Head Coach Jon Scheyer Appreciation Thread

Native said:
One thing I’ve been thinking about: how does one even go about doing this?

Hot take incoming, but I’m wondering if we need to focus less on the end of game and more at the beginning of it. It sounds counterintuitive, but to me, the way to solve games like the last one are to slow down preemptively when things are going well for you.

I think we had enough data on this year’s team to conclude that they performed better in closer contests than with a lead. Keeping a sense of urgency by artificially keeping the game closer than it could be might counterintuitively help. I know this sounds crazy—but perhaps taking Cam out a bit more to get him rest or deliberately slowing the pace down in the first half might have been the way to alter the outcome.

Managing the entire game, as opposed to always trying to get a bigger lead and then holding on, could be the way to go here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree. A number have argued that the mistakes on the final plays that led to losses last year and this were not made by freshmen--the Houston inbound, Cayden's pass. But to me the challenge is more to find ways not to lose a 15 point halftime lead in the first place. That's where I think there is room for innovation and growth, so we don't end up at the mercy of a highly random single play at the end of a one possession game. Could more experience help that? Maybe.

I am a huge Scheyer fan. We're blessed to have him. But I cannot imagine that he is not looking at the '25 and '26 tournament losses and asking himself what can be done to avoid that in the future. I think he believes this is a solvable problem. If you see the tournament as nothing but a random number generator, then it obviates the need for a coach, right? And how do you explain Coach K's success--that he was just a heck of a lucky guy over 40 years?
 
Crisker said:
Not crazy at all -- at halftime I told my family I would feel more comfortable if we held a 5 to 9 point lead throughout the first half, and continued to do so into the second half.
Click to expand...
Direct screenshot from my Duke group text:
IMG_1328.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
niKole_Cameron said:
Of course he would. The issue is the people that say "if he doesn't win a NC soon, he's going to be let go." That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, that opinion has been spewed by at most a couple posters here. And rightfully ignored.

The issue that some of us are bouncing around is not if Scheyer should stay--I think his support is virtually universal. It's more just speculation as to whether the last two tournament losses have a pattern, or any lesson embedded that might suggest a rethinking of his approach--to recruiting and building a roster, how to coach the players, or developing in-game strategies. Some say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and others think there is an argument for changes, mainly in building a roster more heavily stocked with experienced transfers rather than HS recruits.
 
clinresga said:
AFAIK, that opinion has been spewed by at most a couple posters here. And rightfully ignored.

The issue that some of us are bouncing around is not if Scheyer should stay--I think his support is virtually universal. It's more just speculation as to whether the last two tournament losses have a pattern, or any lesson embedded that might suggest a rethinking of his approach--to recruiting and building a roster, how to coach the players, or developing in-game strategies. Some say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and others think there is an argument for changes, mainly in building a roster more heavily stocked with experienced transfers rather than HS recruits.
Click to expand...
Suppose Duke only gets to the Elite 8 for the next 5 or more consecutive years, along with a couple of Final Fours, but no NCAAT championship.. Does Duke "fire" Scheyer? I hope not. I've heard/read in multiple places that Scheyer doesn't need to "change" anything, but really look at how he might adjust his approach to how he coaches (as noted in the post above). He's very young (age and HC-wise) and is learning. Just like how we like to see freshmen "grow" into seniors.
 
gep said:
Suppose Duke only gets to the Elite 8 for the next 5 or more consecutive years, along with a couple of Final Fours, but no NCAAT championship.. Does Duke "fire" Scheyer? I hope not. I've heard/read in multiple places that Scheyer doesn't need to "change" anything, but really look at how he might adjust his approach to how he coaches (as noted in the post above). He's very young (age and HC-wise) and is learning. Just like how we like to see freshmen "grow" into seniors.
Click to expand...
I personally think his roster construction and player evaluation is sublime, and I don't buy the experience narrative.

What I think he could work on is his motivation pre- and in-game and maybe just a touch more fire and emotion situationally (in line with the motivation angle). I recognize this is hard to learn and K was a master at it. Any deeply devoted fan knew that UConn was gonna make a run in that game and, worse, they had already started as we finished the half poorly. We had all halftime to pump the team up to come out guns blazing. We didn't. But we could have called a quick time out to try again. We didn't. We could have seen some emotion and maybe some ref yelling after the 4 quick fouls. We didn't.

I don't want Jon to entirely change who he is. But I think a bit of learning on one or multiple of these tactics could help him. Even just slightly.

I also wouldn't mind some continued improvement on ATOs and BoBs (baseline out of bounds). It's gotten better but is still largely meh.

