The Elephant in the Room: Lets talk about Jon Scheyer

[fgb]

We just don't have that level of talent staying that long anymore. If Zion Williamson or Jayson Tatum had stayed 3 years, I'd bet a lot of money Coach K would have another ring or 2.

On the other hand, if Brandon Ingram, Gary Trent, and Marvin Bagley had stayed for 3 years, there's a decent chance that neither Tatum or Williamson would have played for Duke in the first place.

[Kedsy]

Yes, this is another long post about Coach K. I promise it will become a post about Coach Scheyer by the end.

What made K the GOAT were two things, neither of which seemed to dim with age:

(1) He was a master motivator. By all accounts, this talent was just as strong (if not stronger) toward the end of his career as it was in the beginning;

(2) He had an incredible ability to adapt to the times when it came to assembling his teams.


There weren't two "eras" during Coach K's career. There were four. Each characterized at Duke by a different recruiting strategy.

ERA 1 (1981 to 1994): Everyone stayed four years in those days, so K recruited one superstar (J Dawkins, Ferry, Hurley, G Hill; I don't think when Laettner was recruited that anyone expected him to become one of the best college players ever, but I'm not entirely sure about that one) and surrounded that superstar with role players, mostly defensive-minded athletes. It took K a few years to get this strategy right, but starting with the the 1982 high school class it seemed to work well. I believe Duke's almost unparalleled NCAA tournament success (seven Final Fours in nine seasons, including two championships) had a large component of luck, but it's hard to argue with the results.

ERA 2 (1995 to 2006): The first "era" ended when Grant Hill graduated and K had his physical breakdown, but it was going to end anyway. Michigan's Fab Five had popularized the idea that the best players shouldn't stay four years, so K's recruiting strategy became too risky.

So K adapted. His new strategy involved recruiting large multi-year (but not expected to be four-year) superclasses and supplementing them with individual top tier freshmen in the years between the large classes (e.g., Maggette, Duhon, Deng, Humphries, Livingston; though obviously the latter two never made it to Durham). It took him a few years to get it right, but once he did (high school classes of 1997, 1999, 2002), he was wildly successful. Eight #1 seeds in nine years; five years #1 in the AP poll from 1998 to 2006, along with two #3s and two others in the top 7. Three Final Fours and a championship.

ERA 3 (2007 to 2014): The NBA adopted the OAD rule before the 2006-07 season. The multi-year superclass was no longer feasible. K had to adapt again. He seemed to adopt a strategy where he recruited one top-tier guy every year (G Henderson, Singler, E Williams, MP2, Irving, Rivers, Sulaimon, Parker) and supplemented them with second tier four-year guys. For most coaches, this era would be counted a rousing success (seven top 10 finishes in eight years; the 2010 championship; three ACC tournament championships). But it clearly was a step down from "Era 2," and that plus three first-round NCAAT exits in eight years made it seem like a decline.

ERA 4 (2015 to 2022): If "Era 3" was how it ended for K, then Ian's observations might have some weight. Instead, K did something that over-the-hill individuals rarely if ever do. He adapted once again. Calipari's success with OADs (four Final Fours in five seasons) suggested going all in with OAD could work. So starting with the high school class of 2014, that's what K did. It's possible he had no choice, if as many assume he expected Tyus Jones and Justise Winslow to stay in school, but either way, K threw himself into this strategy and again he was wildly successful. In eight seasons, he had three #1 classes, three #2 classes, and two others in the top four. This led to six top 11 finishes in eight seasons (plus another top 20 finish that would have been higher if not for injuries). Covid interrupted two of Duke's postseasons during this period, but in the six remaining years, Duke had a championship, two Final Fours, and four Elite Eight teams, and was two possessions away from four Final Fours in six tournaments.

The fact that Coach K was able to pivot to this new recruiting model and immediately become the best at it, strongly suggests that age hadn't diminished his abilities at all. An ACC regular season championship and Final Four in his final season reinforces the idea that he was at the top of his game right until the moment of his retirement.


Which brings us to "Era 5." The game has changed again since Covid hit. The combination of NIL and the transfer portal makes everything different. Perhaps, at age 75, Coach K felt that he didn't have the energy to adapt again. Maybe he didn't want to diminish in the way Ian has inaccurately suggested he already had. So, his final act of brilliance was to come up with a succession plan that would enable his successor to hit the ground running. He made Jon Scheyer the coach-in-waiting and let him do the recruiting for an entire year before he had to take over as head coach. The results have been that Coach Scheyer's first recruiting class was #1 and his second one will be #1 or #2. Scheyer has begun to navigate the NIL and transfer portal waters with some success, though we won't know how much success for a few years.

