A Modest Proposal?

[Kedsy]

Why does football always have to be the straw that stirs the drink?

I read once that the Duke/UNC game, the most-watched regular season college basketball game pretty much every season, has approximately the same TV audience as a mid-season matchup between middle-of-the-pack SEC football teams. That'$ why.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I am generally in favor of considering this proposal. But not four days before our first game. I may feel differently come Saturday.

[Phredd3]

After reading through this thread, the only question I have is about the thread title: In what sense does the OP consider this proposal "modest"? From my point of view, it would be utterly transformative of all athletic endeavors at the University.

Don't kid yourself that the revenue given up by dumping football would be easy to replace. I've been around this school long enough to know that Duke's budgets are not fungible, and Duke's overall wealth, while considerable, is not unlimited and is by no means managed as if it were.

[camion]

After reading through this thread, the only question I have is about the thread title: In what sense does the OP consider this proposal "modest"? From my point of view, it would be utterly transformative of all athletic endeavors at the University.

Don't kid yourself that the revenue given up by dumping football would be easy to replace. I've been around this school long enough to know that Duke's budgets are not fungible, and Duke's overall wealth, while considerable, is not unlimited and is by no means managed as if it were.

"A Modest Proposal" hearkens back to the title of satirical piece written a couple of hundred years ago. The title was tongue in cheek I believe.


Or maybe it was just cheeky.

[Daddylawman]

I see that both schools support essentially the same number of programs as each other, Duke has 21 total, Nova has 22 (they have water polo). Of course that doesn't tell us how much money they put into each program.
One would think that since Duke has football and its 85 scholarships to men, we probably provide a lot more support to women's teams (Title IX) but I just don't know.

It's been a while since I did a deep dive, but regarding Tiltle IX, that's why many schools have women's crew.

[Phredd3]

"A Modest Proposal" hearkens back to the title of satirical piece written a couple of hundred years ago. The title was tongue in cheek I believe.


Or maybe it was just cheeky.

Well, yes, I suppose I should just have accepted the satire, except it didn't seem consonant with the rest of the post. Or perhaps I'm just thick - probably from eating too many Irish children.

[Dedgummit]

OK. The first Duke family contributions date no earlier than the 1890s. Trinity played its first football game in 1888. I had a relative who attended Trinity in the 1890s and he was very strong fan and supporter of Duke athletics (mostly football and baseball) his entire life. From what I know, this started when he was a student. I doubt his interest was unique, and certainly I don't see how you can know that the Duke family's interest in Trinity wasn't at least in some part based on the full spectrum of university life, athletics included.

Section 15

Well, you are correct in saying that I don't "know" that-- but it certainly wasn't one of the items called out in the list of priorities that the Duke family identified, when Benjamin Duke first gave money to Trinity in the 1887 (before the football even existed).. the Duke family's priority, if anything, seemed to be that Trinity (and then Duke) became a center for educating future (Methodist) ministers-- which was the direct result of various Methodist clergy helping Washington Duke with raising his children (which included Ben Duke), after his wives had died.

I think this reference (from the Duke Endowment's website) is instructive: https://www.dukeendowment.org/sites/...espamphlet.pdf

For some reason, I am unable to get a screen grab to display here, but see page four of that document, where it says:
"Initial giving primarily went to preachers and churches, and an orphanage in nearby Oxford, but (Duke) family giving increasingly centered on a Methodist institution of higher education, Trinity College. Ben Duke made the first family contribution to the college in 1887, and was elected to the board of trustees in 1889."

While Trinity may have had a football team in 1888, I have my doubts about the students' rabidity for the team, as a primary aspect of their affinity for the school at that time-- college football had only even technically existed for less than 20 years then-- with the first game that was more like American (gridiron) football than soccer happening only 13 years earlier (between Harvard and Tufts in 1875: http://archive.boston.com/sports/col...idlock?pg=full )-- and, really, only had been transformed from rugby to more like football rules in the 1880's (by Walter Camp), so the idea that most Trinity students felt their affinity for Trinity most keenly through the football team, in 1888, seems dubious in many respects. The games were very disorganized (even unorganized) in those days-- and crowds were minuscule; the 1869 game had ~100 in attendance (counting the teams?). College football was more of a novelty, than a major spectator sport, until the 20th Century.