- Chillin
 
gep said:
Suppose Duke only gets to the Elite 8 for the next 5 or more consecutive years, along with a couple of Final Fours, but no NCAAT championship.. Does Duke "fire" Scheyer? I hope not. I've heard/read in multiple places that Scheyer doesn't need to "change" anything, but really look at how he might adjust his approach to how he coaches (as noted in the post above). He's very young (age and HC-wise) and is learning. Just like how we like to see freshmen "grow" into seniors.
Click to expand...
No school would fire a coach that did that. But he would probably garner a reputation as the next Mark Few among college basketball fandom.
 
ChillinDuke said:
I personally think his roster construction and player evaluation is sublime, and I don't buy the experience narrative.

What I think he could work on is his motivation pre- and in-game and maybe just a touch more fire and emotion situationally (in line with the motivation angle). I recognize this is hard to learn and K was a master at it. Any deeply devoted fan knew that UConn was gonna make a run in that game and, worse, they had already started as we finished the half poorly. We had all halftime to pump the team up to come out guns blazing. We didn't. But we could have called a quick time out to try again. We didn't. We could have seen some emotion and maybe some ref yelling after the 4 quick fouls. We didn't.

I don't want Jon to entirely change who he is. But I think a bit of learning on one or multiple of these tactics could help him. Even just slightly.

I also wouldn't mind some continued improvement on ATOs and BoBs (baseline out of bounds). It's gotten better but is still largely meh.

- Chillin
Click to expand...
I just watched a short CBS Sports clip where one of the commentators used the term "situational coaching". This probably comes with experience... which Scheyer is still accumulating at his young age/tenure. :)
 
Crisker said:
Coach K consistently demonstrated that the tournament is not a random scatter.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree with this statement. As an example, take the 10 year stretch from the 1996-97 season through the 2005-06 season:

1997: final AP rank #8; Lost in round of 32
1998: final AP rank #3; Lost in Elite Eight
1999: final AP rank #1; Lost in championship game
2000: final AP rank #1; Lost in Sweet 16
2001: final AP rank #1; won championship
2002: final AP rank #1; Lost in Sweet 16
2003: final AP rank #7; Lost in Sweet 16
2004: final AP rank #6; Lost in Final Four
2005: final AP rank #3; Lost in Sweet 16
2006: final AP rank #1; Lost in Sweet 16

Honestly, comparing our national rank vs. our NCAA tournament success, it seems pretty random to me.
 
clinresga said:
AFAIK, that opinion has been spewed by at most a couple posters here. And rightfully ignored.

The issue that some of us are bouncing around is not if Scheyer should stay--I think his support is virtually universal. It's more just speculation as to whether the last two tournament losses have a pattern, or any lesson embedded that might suggest a rethinking of his approach--to recruiting and building a roster, how to coach the players, or developing in-game strategies. Some say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," and others think there is an argument for changes, mainly in building a roster more heavily stocked with experienced transfers rather than HS recruits.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anybody saying there aren't things to work on and changes to be made. But it also isn't broken. Scheyer has mentioned on multiple occasions that player retention is important and something that he will prioritize. This of course will result in older teams. More use of the portal certainly would be a good thing. It's important to remember that we had a great transfer lined up for this season who woild have changed many things for this team.
Jon also is constantly repeating that he and staff need to get better. Some people my joke about the repeated "I need to help them more" but that's his simplistic sound bite way of saying that he is going through EVERYTHING in all aspects of the program to continue to get better. Anybody who thinks he won't change or can't recognize what needs to be changed are fooling themselves.
Jon is already a top 10 coach and he is four years into being a head coach. He has had a lot of success and has a lot to improve on but blanket statements like he needs to win an NC soon or he should be gone are not based in reality, not helpful, and lacks nuance (are we really going to fire someone if he's consistently getting 30 wins, winning the ACC and getting to the Elite Eight or Final Four?)
 
clinresga said:
If you see the tournament as nothing but a random number generator, then it obviates the need for a coach, right?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Random doesn't mean "coin flip." It means you have a probability of winning and a probability of losing. In the random number generator scenario, a number randomly comes up between 1 and 100. If you have an 85% chance of winning, and the number comes up between 1 and 85 you win and if it comes up between 86 and 100 you lose. In general, your seeding informs your probability of winning games. The better the coach, the more likely you get a favorable seed. Or, if you'd rather, you can look at it as the coaching and players determine how good your team is, and that is what determines your probability of winning.

Obviously, this isn't exactly how it works. There's no giant random number generator determining who wins and loses. But historically, the results are pretty close to what they'd be if there was.

clinresga said:
And how do you explain Coach K's success--that he was just a heck of a lucky guy over 40 years?
Click to expand...
Coach K coached Duke for 42 seasons, but only for 41 years in which there were NCAA tournaments. Of those 41 seasons:

He missed the tournament 5 times (12.2%)
He lost Duke's first tourney game: 5 times (12.2%)
He lost in the round of 32: 5 times (12.2%)
He lost in the Sweet 16: 9 times (22.0%)
He lost in the Elite Eight: 4 times (9.8%)
He lost in the Final Four: 4 times (9.8%)
He lost in the championship game: 4 times (9.8%)
He won the championship: 5 times (12.2%)

It's a very impressive record, but certainly not universal success. 19 tournaments of Sweet 16 or worse; 17 tournaments of Elite Eight or better. He made the Elite Eight or better in 17 of his 41 tournaments (41.5%); He made the Final Four or better in 13 of his 41 tournaments (31.7%); He won the championship in 5 of his 41 tournaments (12.2%), but his first one was in his 11th Duke season.

