Duke's decision spineless...

[HIU 93]

...according to Barry Saunders of the News and Observer. This article is sure to spark controversy...

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/835781.html

[jstate83]

Naw he didn't flat out say "Duke PUNKED OUT". xlolx xeekx xlolx

[GannonFan]

Geez, it's not like Cutliffe doesn't have a good resume to go with his lack of skin pigmentation. He did a good job at Mississippi and he's tutored a lot of good QB's and is considered to be a great recruiter. Hard to see Dorell from UCLA being the choice as he didn't succeed somewhere where he had even better resources. I agree that Broadway is a good candidate, but it's not like he was passed over by a less-pedigreed, white coach.

[HIU 93]

Geez, it's not like Cutliffe doesn't have a good resume to go with his lack of skin pigmentation. He did a good job at Mississippi and he's tutored a lot of good QB's and is considered to be a great recruiter. Hard to see Dorell from UCLA being the choice as he didn't succeed somewhere where he had even better resources. I agree that Broadway is a good candidate, but it's not like he was passed over by a less-pedigreed, white coach.

I look at it like this- Cutcliffe was a good hire. Broadway would have been a good hire. I think Duke did the easy thing, not frm a football standpoint, but from a business standpoint.

I prsonally am glad Coach Broadway did not get the job at Duke. Unless your name is Spurrier, Duke is a resume killer.

[GannonFan]

I look at it like this- Cutcliffe was a good hire. Broadway would have been a good hire. I think Duke did the easy thing, not frm a football standpoint, but from a business standpoint.

I prsonally am glad Coach Broadway did not get the job at Duke. Unless your name is Spurrier, Duke is a resume killer.

I don't think Duke would've suffered business-wise had they went with Broadway - if anything, it may have spurred some interest in what's been a terrible program. But as you say, both him and Cutcliffe are good hires. And yes, I agree, this is better for Broadway - winning at Duke is almost impossible. On the other side, though, if he found even marginal success you'd be hearing his name mentioned alongside Spurrier's - that would've been worth it if he could've done that.

[Marcus Garvey]

Boy, that article should have been in the editorial section. Well, the man is entitled to his opinion, as ill founded as it may be. It's not like the passed on Broadway to get some grad assistant from Lenoir-Rhyne.

[jstate83]

Geez, it's not like Cutliffe doesn't have a good resume to go with his lack of skin pigmentation. He did a good job at Mississippi and he's tutored a lot of good QB's and is considered to be a great recruiter. Hard to see Dorell from UCLA being the choice as he didn't succeed somewhere where he had even better resources. I agree that Broadway is a good candidate, but it's not like he was passed over by a less-pedigreed, white coach.


Nothing against Cutcliff.
Ole Miss should have never fired him.xsmhx

I'm laughing at the "Duke Punked Out" part and how he said "don't look at me that way". xlolx

[Marcus Garvey]

Whathisname from Eastern Washington was a good hire by Wazzu. Prior to that however, I was thinking that Washington St. ought to seriously pursue black candidates. That would have helped their recruiting immensely.

[HIU 93]

Whathisname from Eastern Washington was a good hire by Wazzu. Prior to that however, I was thinking that Washington St. ought to seriously pursue black candidates. That would have helped their recruiting immensely.

I don't think it would.

[mcveyrl]

I look at it like this- Cutcliffe was a good hire. Broadway would have been a good hire. I think Duke did the easy thing, not frm a football standpoint, but from a business standpoint.

I prsonally am glad Coach Broadway did not get the job at Duke. Unless your name is Spurrier, Duke is a resume killer.

That was my thought. Are we sure that he really wanted the position? I know that he interviewed, but sometimes being interviewed is worth more than taking the position. He could've been less than enthusiastic about taking the position when he interviewed.

Broadway is in his first season with GSU and is by all accounts doing a phenomenal job. If he can increase (or even maintain) that success, he's got to know that better jobs will become available and I think the fact that he was already on a short list for an FBS school will be a plus.

