Should Duke Drop Football?: Raleigh News & Observer columnist Caulton Tudor says so. At least, he says they should drop to Division I-AA.
posted by BlueCarp to football at 11:26 AM - 28 comments
I don't disagree with anything Tudor says, except for the part about getting another team to join the ACC as a football only member. No way Notre Dame does it. Who else is there?
posted by BlueCarp at 11:27 AM on October 04
I would love to see them drop basketball and keep football.
posted by louisville_slugger at 12:02 PM on October 04
No way do I think the ACC should allow it. If Duke doesn't care about it's football team, then maybe the ACC isn't for them. There is plenty of money handed out in the ACC that they can certainly afford to field a decent team. Teams should be in division I-AA because their school size and finances make it difficult or impossible to field a decent team. They shouldn't switch just because they have a crappy coach and don't care enough to find someone better. If Duke wants to do the part-time conference thing, then they should be in the Big East.
posted by bperk at 12:05 PM on October 04
Hell Duke may be the Crimson Tides last ditch chance at a win this season, with a couple more home-away games in the current contract id hate to see drop football, we Tide fans need at least one team to feel like we can beat on any givin Saturday. OK it isnt that bad but still...
posted by Folkways at 12:21 PM on October 04
Caulton Tudor says something in his column about priorities changing at Duke. What are the "new" priorities. Perhaps they are the same things that existed from the '30s through the '60s, that is, graduating a fairly high percentage of your student athletes, and making sure that the diploma represents more than the fact that you were present on campus for 4 years. In my opinion, Duke is one of the schools that has refused to lower its standards below the point at which the term "student-athlete" becomes a mockery. Duke"s rate of graduation for athletes is the 3rd highest in division 1A (interestingly enough, Notre Dame is 2nd). If the Duke alumni would be happy with it, by all means go to 1AA. There are a couple of 1AA football leagues that would love to have Duke. If the ACC doesn't want Duke in basketball under those circumstances, then it's their problem, not Duke's. Duke could do in basketball what Notre Dame has done for years in football, become an independent. They could still play a very tough schedule, and the best news is that their tournament money would not have to be shared with the other members of their conference. Also, a national TV contract could be possible. Think of what this might do for the bottom line, not that they need it, as Mr. Tudor points out.
posted by Howard_T at 01:06 PM on October 04
I happen to be a Northwestern Football Fan and for relatively 20 years or more they absolutely sucked then in '95 they won the Big Ten and went to the rose bowl granted they haven't won a bowl game for a very long time but except for a few years including this year they have been relatively competitive if Duke can turn things around like that just to be competitive for awhile then maybe they'll make some bowl games granted it's not gonna happen this year it's going to take some time it would be a big boon to the university look at Illini's win vs Michigan State last weekend even though I am not a Duke sport fan and never will be GO DUKE FOOTBALL
posted by luther70 at 02:01 PM on October 04
I don't see that Duke's situation is substantially different from Vandy's, Wake's, or a couple other small, academically demanding private schools that do competently and sometimes well (see: Duke in the late 80s) in large football conferences. The current complete ineptness is the result of an AD who can't seem to find a competent coach to save his life, not something inherent to Duke. Fire the AD and move on. [An alternate and quite superior solution would be to throw football and Miami, FSU, BC, and VT out of the ACC. That anyone is talking about Duke leaving the ACC shows that the ACC has become completely unhinged from what made it popular and relevant to fans and alumni for 50+ years for short-term financial gains.]
posted by tieguy at 02:04 PM on October 04
What you're basically saying, tieguy, is just scrap football practically altogether in the ACC. Scrapping all those teams pretty much means getting booted from the BCS. Would dropping Duke (and maybe Wake) from ACC football actually make it a stronger conference BCS-wise?
posted by LionIndex at 02:13 PM on October 04
I'm not quite ready to throw Alleva under the bus, but I'm getting close. I just don't know how you get out of this 10+ year rut. And I'd love to go back to the 1980's version of the ACC: Duke, UNC, Wake, State, UVa, MD, Tech, Clemson. Bring back the Dixie Classic to get a couple extra big games for the Big Four. I don't care if it drops the ACC into 1-AA football.
posted by mbd1 at 03:05 PM on October 04
Just for the record, Wake is undefeated thus far.
posted by trox at 03:27 PM on October 04
Duke has a football team?! :?
posted by jakeamo15 at 04:26 PM on October 04
I've seen parts of every Duke game this year, and I've seen them drop football(s) in each one. I'm just saying.
posted by tommytrump at 04:29 PM on October 04
Even though I go for Duke whenever they play, I always figured they didn't do as much for football as they do for basketball
posted by shadyboy15 at 04:35 PM on October 04
Duke has a football team?! :? My thoughts exactly. Whats with all these links about quitting because your team sucks. In order for some teams to be good, other teams have to be not so good. I mean, there has to be a loser in order for there to be a winner, right?
posted by LA-4-Life at 06:36 PM on October 04
What you're basically saying, tieguy, is just scrap football practically altogether in the ACC. Scrapping all those teams pretty much means getting booted from the BCS. What part of "An alternate and quite superior solution would be to throw football ... out of the ACC" was unclear? :) Yes, I'd be quite happy if the ACC dropped out of the BCS and all ACC schools stopped playing Div. 1 football. Not that Div. 1 basketball is exactly virginal like the driven snow, but football is on a whole different level, and participation in it should be an embarassment to any institution that seriously cares about academics. And, frankly, I think most alumni at most of the core ACC schools (except Clemson) would be perfectly happy to get rid of football, especially if it meant more money, attention, and better scheduling for basketball. [No ACC basketball fan is a fan of losing the round-robin in basketball, and there are a hell of a lot more ACC basketball fans than ACC football fans, at least outside of Florida.] I might note that Duke would actually benefit the least from this arrangement (at least, of the core eight ACC schools) since it spends the least on football and still gets a BCS check just as big as everyone else's.
