• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Duke in National Title Chase

80deac said:
Pitt coaches blew a call when they ran wide inside the 20, thereby giving kicker Blewett (can you believe that name!) a sharp angle kick, which he missed. Would have won game with 2 sec. on clock.
Click to expand...

As you can see here it wasn't really a sharp angle kick. the dude was kicking from the 15 yd line and still missed by 20 yards to the left. Not on the coaches.

ETA: I can't get the video to embed but you can see it here:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2252515-pittsburghs-chris-blewitt-misses-game-winning-field-goal-vs-duke
 
wsc8521s said:
Bowl games mean shit. But if that's your criteria, he was 4-1 in bowls at Ole Miss.

But I don't know why I'm bothering to reply. It isn't close
Click to expand...

He hasn't won anything yet. I don't know how you can make that claim. He feasts on his cupcake schedules too. Win inflation.

I'll give him credit for this. Duke is a 6-6 football team with enough talent to be in any game (which is above where we are right now) and with a few balls bouncing their way against sub-par opponents, they're 7-1.
 
So Duke gives up 600 yards of offense to an unranked Pitt team, gets a 99 yard return and a blown 20 yard field goal to pull off a miracle win, and there are posts on a Wake board about Grobe not reaching Cutcliffe levels of success?

Just their schedule makes the premise laughable - they'd be the 4th best team in the Coastal. Zero wins over anyone ranked right now. Duke's making strides but maybe they should win a Conference Championship first.
 
wsc8521s said:
Grobe wasn't capable of Cutcliffe-level success because he isn't as good of a coach. Simple as.

GT and Miami are actually legit contenders this year so it's impressive Duke MAY be on the way to repeating, but they will lose some key pieces this year and they have been very fortunate to have drawn the two worst teams from the other division this year.

Cut has built a solid program, but let's not get carried away
Click to expand...

He is also stubborn and too conservative

Look at Duke for those who say Wake can't compete in the ACC. Claws will get us back to the level Duke is at, even if only for a few years.
 
To those that say that Duke is getting lucky this year, yeah they are getting some good bounces and luck. But so too did WF in 2006 and most teams that do well each year. Luck is a huge part of the game. Duke is not a powerhouse, top 10 team but they are a legit team and the team has put itself into good positions to benefit from the "lucky" plays. It'll be interesting to see what happens next year when they have decent roster turnover.
 
Man they don't get FSU or Clemson in the regular season either of the next two years either.
 
FckVwls said:
Duke is a decent enough team (maybe 30th best in country or so?) but they played the softest non-conf ever, and have gotten quite lucky to win all their close games in conference. I mean they were 3.5 pt underdogs today against Pitt.

So good for them for building a quality program but they still are 15-20 pts on a neutral worse than the real national champion level teams.
Click to expand...

TITCR

They will also regress back to the average...they're winning all close games.
 
IslandDeac said:
To those that say that Duke is getting lucky this year, yeah they are getting some good bounces and luck. But so too did WF in 2006 and most teams that do well each year. Luck is a huge part of the game. Duke is not a powerhouse, top 10 team but they are a legit team and the team has put itself into good positions to benefit from the "lucky" plays. It'll be interesting to see what happens next year when they have decent roster turnover.
Click to expand...

Zero wins over currently ranked teams.

If you'd argue they're in the top 8 teams of the ACC, they've only played 2 other teams in that group and are 1-1 against them. Last 3 wins all within one score. Sure, we got our breaks on the way to the Orange bowl, but portraying Duke as anything more than a solid team enjoying a dream schedule who just got obscenely lucky again Pitt is crazy talk.
 
Duke is having their run like we did a few years ago, and the Coastal now is much weaker than the Atlantic was then. Not surprised to see bkf slurping on Duke based on 60 plus year old success, like it means anything in the current landscape of college football.