In any event, Ben Duke (who was not an alum) certainly could not have felt an allegiance to the school's football (or other athletic) teams, when he first started the Duke family's relationship with Trinity, in 1887.

[sagegrouse]

Well, yes, I suppose I should just have accepted the satire, except it didn't seem consonant with the rest of the post. Or perhaps I'm just thick - probably from eating too many Irish children.

I thought the title was quite vowel.

[Dedgummit]

Are you for or against eating Irish children? Does this group include kids whose parents went to Notre Dame?

I am AGAINST eating Irish children, if only on principle: as an Irish child, this would constitute (internecine) cannibalism for me.

[LeadingEdge]

It's been a while since I did a deep dive, but regarding Tiltle IX, that's why many schools have women's crew.

One way I look at it: I think Title IX means roughly the same number of male and female athletes, and roughly the same number of male and female athletic scholarships.

If a school ditched football, it would add 85 male athletes in other sports. If a school didn't have, say, men's lax or soccer or volleyball, it could add it. And I'll bet the typical academic credentials for the males in those non-football sports would be better than those for the football players.

I think the NCAA has lower schollie-per-team limits for males than for females, such as in swimming. It would help gender equity to get those equalized for schools that don't play football (e.g., VCU, George Mason, Kansas).

[johnb]

Actually, watching "Alabama" or "Clemson" is more like watching the Stoke City Potters or the Sheffield Wednesday Owls or the Pawtucket Red Sox-- NOT Barcelona, Manchester, or the NY Yankees-- neither Alabama nor Clemson could stay on the field with the worst team in the NFL for even a half-- it would be a total mismatch (just as the claims that Duke's 2019 team with Zion Williamson, RJ Barrett, Cam Reddish could play with even the worst NBA team for a half were absurd). …

I don’t recall anybody arguing that a particular Duke team, generally led by 18 year olds, could compete against an NBA team, or that Alabama could beat Kansas City. The argument is whether a college team, aged about 7 years, could compete against pros. 77 Alabama players are in the NFL, apparently. 10 players were just drafted, including 8 in the 1st 2 rounds. Seems to me that Alabama alums are competing just fine. If you restricted the later/hypothetical team to maybe one 4 year cycle, Alabama alums would be fine. Numbers and injuries might not be enough to get through a whole NFL season, but I’d think they could compete for some number of games.

Similarly, if applied to any 3 or 4 year period since 1999, I’d think a group of a 10-12 Duke alums could compete successfully as an nba team.

For the hypothetical team with Cam, RJ, & Zion, you can go back only 2 yrs and add Carter, Bagley, Grayson Allen, Gary Trent Jr, Jayson Tatum, Luke kennard, Tyus, and Frank Jackson. That team would win a lot of NBA games.

[Bob Green]

It would help gender equity to get those equalized for schools that don't play football (e.g., VCU, George Mason, Kansas).

Kansas? Duke’s schedule on September 25 says hello.

[uh_no]

One way I look at it: I think Title IX means roughly the same number of male and female athletes, and roughly the same number of male and female athletic scholarships.

If a school ditched football, it would add 85 male athletes in other sports. If a school didn't have, say, men's lax or soccer or volleyball, it could add it. And I'll bet the typical academic credentials for the males in those non-football sports would be better than those for the football players.

I think the NCAA has lower schollie-per-team limits for males than for females, such as in swimming. It would help gender equity to get those equalized for schools that don't play football (e.g., VCU, George Mason, Kansas).

The issue there is then the schools which don't have football would have a relatively unfair advantage over schools that do. Whether that is compelling enough of an issue, I don't know.