posted by tieguy at 08:17 PM on October 04
There was talk a few years back about the University of Tulsa dropping down to Div. I-AA. Then they got a really good coach in place and they're competing for their conference now. If the commitment is there to field a winner, then it will happen. Duke is successful in everything it tries at and, frankly, I don't believe they care at all about football.
posted by igottheblues at 02:47 AM on October 05
Tieguy, interesting points, especially the BCS payouts. Georgia Tech doesn't figue in as a core member do they? I'd like to hear from other alumni to see if they feel the same way. I'm a Temple Alum, and I would hate to see them get rid of football. I like the move to the MAC, and think they'll be with competition more on their level, but I would have been upset if they dropped to I-AA. But that was a different situation as they were booted fromt he Big East. As long as they get a BCS check, Duke has no reason to leave the ACC. And it's not like Duke is the only school with a great program in one sport and a horrible sport in another. (i.e. Penn State)
posted by SummersEve at 06:47 AM on October 05
Ah, Clemson and GT. I knew there was another one :) We'll happily trade Clemson with the SEC for Vandy ;) igottheblues: Depends on how you define serious. We have spent tens of millions on facilities in the past decade, which I think does indicate a certain amount of committment. We've not lowered admissions standards (which makes me happy), so maybe that means we're not 'serious'. We've not fired the AD for being incapable of hiring a competent football coach (which makes me less happy, though given his success in every other sport, is probably forgiveable) so, again, maybe not serious. But if the choice is to be serious about football, or serious about every other sport on campus, I'll take the second option every day. One thing that I think the NCAA does do right is to fund and support all the other sports; the ones that the majority of student-athletes participate in and which are all too easily forgotten at most schools. [When discussing the Duke AD and Duke sports in general, by the way, I might note that in 2004-2005 we were the first private school besides Stanford to crack the top five in the Director's Cup, and we would have done it again in 2005-2006 if the lacrosse team didn't have rocks for brains. This with zero help from football. So the athletics program is doing something right, and doing it right with a broad number of real, honest-to-god student athletes.]
posted by tieguy at 07:26 AM on October 05
Yes, I'd be quite happy if the ACC dropped out of the BCS and all ACC schools stopped playing Div. 1 football. Not that Div. 1 basketball is exactly virginal like the driven snow, but football is on a whole different level, and participation in it should be an embarassment to any institution that seriously cares about academics. Football money in the ACC brings in tons and tons of money. There is not one school in the ACC who would give up that money just because Duke can't field a decent football team. The academic standards argument is a bunch of crap. Notre Dame hasn't lowered its academic standards and I think they might have a pretty decent team. And, even if they can't be Notre Dame, they can at least be as good as Stanford.
posted by bperk at 08:47 AM on October 05
Notre Dame hasn't lowered its academic standards If you believe that one, I've got a bridge to sell you.
posted by tieguy at 09:09 AM on October 05
Football money in the ACC brings in tons and tons of money. It also costs tons and tons of money -- and more than money. The academic standards argument is a bunch of crap. So's the "football is a huge moneymaker" argument.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:16 AM on October 05
So's the "football is a huge moneymaker" argument. Using this data, ACC football revenue for the 2004-2005 is $181,149,299 and ACC football expenses $120,558,146.
posted by bperk at 12:51 PM on October 05
Using that same site, unless I'm reading it wrong, Duke revenue from football was $7.7 million, while expenses were $9.3 million.
posted by SummersEve at 01:00 PM on October 05
Duke's football expenses exceeded its football revenue by $1,587,024. Two other schools had the same problem -- none to the degree that Duke did (WFU $545,615 and MD $10,076). Duke's revenue was next to the last in the ACC while its spending on football was in the middle of the pack.
posted by bperk at 01:39 PM on October 05
I'm guessing that is atypical, and caused bv the new construction around the football stadium, caused by every other school in the ACC building large new training facilities in the past 5-10 years. Shame the data doesn't appear to reach back in time. [And someone has less football revenue than Duke? Wha?]
posted by tieguy at 02:48 PM on October 05
I'm guessing that is atypical, and caused bv the new construction around the football stadium, caused by every other school in the ACC building large new training facilities in the past 5-10 years. Shame the data doesn't appear to reach back in time. [And someone has less football revenue than Duke? Wha?] In the ACC, Wake Forest had $7,226,136 in expenses. Yeah, the data is a little flawed because you can't see what they count as expenses.
posted by bperk at 03:28 PM on October 05
That's an interesting site, bperk. If you look at Temple U, they spent exactly what they made right down to the dollar across the board on each sport. Talk about fiscally responsible, I have to wonder if Ken Lay helped put those numbers together. Pitt's bottom line expenses match the revenues exactly to the dollar but the by-sport breakdowns aren't exactly the same like Temple's are.
posted by SummersEve at 04:46 PM on October 05
That's very true, SE. It is also consistent theme for many schools. I guess they decide to spend the extra money in the athletic department before the university claims it for something terrible - like the library.
posted by bperk at 02:45 PM on October 06
You're not logged in. Please log in or register.
Copyright © 2016 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.