National title contender? LOL
 
bobknightfan said:
Comparing Wake Forest's situation to Duke's as far as potential to compete in football is laughable....for reasons I justed listed in my last post on this thread. It's not as totally ridiculous as trying to compare Wake Forest's situation to Stanford's....which several posters have done and is totally ludicrous....but is still, nonetheless, laughable.
Click to expand...

Wake and Duke in football are very comparable. You just want to be a contrarian.
 
Simply putting Louisville to replace Maryland in the Atlantic was absolutely comical. Louisville, Clemson, and FSU are probably going to consistently be the top three if not the top four or five teams in the division. They have to change the divisions around if they want any parity between the two.
 
bobknightfan said:
Yeah, Wake's had plenty of 28-year periods where they had 27 winning seasons.

It's not like you to criticize one of my posts, Chris. I'm shocked.

(J/K. Come to think of it, I don't remember any post that I've ever made that you agreed with. I think that disagreeing with anything I post has become an obsession with you. :) )
Click to expand...

You post dumb stuff like it is your job. This is just par for the course. You have a need to denigrate Wake Forest to fulfill your role as one of board's biggest jerks, so you ignore the fact that Wake and Duke football have been roughly equal since the Kennedy administration.
 
bobknightfan said:
They are scheduling weak non-conference opponents while they are rebuilding their program for the same reason everyone else does....to try to win at least 6 games so they can go to some dipshit, meaningless bowl game and be able to tell recruits that they went to "bowls" in 4 straight years, or some such nonsense.

And while it is probably cyclical, Duke's division in the ACC is definitely weaker than WF's division right now....as other posters have noted. That helps Duke's record, too.

Personally, I wish they would do away with that meaningless 12th game against all the Presbyterians in the country and go to a 16-team playoff. If they did that, only 4 teams would end up playing more than the 13 games they are playing if they go to a bowl now. (And two of those 4 teams will be playing 14 games now, with a 4-team playoff & a 12-game schedule. Actually 15, counting a conference championship playoff game.)

And by the way, I know this was a long, long, long time ago and really doesn't mean squat right now, but I'd venture to say that almost none of the posters on this board have much of an idea about just how much tradition Duke had in football for a very long time. For the 28-year period from 1930 thru 1957, Duke had a winning record in football every year except 1946, when they went 4-5.

As I said, that's pretty much ancient history.....but still, a winning record in 27 out of 28 years shows there is a helluva tradition there, if Duke ever decided that they wanted to get serious about football again.
Click to expand...

You're right, it really doesn't mean squat right now. Without looking it up, I'll bet Army's 28 year record during that period was pretty close to the same, including a couple of national championships. Does that mean Army could be that good again due to their "tradition"?

As others have posted, Duke is benefitting from the same perfect storm-like set of circumstances we benefitted from in 2006-2008 - a good coach who turned things around, the rest of the league being down, a little luck when they need it, and an easy schedule.
 
bobknightfan said:
Yeah, Wake's had plenty of 28-year periods where they had 27 winning seasons.
Click to expand...
You admitted that 28-year period like 60 years ago doesn't mean squat, so why bring it up when ChrisL says Duke and Wake are very comparable nowadays?

Man, you suck.
 
If Army had a couple of good years, bkf would be all over the board telling us that Wake could never hope to be as good as Army in football.
 
bobknightfan said:
I'm not denigrating WF. I'm just stating facts. I said that those Duke seasons were in the distant past...but at least they give Duke some historical tradition in football that WF has never, ever had. More important are money & alumni. What are the comparable numbers for living alumni from which to generate money necessary to build a consistently respectable program? What the comparable school endowments?

Your problem...and that of many others on this board...is that you suffer from illusions of grandeur about what is reasonably possible for WF in the revenue sports of football & basketball.....and particularly in football. And your knee-jerk reaction is to attack anyone who tries to point out these realities to you.
Click to expand...

No, most people on this board are quite realistic about Wake sports. You just have this inherent need to be an old bitter jackass. I have really never seen anything like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top