Will Coach Scheyer have motivational skills and the ability to adapt to future changes at K's level? I doubt it, because that would mean he's GOAT-level, and that's too much to ask of anyone. But K gave him as good a head start as anyone could hope for, and I think he's doing pretty well.

[freshmanjs]

Ok, this is my last post on the 2 eras of Coach K's career.

It's not evidence that will convince Kedsy since no evidence will persuade him, but for my own edification I dug up and compiled the data of Coach K's NCAA record against the various seeds, just to see if the theory that he only won more in one era because of the bracket breaking his way more often.

I divided opponents into 4 categories.

Top seeds: 1 or 2 seeds
Tier 2 seeds: seeds 3 to 7
Tier 3 seeds: seeds 8 to 12
bottom seeds: seeds 13-16

Coach K's record against each group:

Tier 1	10-8	56%	2-4	33%
Tier 2	21-5	81%	14-6	70%
Tier 3	15-1	94%	8-2	80%
Tier 4	17-0	100%	15-2	88%

As you can see he didn't win more just because he played more lower seeds compared to later in his career. He won more because he won more often against all comers. I don't know which is more impressive, his combined record against top 7 seeds of 31-13, or his 32-1 record against seeds 8-16, both are otherworldly IMO. 16-10 and 23-4 are both great records still , and probably comparable to other top coaches, but not comparable to his earlier career.

One caveat is I did not include the 96 loss to EMU because due to his absence the previous year that team was fortunate to even make the tournament and by the time that game was played Duke was the walking wounded and nobody really expected them to win that game. But even if you include that game it does change any of the numbers.

How on earth could excluding a game not change any of the numbers? That’s just incorrect on its face.

[Papa John]

Yes, this is another long post about Coach K. I promise it will become a post about Coach Scheyer by the end.

What made K the GOAT were two things, neither of which seemed to dim with age:

(1) He was a master motivator. By all accounts, this talent was just as strong (if not stronger) toward the end of his career as it was in the beginning;

(2) He had an incredible ability to adapt to the times when it came to assembling his teams.


There weren't two "eras" during Coach K's career. There were four. Each characterized at Duke by a different recruiting strategy.

ERA 1 (1981 to 1994): Everyone stayed four years in those days, so K recruited one superstar (J Dawkins, Ferry, Hurley, G Hill; I don't think when Laettner was recruited that anyone expected him to become one of the best college players ever, but I'm not entirely sure about that one) and surrounded that superstar with role players, mostly defensive-minded athletes. It took K a few years to get this strategy right, but starting with the the 1982 high school class it seemed to work well. I believe Duke's almost unparalleled NCAA tournament success (seven Final Fours in nine seasons, including two championships) had a large component of luck, but it's hard to argue with the results.

ERA 2 (1995 to 2006): The first "era" ended when Grant Hill graduated and K had his physical breakdown, but it was going to end anyway. Michigan's Fab Five had popularized the idea that the best players shouldn't stay four years, so K's recruiting strategy became too risky.

So K adapted. His new strategy involved recruiting large multi-year (but not expected to be four-year) superclasses and supplementing them with individual top tier freshmen in the years between the large classes (e.g., Maggette, Duhon, Deng, Humphries, Livingston; though obviously the latter two never made it to Durham). It took him a few years to get it right, but once he did (high school classes of 1997, 1999, 2002), he was wildly successful. Eight #1 seeds in nine years; five years #1 in the AP poll from 1998 to 2006, along with two #3s and two others in the top 7. Three Final Fours and a championship.

ERA 3 (2007 to 2014): The NBA adopted the OAD rule before the 2006-07 season. The multi-year superclass was no longer feasible. K had to adapt again. He seemed to adopt a strategy where he recruited one top-tier guy every year (G Henderson, Singler, E Williams, MP2, Irving, Rivers, Sulaimon, Parker) and supplemented them with second tier four-year guys. For most coaches, this era would be counted a rousing success (seven top 10 finishes in eight years; the 2010 championship; three ACC tournament championships). But it clearly was a step down from "Era 2," and that plus three first-round NCAAT exits in eight years made it seem like a decline.

