ShareThis Page

Ex-Duquesne coach relates to team's continued losing

| Thursday, Jan. 27, 2005

A former Duquesne University men's basketball coach said Wednesday he understands the frustrations of current coach Danny Nee, a 25-year veteran of the college ranks who is in his fourth season with the Dukes but has yet to turn around the struggling Atlantic 10 Conference program.

It has been no different with the Dukes' previous coaches, including Scott Edgar, an assistant at Alabama-Birmingham and a Penn Hills native who spent three seasons at Duquesne from 1996 to 1998 before the school fired him with one year remaining on his contract.

"Everywhere else I've been, the head coach runs the program. I didn't feel I was running the program at Duquesne," Edgar said.

Although his 29-55 record was a major factor in his dismissal, Edgar came to Duquesne after a very successful run as coach of Murray State, where he spent four seasons and led the Racers to a 79-40 mark, two NCAA Tournament appearances and one trip to the NIT.

"Despite my three years at Duquesne, I'm proud of my resume," said Edgar, who also has served as an assistant at Tulsa, Arkansas and Texas Christian.

Nee, who has won a total of 404 games during his long coaching career, is just 36-71 at Duquesne following Sunday's 83-70 victory over St. Bonaventure at Palumbo Center. He is fed up with the program's lack of progress before, during and after his arrival and feels the school is continuing to approach the situation with a passive attitude.

"We're in an uncompetitive situation here," Nee said in a story published Sunday in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "No one's helping me. We're not getting any help from any other direction. You want to blame the coach• Blame him ... But you go (John) Carroll, (Scott) Edgar, (Darelle) Porter, Nee -- nothing's changed since Carroll was here."

And, Edgar, for one, said he understands Nee's plight. The Dukes haven't enjoyed a winning season since the 1993-94 team, under Carroll, posted a 17-13 record and played into the second round of the NIT. This season, they are saddled with a 5-14 record, including Sunday's victory, and have lost to city rivals Pitt and Robert Morris.

"There's some things that are going to have to be changed. We're going to have to make a commitment, or we should go to another league," Nee said.

He is unhappy that a proposed expansion of Palumbo Center, which was to be part of an overall makeover of the campus, has yet to get under way, despite the university having publicly announced plans nearly a year ago. The school said it would improve the 17-year-old, 6,200-seat arena by adding a recruiting center, new office space and an improved weight room.

Duquesne reportedly since has agreed to a revised plan with the city to expand the campus along Forbes Avenue, near Palumbo Center. The agreement, which may cost as much as $70 million, is to include an athletic and recreation complex.

But school officials have been reluctant to respond publicly to Nee's concerns, though sources say there has been increased tension between the two sides.

"I've said all along, we're not going to comment on the current season until after it's over," athletic director Brian Colleary said. "I don't think that would be fair to our student-athletes."

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me