[sagegrouse]

I don’t recall anybody arguing that a particular Duke team, generally led by 18 year olds, could compete against an NBA team, or that Alabama could beat Kansas City. The argument is whether a college team, aged about 7 years, could compete against pros. 77 Alabama players are in the NFL, apparently. 10 players were just drafted, including 8 in the 1st 2 rounds. Seems to me that Alabama alums are competing just fine. If you restricted the later/hypothetical team to maybe one 4 year cycle, Alabama alums would be fine. Numbers and injuries might not be enough to get through a whole NFL season, but I’d think they could compete for some number of games.

Similarly, if applied to any 3 or 4 year period since 1999, I’d think a group of a 10-12 Duke alums could compete successfully as an nba team.

For the hypothetical team with Cam, RJ, & Zion, you can go back only 2 yrs and add Carter, Bagley, Grayson Allen, Gary Trent Jr, Jayson Tatum, Luke kennard, Tyus, and Frank Jackson. That team would win a lot of NBA games.

[/B]

The issue there is then the schools which don't have football would have a relatively unfair advantage over schools that do. Whether that is compelling enough of an issue, I don't know.

The Title IX ship has headed for the high seas under fully litigated sails.

Title IX has been in force for a long time.

[budwom]

It's been a while since I did a deep dive, but regarding Tiltle IX, that's why many schools have women's crew.

It's pretty much why we have women's everything at Duke. Go back some decades when some of us were there, and there were hardly any women's sports teams.

[dukelifer]

I read once that the Duke/UNC game, the most-watched regular season college basketball game pretty much every season, has approximately the same TV audience as a mid-season matchup between middle-of-the-pack SEC football teams. That'$ why.

Pro football stirs the entire TV drink. It dominates the attraction of eyeballs. Nothing else is even close.

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/top...wl-1234866838/

[LeadingEdge]

[/B]

The issue there is then the schools which don't have football would have a relatively unfair advantage over schools that do. Whether that is compelling enough of an issue, I don't know.

Which means that, if the NCAA or its replacement allowed equal schollies to schools that don't play football, it would be adding a minor incentive to drop football. I'm for that.

[Dedgummit]

I don’t recall anybody arguing that a particular Duke team, generally led by 18 year olds, could compete against an NBA team, or that Alabama could beat Kansas City. The argument is whether a college team, aged about 7 years, could compete against pros. 77 Alabama players are in the NFL, apparently. 10 players were just drafted, including 8 in the 1st 2 rounds. Seems to me that Alabama alums are competing just fine. If you restricted the later/hypothetical team to maybe one 4 year cycle, Alabama alums would be fine. Numbers and injuries might not be enough to get through a whole NFL season, but I’d think they could compete for some number of games.

Similarly, if applied to any 3 or 4 year period since 1999, I’d think a group of a 10-12 Duke alums could compete successfully as an nba team.

For the hypothetical team with Cam, RJ, & Zion, you can go back only 2 yrs and add Carter, Bagley, Grayson Allen, Gary Trent Jr, Jayson Tatum, Luke kennard, Tyus, and Frank Jackson. That team would win a lot of NBA games.

You may not recall it, but I do-- it was a common (ill considered) refrain (by less than astute broadcasters) that Duke's team that year could "beat the Cleveland Cavaliers"--that was never true then.

Your other point, that somehow the best players on Alabama's team (over multiple years) would constitute a good enough team to (eventually) compete with NFL teams is entirely beside the point-- those teams are NOT made up of just Alabama's best 8-10 players, and those players are NOT seasoned 7 years till they are sufficiently skilled and experienced to compete with NFL players. They (Alabama's teams) are much more reflective of a minor league team in other sports (e.g.- baseball, hockey, basketball) which have obvious examples of minor league teams. No unamended Alabama team "aged about 7 years" could compete well against ANY NFL team.

One could say the same thing you are claiming (about Alabama) about the Durham Bulls-- watch them long enough, focus only on the top players, cherry pick those who eventually get to the major leagues, and then, yes-- that group is marginally reflective of a major league team-- if all those players could magically be congregated on one field at the same moment, with that level of additional seasoning. Barring that theoretical development, Alabama and the Durham Bulls are just minor league teams, well below the sport's top level of competition.