As for Cutcliffe, this cures two ills in my life - 1) I don't have to hear the UT fans constantly b!tch and moan about him (although they will assuredly do that about whoever is next) and 2) I can take great pride in JMU starting off the Cutcliffe era with a loss [see No. 1].

[Marcus Garvey]

I don't think it would.

Really? Why's that?

[HIU 93]

Really? Why's that?

Because FBS football players today (for the most part) only care about making it to the league. They have no understanding of history or activism, and could care less about the race of any coach, as long as they get to the league. That is why you can get kids from places like Oakland to play in places like Pullman in the first place.

[Marcus Garvey]

Because FBS football players today (for the most part) only care about making it to the league. They have no understanding of history or activism, and could care less about the race of any coach, as long as they get to the league. That is why you can get kids from places like Oakland to play in places like Pullman in the first place.

That wasn't what I meant. I meant a black coach can better relate to black athletes and make them more comfortable with the idea of playing there. Wazzu is a very white team for the Pac-10. Pullman is pretty much lily-white. A joke among Wazzu kids is that if you see a black student, he's probably a football player. That's a tough sell for a kid from Oakland. Activisim or history has nothing to do with it. Right now, they can't get better than 3 star recruits among blacks.

[HIU 93]

That wasn't what I meant. I meant a black coach can better relate to black athletes and make them more comfortable with the idea of playing there. Wazzu is a very white team for the Pac-10. Pullman is pretty much lily-white. A joke among Wazzu kids is that if you see a black student, he's probably a football player. That's a tough sell for a kid from Oakland. Activisim or history has nothing to do with it. Right now, they can't get better than 3 star recruits among blacks.

That's just the ebb and flow of recruiting. The point about Black kids relating better to Black coaches- not true. There is no secret language, and most of these kids now don't even know they are Black.xlolx

[HIU 93]

I don't think Duke would've suffered business-wise had they went with Broadway - if anything, it may have spurred some interest in what's been a terrible program. But as you say, both him and Cutcliffe are good hires. And yes, I agree, this is better for Broadway - winning at Duke is almost impossible. On the other side, though, if he found even marginal success you'd be hearing his name mentioned alongside Spurrier's - that would've been worth it if he could've done that.

I have to disagree- Duke alums do a good job of hiding it, but they would have schitt an elephant if Duke had hired a Black coach. Broadway has already won at Duke. He was an assistant to Spurrier. Had he been hired, that wouldn't have mattered. Next year this time, Duke would be showing him the way out. Remember Tyrone Willingham at ND?

[lizrdgizrd]

I have to disagree- Duke alums do a good job of hiding it, but they would have schitt an elephant if Duke had hired a Black coach. Broadway has already won at Duke. He was an assistant to Spurrier. Had he been hired, that wouldn't have mattered. Next year this time, Duke would be showing him the way out. Remember Tyrone Willingham at ND?
I talked to some of those Duke alums (a few former players) and they were interested in having Broadway as coach. They knew he had success at Central and thought he had a chance to help Duke. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Duke football is a dead-end or a desperation jump for someone trying to make a name. Broadway doesn't need either and looks like he's in a good position to go to FAMU and bring that program some further success.

[Marcus Garvey]

I have to disagree- Duke alums do a good job of hiding it, but they would have schitt an elephant if Duke had hired a Black coach. Broadway has already won at Duke. He was an assistant to Spurrier. Had he been hired, that wouldn't have mattered. Next year this time, Duke would be showing him the way out. Remember Tyrone Willingham at ND?

I don't think you can compare Willingham to the Duke situation. Willingham was not shown the door because he was black. He was shown the door because the boosters panicked and made a horrible decision. That poor decision also spawned another, even worse decision the following year when they locked up Weis with an ill-advised, bloated contract extension.
Because Willingham is black, many have interpretted ND's stupidity as racism. Not so. While all racisim is based upon stupidity, not all stupid actions are based upon racisim.

