Duke's Bad, The Law Agrees

By Adam Caparell - June 20, 2008

We all know Duke's bad. And that, quite frankly, is probably putting it mildly. After all, the Blue Devils haven't won more than one game in a season in over three years and they've had four winless seasons since 1996. But if you needed any more definitive proof that Duke stinks, we got it in a court of law Thursday.

A Franklin, Ky., Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of Duke in a breach of contract lawsuit that Louisville brought against the Blue Devils after they broke a four game contract, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported Friday.

Long story short, Lousville sued after they spanked the Blue Devils, 40-3, in their 2002 game in Durham and Duke decided it didn't need any more punishment at the hands of the Cardinals, chosing to back out of their remaining games in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

The lawsuit finally found its way in front of a judge and lawyers representing Duke argued successfully that the program has been so bad - like 6-45 bad over the past five seasons - that any Division I team - including Division I-AA teams - would be a suitable replacement for the Blue Devils on the Louisville schedule.

Here's what Judge Phillip J. Shepherd said in his summary:

"At oral argument, Duke (with a candor perhaps more attributable to good legal strategy than to institutional modesty) persuasively asserted that this is a threshold that could not be any lower. Duke's argument on this point cannot be reasonably disputed by Louisville."

So there you have it. Duke's bad. I-AA bad. And if anyone gives you grief over that argument, the court has your back.

Posted by Adam Caparell at 10:35 AM on June 20, 2008

Post A Comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

The Sloggers... Categories CSTV.com Links Blogroll Archives...