[SoCalDukeFan]

As it stand now, Duke athletics reside on Mt. Olympus with the other gods of college sports. We along with the other Power Five schools have large-scale plan followings. In terms of finances, duke is in the middle of this pack of 50 or so schools. Major college football is one of the criteria for living there, which includes remaining in a Power five conference.

If you want to ask what happens to teams that are no longer in a Power Five Conference. Look at Tulane, which voluntarily withdrew from the SEC. Look at my other alma mater, Rice, which never found a good home after the Southwest Conference disbanded 25 years ago. similarly with SMU and Houston, although they ended up in the AAC, a step up from Rice's Conference USA.

And then we will see what happens with the Big 12 (down to eight). TCU had been saved once from oblivion -- not invited to the Big 12 like Baylor and others, but getting in later. I suspect the Big 12 will be considered a alot less than a Power 5 conference.

Anyway, playing major college football is a must.

There's more but it will have to wait

First of all I am more interested in the school than the team. The last I looked Rice and Tulane were doing just fine (assuming Tulane was not hit too hard by the hurricane.). Chicago and Wash U of St. Louis are also great schools. And then there is the Ivy League. Villanova does pretty well in basketball without a major football program.

Between Spurrier and Cut it would have been hard to say Duke athletics were on Mt. Olympus when the football team was barely winning a game and was almost a national joke.

I went to Duke in the '60's and enjoyed going to about every home game and an away one now and then. I think my college experience would have reduced if Duke was not playing football, but then we could realistically aspire to the top. I just don't think that is the case today. And look how bad the student attendance is at Duke home games. My guess is that for many years students in say the MAC schools had a better football experience than those at Duke.

I don't have crystal ball but I see continual change for the power conferences. Sooner or later the top teams are going to want to stop sharing the TV and other revenues and will realign into 1 or 2 maybe 3 super football conferences and none will include the Blue Devils.

SoCal

[johnb]

You may not recall it, but I do-- it was a common (ill considered) refrain (by less than astute broadcasters) that Duke's team that year could "beat the Cleveland Cavaliers"--that was never true then.

Your other point, that somehow the best players on Alabama's team (over multiple years) would constitute a good enough team to (eventually) compete with NFL teams is entirely beside the point-- those teams are NOT made up of just Alabama's best 8-10 players, and those players are NOT seasoned 7 years till they are sufficiently skilled and experienced to compete with NFL players. They (Alabama's teams) are much more reflective of a minor league team in other sports (e.g.- baseball, hockey, basketball) which have obvious examples of minor league teams. No unamended Alabama team "aged about 7 years" could compete well against ANY NFL team.

One could say the same thing you are claiming (about Alabama) about the Durham Bulls-- watch them long enough, focus only on the top players, cherry pick those who eventually get to the major leagues, and then, yes-- that group is marginally reflective of a major league team-- if all those players could magically be congregated on one field at the same moment, with that level of additional seasoning. Barring that theoretical development, Alabama and the Durham Bulls are just minor league teams, well below the sport's top level of competition.

I’m not misremembering; people would make the argument about rolling a cluster of our guys into the future, and then someone would misquote them as saying a single Duke team, composed of current teenagers, could defeat a pro team composed of 22-30 year olds who’ve been carefully accumulated and paid to work out for over a decade. It was annoying then and annoying now. The argument is that a mini generation of Duke players would—at their eventual peak—be a competitive team. And it’s true. Of course it’s theoretical; that’s where the flashing forward into the future comes into play.

The point is that when I watch a Duke basketball game or an Alabama football game, I routinely see guys who are at the most elite level for their age group. They are, by and large, going to be pro stars. That’s very different from a minor league team, where almost none of their players will ever be all pros. It’s a very steep pyramid in sports, with pro athletes being far more talented than college athletes, but a few college programs reliably churn out pro stars, whereas minor league programs hardly ever produce stars.