Incidently, he's probably going to get fired at U-Dub next year because I doubt he's got the talent to win 8 games, and anything less will probably cost him his job. In retrospect, he shouldn't have left Stanford as they were quite content with the cyclical nature of his coaching.

[ERASU2113]

...according to Barry Saunders of the News and Observer. This article is sure to spark controversy...

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/835781.html

All I could say is....wow.

But Broadway will get his chance in the FBS. Going to Duke would hurt his resume if he wanted to be at a big problem.

[jonmac]

Boy, that article should have been in the editorial section. Well, the man is entitled to his opinion, as ill founded as it may be. It's not like the passed on Broadway to get some grad assistant from Lenoir-Rhyne.

FYI-Saunders is a columnist. His columns do not appear in editorial section but may as well be considered editorials. I enjoy reading his stuff. I think he would be an interesting guy to meet. He definitely doesn't hold back and if he does then he'd really be interesting to meet.

[Marcus Garvey]

FYI-Saunders is a columnist. His columns do not appear in editorial section but may as well be considered editorials. I enjoy reading his stuff. I think he would be an interesting guy to meet. He definitely doesn't hold back and if he does then he'd really be interesting to meet.

Okay, that makes sense. In the article, he's listed as a "Staff writer" which I assumed meant he was a reporter.

[furpal87]

I think Duke wanted to give a perception of an exciting offensive coach. The guy who coached the Mannings gives that perception, whether he is or not. I think Duke did have a bias this time, it was against defensive oriented coaches, not color-based.

[08Dawg]

Feel free to disagree but...

Why does the color of a man's skin have to be a factor at all? Why is there so much stink about if a college didn't hire a black coach and instead hired a white one? When will we ever grow up and stop looking first to see if somebody's black or white or yellow or pink or green or orange? Who gives a flip? It's a head coaching job...what should matter is if the guy can win games and recruit good players. I am sick and f'ing tired of race-related talk from BOTH sides of the issue. Grow up, world!

[HIU 93]

I don't think you can compare Willingham to the Duke situation. Willingham was not shown the door because he was black. He was shown the door because the boosters panicked and made a horrible decision.

A horrible decision exacerbated by the fact that he was Black. Tyrone Willingham was passed over for a liar initially. It was only after ND had egg on their face that they went back to Coach Willingham. Then, as soon as he hit a bump in the road, they decided that the "great experiment" was over. Yes, it was about football, but it was about race as well. Those who were hesitant about bringing him in were very giddy and excited to let him go.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Ah, more race baiting by sorry psuedojournalists like Saunders. He's a hack.

Duke's decision was smart. They didn't have the option to interview a ton of candidates since the job has little appeal. It's FBS, but at the bottom of the ACC every year and usually struggling for 4 wins. Factor in the point that Duke was not going to lessen the academic restrictions for the incoming recruits, and you have a an unattractive job unless you are a recently fired FBS coach, an FBS assistant, or a FCS coach looking to make the jump up.

Look at the three candidates and tell me which one is most deserving:

Karl Dorrell: USC has widened it's lead over UCLA in the region despite the fact that USC has taken a small step back the past 2 seasons. He should have been fired a year ago.

David Cutcliffe:
Since joining Tennessee, the offense has improved from a lull. One can argue that Cutcliffe shouldn't have been fired by Mississppi in the first place. You'll find more articles mentioning that opinion than World A. Gainst Saunders about his hiring at Duke. Cutcliffe was going to get another head coaching opportunity this season or next and chances are it would be better than celler-dweller Duke.

Rob Broadway:
Yes, he was an assistant at Duke for over a decade. But he's been a head coach for only 4 years. 3 in Division II and now one season in FBS. Had a legend like Eddie Robinson interviewed at Duke and gotten turned down it would be one thing. But a 1 year FBS coach getting passed over for virtually ANYONE is not worthy of this drivel by Saunders.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

I'm sure people are going to complain next season when Willingham is fired from Washington and Jim Mora Jr. takes over. I'm sure it will have to do with the color of Ty's skin and not his 11-25 record (6-20) in the PAC-10.