ERA 4 (2015 to 2022): If "Era 3" was how it ended for K, then Ian's observations might have some weight. Instead, K did something that over-the-hill individuals rarely if ever do. He adapted once again. Calipari's success with OADs (four Final Fours in five seasons) suggested going all in with OAD could work. So starting with the high school class of 2014, that's what K did. It's possible he had no choice, if as many assume he expected Tyus Jones and Justise Winslow to stay in school, but either way, K threw himself into this strategy and again he was wildly successful. In eight seasons, he had three #1 classes, three #2 classes, and two others in the top four. This led to six top 11 finishes in eight seasons (plus another top 20 finish that would have been higher if not for injuries). Covid interrupted two of Duke's postseasons during this period, but in the six remaining years, Duke had a championship, two Final Fours, and four Elite Eight teams, and was two possessions away from four Final Fours in six tournaments.

The fact that Coach K was able to pivot to this new recruiting model and immediately become the best at it, strongly suggests that age hadn't diminished his abilities at all. An ACC regular season championship and Final Four in his final season reinforces the idea that he was at the top of his game right until the moment of his retirement.


Which brings us to "Era 5." The game has changed again since Covid hit. The combination of NIL and the transfer portal makes everything different. Perhaps, at age 75, Coach K felt that he didn't have the energy to adapt again. Maybe he didn't want to diminish in the way Ian has inaccurately suggested he already had. So, his final act of brilliance was to come up with a succession plan that would enable his successor to hit the ground running. He made Jon Scheyer the coach-in-waiting and let him do the recruiting for an entire year before he had to take over as head coach. The results have been that Coach Scheyer's first recruiting class was #1 and his second one will be #1 or #2. Scheyer has begun to navigate the NIL and transfer portal waters with some success, though we won't know how much success for a few years.

Will Coach Scheyer have motivational skills and the ability to adapt to future changes at K's level? I doubt it, because that would mean he's GOAT-level, and that's too much to ask of anyone. But K gave him as good a head start as anyone could hope for, and I think he's doing pretty well.

I must spread some comments/sporks around, but well stated! I agree, he has given Scheyer as good a head start as one could hope for. It will be fun to watch him grow and develop as a coach.

[Ian]

How on earth could excluding a game not change any of the numbers? That’s just incorrect on its face.

Are people actually asking this question or are you trying to pick a fight, obviously the numbers change a little bit, what doesn't change is the narrative those numbers support. He still would have a much higher winning pct against all 4 tiers in peak era, that conclusion does not change. His record against tier-3 would be 15-2, instead of 15-1, still better than the 8-2. All the 3 other tiers do not change.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Are people actually asking this question or are you trying to pick a fight, obviously the numbers change a little bit, what doesn't change is the narrative those numbers support. He still would have a much higher winning pct against all 4 tiers in peak era, that conclusion does not change. His record against tier-3 would be 15-2, instead of 15-1, still better than the 8-2. All the 3 other tiers do not change.

I'm absolutely not trying to pick a fight. It just seems weird to intentionally exclude a point, and then draw attention to the fact that you excluded it. Odd tactic.

[Ian]

I'm absolutely not trying to pick a fight. It just seems weird to intentionally exclude a point, and then draw attention to the fact that you excluded it. Odd tactic.

I excluded it because I do not think it should be included in the analysis, but I also want to be transparent about it so that if people wanted to include it they can adjust the numbers themselves. It's one game and does not ultimately affect the analysis.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I excluded it because I do not think it should be included in the analysis, but I also want to be transparent about it so that if people wanted to include it they can adjust the numbers themselves. It's one game and does not ultimately affect the analysis.

Independent of whether or not I agree with your thesis regarding Coach K, it's a very odd move to remove one result.

It's especially odd if you really believe it doesn't ultimately affect the analysis.

[kAzE]

Yes, this is another long post about Coach K. I promise it will become a post about Coach Scheyer by the end.

What made K the GOAT were two things, neither of which seemed to dim with age:

(1) He was a master motivator. By all accounts, this talent was just as strong (if not stronger) toward the end of his career as it was in the beginning;

(2) He had an incredible ability to adapt to the times when it came to assembling his teams.

There weren't two "eras" during Coach K's career. There were four. Each characterized at Duke by a different recruiting strategy.

The fact that Coach K was able to pivot to this new recruiting model and immediately become the best at it, strongly suggests that age hadn't diminished his abilities at all. An ACC regular season championship and Final Four in his final season reinforces the idea that he was at the top of his game right until the moment of his retirement.

