about image and recruiting. No home atmosphere is no doubt hurting recruiting. Think big picture.

[Devilwin]

To me it's got very little to do with the outcomes of specific games - it's all about image and recruiting. No home atmosphere is no doubt hurting recruiting. Think big picture.

Exactly. These guys want to feel that the fan base supports them. On the flip side, the fan base gets tired of the same old same old...

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Exactly. These guys want to feel that the fan base supports them. On the flip side, the fan base gets tired of the same old same old...

There's that...absolutely agree with you...and then I'd add that they did not renovate Wade with the understanding that 25 thousand is the target crowd. There are places where it rocks with 20 or 25 thousand. WW is not among them. They renovated with aesthetics in mind, and not atmosphere. The only thing they did for atmosphere was remove the track and move a few seats closer. That was a good idea...but still no atmosphere there.

Right sizing a stadium is crucial. If Duke annexed the Dean's Myth Center, and put their normal 9314 in there with 23,000 seats, there's no atmosphere either. I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the notion of enlarging Cameron has come up numerous times during K's tenure, and I'd bet he said HEXX NO!

[Papa John]

I remember when Spurrier came back as HC - a couple years after he was OC to Red Wilson. He wrote an open letter to fans asking for their support, and promising that they would score points and it would be fun to watch...whether or not they won very often. They scored points and won like no other coach since Wade, maybe Murray. Spurrier's "Air Ball" was fun, and successful.

As much as I've appreciated what Cut has done, I never thought having a solid, or even better D - and playing first team to 20 was ever a sustainable model for Duke. I was so angry at Barry Wilson for idiotically scrapping the very offense that made Spurrier successful, and got Barry the dad gum job.

But the difference is the Spurrier wasn’t building a program, he was using the Duke job as a springboard to something else. Thus the emphasis on short-term, gimmicky offense at the expense of building out from the trenches. Cut is clearly here long-term, and is building a program. His intent is to build a championship program, and to do that you focus on the trenches, solid D, and building quality overall depth. He’s made extraordinary progress in all phases at a school that has largely been considered a punchline when it comes to football in recent decades. We’re a punchline no longer. Whether we’ll achieve the status of regular championship contender, I have no idea. But we’re leagues beyond where we were, that’s for certain.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

But the difference is the Spurrier wasn’t building a program, he was using the Duke job as a springboard to something else. Thus the emphasis on short-term, gimmicky offense at the expense of building out from the trenches. Cut is clearly here long-term, and is building a program. His intent is to build a championship program, and to do that you focus on the trenches, solid D, and building quality overall depth. He’s made extraordinary progress in all phases at a school that has largely been considered a punchline when it comes to football in recent decades. We’re a punchline no longer. Whether we’ll achieve the status of regular championship contender, I have no idea. But we’re leagues beyond where we were, that’s for certain.

I must disagree with some of that...and of course agree with some of that. First, the disagreement:
Spurrier's Florida career was not a given by any means when he came to Duke. People in the SEC figured he was too interested in playing golf four times a week to coach in the SEC. And the SEC was a running league at the time. And I do not agree that his offense was gimmicky, it was ahead of its time. And having a wide open offense in no way reduces your chance to win in the trenches. In fact, complex pass protection schemes are a good way to recruit NFL quality O linemen. That point was non sequitur.

And I also think we are kidding ourselves to think Duke can build a program long term on the trenches, solid D, with a vanilla offense. I think Duke is one of those schools that can really only optimize their program with a wide open offensive paradigm. Duke under Spurrier, Texas Tech the last decade, Washington State now, Oklahoma State, Purdue, Mizzou, all creating momentum with first team to 50 kind of a mindset. Oh, BTW, this kind of offense generates interest, and more butts in the seats, compared to the same winning percentage with a standard approach. BTW, the national highlight of Duke's FB program the last 50 years is probably the bowl loss in Atlanta...52-48 with almost 700 yards of offense.

As to the part I agree with, Cut is here long term, he has done remarkable job on depth and on conditioning, and on the culture of the program, and on the entire reputation of the program. There is no doubt about that. Cut is the best long term coach Duke has had in the modern era, no doubt about it.

[sagegrouse]

But the difference is the Spurrier wasn’t building a program, he was using the Duke job as a springboard to something else. Thus the emphasis on short-term, gimmicky offense at the expense of building out from the trenches. Cut is clearly here long-term, and is building a program. His intent is to build a championship program, and to do that you focus on the trenches, solid D, and building quality overall depth. He’s made extraordinary progress in all phases at a school that has largely been considered a punchline when it comes to football in recent decades. We’re a punchline no longer. Whether we’ll achieve the status of regular championship contender, I have no idea. But we’re leagues beyond where we were, that’s for certain.

Oh, my! You are seriously saying that Spurrier's only purpose at Duke was to set off fireworks to attract the attention of the big-time programs? Didn't he win a bunch of games? Are you saying he didn't try to recruit? What the heck are you saying?

I'm as ambitious as the next person and see that the way to win promotions is to put 110 % into one's current job.

[Bob Green]

Oh, my! You are seriously saying that Spurrier's only purpose at Duke was to set off fireworks to attract the attention of the big-time programs? Didn't he win a bunch of games? Are you saying he didn't try to recruit? What the heck are you saying?

I'm as ambitious as the next person and see that the way to win promotions is to put 110 % into one's current job.

Sage, I believe you are misrepresenting Papa John's post. He is simply pointing out there is a difference between Spurrier's "win now" approach and Cutcliffe's "long term...I'm building a program" approach.

[Bob Green]

For the record, I dislike the title of this thread:

Is Duke FB worse at home than on the road?