The simple fact is that Willingham has never consistently done well as a head coach. He had 1 good year at Notre Dame...his first season (10-3)...with a team he didn't recruit. It's easy to argue that he never should have gotten the Notre Dame job to begin with. Willingham coached at Stanford for 7 seasons. He was 7-4-1 in the first season he took over, 7-5 the next, and then 5-6 and 3-8 with his recruits. He then had one of his best seasons at 8-4, followed by another losing season at 5-6 and his final season was 9-3. That's 3 losing records in 7 years, (2) 7 win seasons, (1) 8 and (1) 9 win.

I originally liked the Washington hire. But i have been proven wrong.

[Marcus Garvey]

The simple fact is that Willingham has never consistently done well as a head coach.

I originally liked the Washington hire. But i have been proven wrong.

I agree with both points. At Stanford, Willingham's teams were competitive. They were never abysmal like they've been the past few years, but they were seldom threats to crack the Top 10. The one year he actually won the Pac-10 and went to the Rose Bowl was also the weakest year for the Pac-10 team in forever! Only 1 Pac-10 team finished ranked in the final A.P. polls, Oregon at #19. His Cardinal Squad was 8-4 overall, including a loss to Wisconsin in one of the most boring Rose Bowls of all time.

He's a good fit at a school with high academic standards that are more interested in fielding a competitive team (read that, not get embarrassed every Sat.) than winning national championships. I hope he finds another job after U-Dub cans him. Northwestern anyone?

[JohnStOnge]

I think the "easy" decision for Duke would've been to hire one of the Black guys. Then everyone would've said how wonderful and progressive they are. And if they didn't win, so what? Hardly anybody ever wins at Duke anyway.

With all the "hire a Black coach" political pressure out there right now, I think it took more "guts" to pick a White guy one of the Black guys in the picture.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm sure people are going to complain next season when Willingham is fired from Washington and Jim Mora Jr. takes over. I'm sure it will have to do with the color of Ty's skin and not his 11-25 record (6-20) in the PAC-10.

The simple fact is that Willingham has never consistently done well as a head coach. He had 1 good year at Notre Dame...his first season (10-3)...with a team he didn't recruit. It's easy to argue that he never should have gotten the Notre Dame job to begin with. Willingham coached at Stanford for 7 seasons. He was 7-4-1 in the first season he took over, 7-5 the next, and then 5-6 and 3-8 with his recruits. He then had one of his best seasons at 8-4, followed by another losing season at 5-6 and his final season was 9-3. That's 3 losing records in 7 years, (2) 7 win seasons, (1) 8 and (1) 9 win.

I originally liked the Washington hire. But i have been proven wrong.

Yeah, but he never did as bad as Weiss did. Seriously. One thing that's really hard to argue is that Notre Dame's done better by virtue of firing Willingham.

So far, I'd have to say that Weiss is an absolute "F" grade as a college head football coach. It's a good thing for him that Notre Dame never plays FCS (and before that I-AA) teams.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Yeah, but he never did as bad as Weiss did. Seriously. One thing that's really hard to argue is that Notre Dame's done better by virtue of firing Willingham.

So far, I'd have to say that Weiss is an absolute "F" grade as a college head football coach. It's a good thing for him that Notre Dame never plays FCS (and before that I-AA) teams.

Agreed about Weiss. He had a real momentum building first 2 seasons at Notre Dame, going 9-3 and 10-3. This past year at 3-9 was a big setback.

For clarifications sake though Willingham HAS had seasons worse than Weiss and the 3-9 season, just not at Notre Dame. He was 2-9 his first season at Washington. He was also 3-8 his 4th season at Stanford.

All this about Weiss though...it's all irrelevant. Willingham was fired and Weiss was brought in. When you make a new hire, it's always a risk.