Good analysis. I will say that at one point between 2004-2010, Coach K did actually start losing out on some recruits (especially to Calipari). Patrick Patterson, John Wall, and Harrison Barnes come to mind. But after his success with Team USA, and the endorsement of athletes like Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, the recruiting well overflowed once again. But as we have all painfully learned, too many OADs isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if you can't complement them with those reliable upperclassmen. Jon Scheyer appears to be going for a more long term approach with his recruiting with his 2022 and 2023 classes.

The problem now is that every NBA prospect leaves early, whether they are ready for the NBA or not. More and more kids are willing to go early and develop while not necessarily playing.

[kcduke75]

a) this is his first coaching gig. There should be struggles.

b) he's 35 years old. There should be struggles.

c) he's a recruiting genius, but expressing that talent on the floor is more than just great recruits and good coaching.

d) with the talent Duke has, they arguably should be doing better. But refer to a), b), and c)

e) Scheyer can royally eff up the season this year and Duke won't do anything (rightly so). If he underperforms after Year 2, he'll be on the hot seat. If he underperforms after Year 3, make a major decision. With the incredible talent Duke has, 3 years should be Scheyer's grace period.

I've avoided this thread until now because I could not imagine it being in any way useful. So I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I'm glad there were no Interwebs when Coach K arrived such that his greatness would have occurred at a different school.

[moonpie23]

Yes, this is another long post about Coach K. I promise it will become a post about Coach Scheyer by the end.

You must spread some Comments around before commenting on Kedsy again.

[Ian]

Independent of whether or not I agree with your thesis regarding Coach K, it's a very odd move to remove one result.

It's especially odd if you really believe it doesn't ultimately affect the analysis.

That it did not affect the analysis is not an opinion, but a fact.

It's not odd IMO because 95-96 was a unique set of circumstance involving his physical and mental health and is not IMO a proper evaluation of his abilities as a coach. It would be like judging a player returning from a injury based on his first few games back.

Again, I'm not trying to "prove" a point. This was a fact finding exercise on my part, that it correlates with my theory is of interest to me, but you are free to ignore it. I just happen to share the results of my digging share here.

[MChambers]

I've avoided this thread until now because I could not imagine it being in any way useful. So I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I'm glad there were no Interwebs when Coach K arrived such that his greatness would have occurred at a different school.

Exactly. At the press conference where Duke announced Coach K's retirement and the promotion of Coach Scheyer, Coach K talked about how fortunate he was to have an athletic director (Tom Butters) who had faith in him, even through the struggles of his first several years. At one point, he looked over at Nina King and said something about how it would be good if she had the same faith in Jon Scheyer.

[duke79]

Yes, this is another long post about Coach K. I promise it will become a post about Coach Scheyer by the end.

What made K the GOAT were two things, neither of which seemed to dim with age:

(1) He was a master motivator. By all accounts, this talent was just as strong (if not stronger) toward the end of his career as it was in the beginning;

(2) He had an incredible ability to adapt to the times when it came to assembling his teams.

I appreciate and respect your extensive analysis but I would probably put as Coach K's greatest talent his ability to recruit some (or many) of the best high school basketball players to come to Duke and play for him (and maybe you would include this under the "master motivator" category?). No doubt you have to be able to "coach" (or teach) and motivate and adapt to the players you have on your team BUT, to consistently compete at the highest levels of college b-ball, you need the top players and athletes on the team. That is what really separates the Kentucky's, UNC's, Kansas', Duke's, etc. from the run-of-the-mill programs - the amount of talent on the team. We see the same thing in college football with Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, etc.

[House P]

I divided opponents into 4 categories.

Top seeds: 1 or 2 seeds
Tier 2 seeds: seeds 3 to 7
Tier 3 seeds: seeds 8 to 12
bottom seeds: seeds 13-16

Coach K's record against each group:

Tier 1	10-8	56%	2-4	33%
Tier 2	21-5	81%	14-6	70%
Tier 3	15-1	94%	8-2	80%
Tier 4	17-0	100%	15-2	88%

As you can see he didn't win more just because he played more lower seeds compared to later in his career. He won more because he won more often against all comers. I don't know which is more impressive, his combined record against top 7 seeds of 31-13, or his 32-1 record against seeds 8-16, both are otherworldly IMO. 16-10 and 23-4 are both great records still , and probably comparable to other top coaches, but not comparable to his earlier career.

Interesting. FWIW, I agree with you that Coach K's tourney success wasn't largely the result of having the good fortune of playing lower seeds than expected. Also, there is no doubt that Coach K had more tourney success early in his career than he had at the end. The stat which sticks out the most to me is that Coach K was 7-0 in Elite 8 appearances from 1986-1994, 3-1 from 1998-2004 and 3-3 from 2010 onwards.