I'd frame the question: Is Duke FB better on the road than at home?

[Devils Librarian]

they're not even just eggs...they're often pitiful offensive performances. There is so little right now that would make a fan say "you know what is a good way to spend my saturday afternoon? undertaking the hassle to get to the game, undertaking the TSA treatment to get INTO the stadium, and then not having anything to cheer about for 3+ hours." The weather certainly hasn't been cooperative.

Watching duke home games simply has not been fun the past couple of years.

I agree with all of the above. After paying for season tickets for a couple of years my wife and I got tired of sitting in triple digit temperatures to watch Duke beat Army 13-6. Honestly, I wouldn't mind the 13-6 wins if it meant that when better opponents came to town we would be competitive for four quarters, but that seemed to rarely be the case.

[Devils Librarian]

Thanks to those who pulled the stats for me! Seems like my suspicion was correct. So now the question becomes what can we do in our small way to help fix the environment at WW?

I come from Cleveland, and the above question was asked a thousand times on local sports-talk radio regarding the Cleveland Indians in the down years between the end of the 1990s and their recent resurgence. The Indians have one of the best ballparks in the MLB. It is a fantastic facility in which to watch a game. I've been at that 43,000+ stadium when attendance was below 10,000 people, and let me tell you it feels like no one is there when that happens. So, what could they do? Management tried every kind of promotion that they could think of. The only solution to attendance woes was winning.

I remember a local sports-radio personality comparing the Cleveland Indians owners to restaurateurs who make terrible food and tell their clientele that if only more people came to their restaurant the food would get better. NO! The solution is to make better food and the people will come to eat. It's the same with Duke football.

Our biggest problem seems to be that every time buzz about our football team is growing and we have an important game that will show we've arrived, we lose. And when we lose we tend to do it in a way that makes people shake their heads for allowing themselves to think that Duke is anything other than a basketball school. Not only do we lose these games, it FEELS like we tend to lose them at home.

[Bob Green]

There have certainly been some bad performances by Duke in Wallace Wade Stadium; however, there have been some really good performances as well. My Top 10 home wins since 2012:

1. Duke 33, Carolina 30 (October 20, 2012)
2. Duke 28, Carolina 27 (November 10, 2016)
3. Duke 48, Miami 30 (November 16, 2013)
4. Duke 38, N.C. State 20 (November 9, 2013)
5. Duke 43, Georgia Tech 20 (November 18, 2017)
6. Duke 34, Georgia Tech 20 (September 26, 2015)
7. Duke 31, Georgia Tech 25 (October 11, 2014)
8. Duke 41, Northwestern 17 (September 9, 2017)
9. Duke 41, Kansas 3 (September 13, 2014)
10. Duke 35, Navy 7 (October 12, 2013)

[Acymetric]

I come from Cleveland, and the above question was asked a thousand times on local sports-talk radio regarding the Cleveland Indians in the down years between the end of the 1990s and their recent resurgence. The Indians have one of the best ballparks in the MLB. It is a fantastic facility in which to watch a game. I've been at that 43,000+ stadium when attendance was below 10,000 people, and let me tell you it feels like no one is there when that happens. So, what could they do? Management tried every kind of promotion that they could think of. The only solution to attendance woes was winning.

I remember a local sports-radio personality comparing the Cleveland Indians owners to restaurateurs who make terrible food and tell their clientele that if only more people came to their restaurant the food would get better. NO! The solution is to make better food and the people will come to eat. It's the same with Duke football.

Our biggest problem seems to be that every time buzz about our football team is growing and we have an important game that will show we've arrived, we lose. And when we lose we tend to do it in a way that makes people shake their heads for allowing themselves to think that Duke is anything other than a basketball school. Not only do we lose these games, it FEELS like we tend to lose them at home.

It feels that way because we do lose them at home. It isn't just a vague impression. Even during our big 10-2 year, we only had 2 good home games (where good means a win over an interesting opponent, NC State and Miami in that particular year). And guess what, going into those big games after beating VT on the road, people showed up! I suspect Troy and Navy had poor attendance after getting drubbed by GT and giving up a record number of points to Pitt earlier that year to round out the schedule.

[Acymetric]

Does anyone know a good place to see previous assistant coaches by year? I can find most of it but position coaches are a little spotty, especially pre-2013.

[devilirium]

Does anyone know a good place to see previous assistant coaches by year? I can find most of it but position coaches are a little spotty, especially pre-2013.

Goduke had a previous feature under the Coaches tab where it allowed such information, but it's been removed. It's a good question. I know this, Duke had a run of guys that made it from the offensive line to the pros ranging from Cofield, Tomlinsen, Skura, Patrick, etc . I don't see where any of the current guys would be slotted there--whether that's talent or development is hard to say.


I think the original question posed in the thread is a good one, and one that should've been presented to Cut in Saturday's post game press conference. It's the elephant in the room. It may be uncomfortable to ask but it's one that Cut would be equipped to answer in a thoughtful fashion.

[RaiderDevil]

In the game discussion thread, a lot of people mentioned how flat Duke seemed today. It can't have helped that there appeared to be about 100 people in the stands. I know it's always been hard to fill Wallace Wade unless opposing team fans come out in force, but I am pretty shocked they can't get a better crowd than that for a product that, if not great, is much improved from when my kids were at Duke (2001-2008).

There was a surprisingly decent crowd right at the start of the game. People started leaving in masses when Jones through the terrible pick in the end zone. It's tough to watch a game like that in pouring rain. The offense looks worse every year. Blame whoever, but it does. Big plays put butts in the seats. The offense has too few, and the defense too many. We keep hearing that they're building a program, but we seem to be about the same every year, at least since the 10 win season.