I think where we may differ is whether Coach K's recent performance in the NCAA tournament is an indication of "decline" as a coach. While tournament success is the ultimate goal, I personally find one-and-done tourney results far too "noisy" to use a primary gage of coaching ability. I'd prefer to look at each season in its entirety (regular season + conference tourney + NCAA tourney).

KenPom ratings would be a great way to do this, but his rating only go back to 1997. Sports-reference.com has SRS (a similar, but less sophisticated season-long rating) going back to 1950. Here is a graph of Duke's SRS from 1981 through 2022.

SRS-Coach K.jpg

I see a peak during the Brand, Battier, Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy years, but I wouldn't call the period after that a decline, especially when compared to the pre-1998 period.

I doubt you will be able to come up with 10 coaches who had a better ... stretch in their career [than Coach K at the end of his career].

Sorry if it is bad form to respond to your own post, but I did some digging and thought others might be interested. To get a sense of how good a coach's teams were at his "peak", I took a look at the best 10 year stretches* by a single coach (coaching a single school) in terms of average SRS ranking.

Anybody want to take a guess at the top 5 coaches on this list?

Spoiler!

#1 John Wooden (1964-73)
#2 Coach K (1997-2006)
#3 Bill Self (2005-2014)
#4 Coach K (1985-94)
#5 Coach K (2010-19)

In other words, only two other coaches in non-ancient history were better at their peak than Coach K from 2010-19.

More importantly, Coach K owns three of the five best 10 year stretches since 1950!

Here is a full list of the top 43 coaches by this metric.

Spoiler!

Start Year	End Year	School	Coach	Avg SRS	SRS
1964	1973	UCLA	Wooden	1.6	27.98
1997	2006	Duke	Coach K	2.3	21.77
2005	2014	Kansas	Self	4.4	20.25
1985	1994	Duke	Coach K	4.8	19.21
2010	2019	Duke	Coach K	5.2	26.9
1978	1987	North Carolina	D. Smith	5.4	24.48
1990	1999	Kansas	R. Williams	5.7	16.23
1988	1997	Arizona	Olson	5.9	21.6
1968	1977	North Carolina	D. Smith	5.9	20.78
1951	1960	Kentucky	Rupp	6.5	9.28
1989	1998	North Carolina	D. Smith	7.6	26.67
2013	2022	Gonzaga	Few	8.1	25.46
1984	1993	Indiana	Knight	8.1	25.84
1975	1984	Kentucky	Hall	8.3	20.27
1984	1993	Oklahoma	Tubbs	8.6	17.87
1974	1983	Indiana	Knight	9.1	17.91
1950	1959	Illinois	Combes	9.3	9.25
2010	2019	Kentucky	Calipari	9.6	21.43
1962	1971	Kentucky	Rupp	9.7	13.35
1993	2002	Cincinnati	Huggins	10.3	24.38
1995	2004	Maryland	G. Williams	10.3	16.96
2008	2017	Louisville	Pittino	10.4	22.47
1980	1989	Illinois	Henson	11.2	24.68
2004	2013	North Carolina	R. Williams	11.3	14.52
1982	1991	Georgetown	Thompson	11.4	16.06
1955	1964	Kansas State	Winter	11.8	12.82
1999	2008	Florida	Donovan	12.1	12.34
1968	1977	Marquette	McGuire	12.2	16.67
2006	2015	Wisconsin	Ryan	12.4	24.61
1998	2007	Arizona	Olson	12.7	16.24
2006	2015	Ohio State	Matta	12.7	19.68
2011	2020	Michigan State	Izzo	13.3	21.92
1975	1984	Louisville	Crum	13.4	13.95
2003	2012	Texas	Barnes	13.9	14
1983	1992	UNLV	Tarkanian	14.4	18.19
2013	2022	Villanova	Wright	14.4	19.31
1960	1969	Duke	Bubas	14.6	7.28
1989	1998	Arkansas	Richardson	15.2	16.16
2002	2011	Pittsburgh	Dixon	15.4	20.82
1995	2004	Stanford	Montgomery	15.7	17.46
1990	1999	Connecticut	Calhoun	15.8	24.74
1970	1979	NC State	Sloan	15.8	15.83
1985	1994	Syracuse	Boeheim	16	17.93

As far as Scheyer-related contact, I wish Jon the very best but he could be one of the top 20 coaches of all time and not equal Coach K's end-career success.





*For the purposes of these lists I removed coaches who would otherwise appear multiple times due to overlapping 10 year periods which include the same team. For example, by this metric Wooden's peak was 1964-73, but I didn't include any other ten year period for Wooden which included any of these years. Otherwise the top 5 spots would all be UCLA teams from the Alcindor/Walton era.

[Kedsy]

I appreciate and respect your extensive analysis but I would probably put as Coach K's greatest talent his ability to recruit some (or many) of the best high school basketball players to come to Duke and play for him (and maybe you would include this under the "master motivator" category?). No doubt you have to be able to "coach" (or teach) and motivate and adapt to the players you have on your team BUT, to consistently compete at the highest levels of college b-ball, you need the top players and athletes on the team. That is what really separates the Kentucky's, UNC's, Kansas', Duke's, etc. from the run-of-the-mill programs - the amount of talent on the team. We see the same thing in college football with Alabama, Georgia, Ohio State, etc.

I didn't say those were his only talents. Lots of coaches are great recruiters (including Jon Scheyer). Hardly any of them are the GOAT. I stand by the two qualities that in my opinion separates Coach K from the rest.

[dlmzzz]

Ok, this is my last post on the 2 eras of Coach K's career.

It's not evidence that will convince Kedsy since no evidence will persuade him, but for my own edification I dug up and compiled the data of Coach K's NCAA record against the various seeds, just to see if the theory that he only won more in one era because of the bracket breaking his way more often.

I divided opponents into 4 categories.

Top seeds: 1 or 2 seeds
Tier 2 seeds: seeds 3 to 7
Tier 3 seeds: seeds 8 to 12
bottom seeds: seeds 13-16

Coach K's record against each group:

Tier 1	10-8	56%	2-4	33%
Tier 2	21-5	81%	14-6	70%
Tier 3	15-1	94%	8-2	80%
Tier 4	17-0	100%	15-2	88%

As you can see he didn't win more just because he played more lower seeds compared to later in his career. He won more because he won more often against all comers. I don't know which is more impressive, his combined record against top 7 seeds of 31-13, or his 32-1 record against seeds 8-16, both are otherworldly IMO. 16-10 and 23-4 are both great records still , and probably comparable to other top coaches, but not comparable to his earlier career.

One caveat is I did not include the 96 loss to EMU because due to his absence the previous year that team was fortunate to even make the tournament and by the time that game was played Duke was the walking wounded and nobody really expected them to win that game. But even if you include that game it does change any of the numbers.

My concern is not the one game that was dropped from the evaluation, but the years. Using that approach, we should not evaluate Coach Scheyer until he has made an NCAA Finals. I think you should at least include 84 and 85 as part of evaluating how K did. He had his full team together at that point, and had a year to teach most of them his system. They did well in the ACC and national ranking both years. Why would those not count?

Maybe I'm just butthurt that the teams from my freshman and sophomore years are being ignored.

[Papa John]

My concern is not the one game that was dropped from the evaluation, but the years. Using that approach, we should not evaluate Coach Scheyer until he has made an NCAA Finals. I think you should at least include 84 and 85 as part of evaluating how K did. He had his full team together at that point, and had a year to teach most of them his system. They did well in the ACC and national ranking both years. Why would those not count?

Maybe I'm just butthurt that the teams from my freshman and sophomore years are being ignored.

Now that you mention it, why not include '81, '82 and '83?

Sorry if it is bad form to respond to your own post, but I did some digging and thought others might be interested. To get a sense of how good a coach's teams were at his "peak", I took a look at the best 10 year stretches* by a single coach (coaching a single school) in terms of average SRS ranking.

Not bad form at all... and I fully respect how you did so (by editing your original post rather than stringing another new post into the mix, as many tend to do)!

That is one heck of a graph for Coach K, and demonstrates how lucky we were as Duke fans to be able to enjoy the sustained level of excellence he brought to the program!

[Jeffrey]

*For the purposes of these lists I removed coaches who would otherwise appear multiple times due to overlapping 10 year periods which include the same team. For example, by this metric Wooden's peak was 1964-73, but I didn't include any other ten year period for Wooden which included any of these years. Otherwise the top 5 spots would all be UCLA teams from the Alcindor/Walton era.

Great analysis… Wooden was incredible as he aged and declined!

[sagegrouse]

Surely someone above did NOT say, "Coach K ust have declined because In later years he never equaled seven FFs in nine years."