Looking at it another way, if Coach K's teams had performed according to seeding, we would have expected:

0 first round losses (actual 5)
3 round of 32 losses (actual 5)
7 Sweet 16 losses (actual 9)
12 Elite Eight losses (actual 4)
14 Final Four appearances (actual 13)

So in general, he underperformed his seed by a fair bit. Unless you think it was poor coaching that caused the underperformance, perhaps K was actually an unlucky guy over his 41 tournaments.

In comparison, Coach Scheyer has made the Elite Eight or better in 75% of his four tournaments as head coach (much better than Coach K, though obviously in a very low sample size of seasons); he's made the Final Four or better in 25% of his four tournaments (a little worse than K, but with a denominator of 4, it's as close as possible to K's performance); he hasn't won any championships yet, but with only four seasons, you can't do anything 12% of the time (you need at least eight seasons to do that).

Based on Coach Scheyer's seedings, we would have expected:

0 first round losses (actual 0)
1 round of 32 loss (actual 1)
1 Sweet 16 loss (actual 0)
0 Elite Eight losses (actual 2)
2 Final Four appearances (actual 1)

He's actually a lot closer to reaching expectations than Coach K was. Though, again, it's hard to compare four seasons on one side to 41 on the other. My conclusion is, of course there's room for improvement; everyone can improve at everything. Though personally I don't believe his roster construction is an area that can be significantly improved. Coach Scheyer has been incredible at that for such a young coach, stepping in for a legend.
 
Crisker said:
We agree that Marks is a good writer, and all in all, I thought his article was fair. The Marks article reminded me of the short comment I made that crushing night: Coach Scheyer surely will learn from this and we'll get better at handling large leads and end of game situations. I'm exceptionally happy with Coach Scheyer and wouldn't want another coach. He's a star still rising.

Having said that, I think you overstate the case and alleged randomness of the tournament. It's not just a crapshoot, and things can be done to meaningfully improve outcomes. I'm sure Coach Scheyer thinks this -- and based on the past pattern Marks discussed -- will act on it.

That aside, Coach K's 5 titles should be proof of percentage improvement processes unless you want to say those 5 teams were just lucky. Those 5 teams did indeed have some luck, and other natty contender teams didn't, but Coach K consistently demonstrated that the tournament is not a random scatter. His disciple will do the same.
Click to expand...
I really do think it is that random.

The 1992 team - lionized for all-time for it's resolve, toughness, etc. - needed a miracle to make the Final Four. This year's team needed an opponent's miracle to miss the Final Four. My point is that we shouldn't make sweeping judgments about a team based on whether a last second shot goes in or not.

Can better coaching lead to better outcomes in the Tournament? Sure. I've said upthread that I'm excited to see how Jon grows as he moves into his prime years. There are definitely areas where he can improve. It's possible there is a gap in his coaching/tactics/etc. that makes his teams more susceptible to blowing leads, though to be honest, I am skeptical that there is some huge blind spot. We have quite of bit of countervailing evidence of Jon's teams making great adjustments in the second half to win games.
 
Kedsy said:
Not at all. Random doesn't mean "coin flip." It means you have a probability of winning and a probability of losing. In the random number generator scenario, a number randomly comes up between 1 and 100. If you have an 85% chance of winning, and the number comes up between 1 and 85 you win and if it comes up between 86 and 100 you lose. In general, your seeding informs your probability of winning games. The better the coach, the more likely you get a favorable seed. Or, if you'd rather, you can look at it as the coaching and players determine how good your team is, and that is what determines your probability of winning.

Obviously, this isn't exactly how it works. There's no giant random number generator determining who wins and loses. But historically, the results are pretty close to what they'd be if there was.
Click to expand...
Really, we're saying the same thing, which is that over an extended period of time, superior coaching will result in more wins, but that for any given single game, there is no guarantee of success. So, am I shocked if we lost a single game in which we were heavily favored? No. Do I believe that over time--like, say, 41 years--a superior coach will outperform less talented coaches? Yup. Single games are random. A career record, not so much.

And I am very confident that over a career, Scheyer will build a track record of great success. In part by learning from those random losses.
 
I think having back-to-back generational talents in Coop & Cam, coupled with how we lost, is contributing to the overreaction from folks. And add in that it will now be at least 12 years since our last championship, people are going to be even harder on him and the team. It's not fair, but it's reality. It will happen. Jon is a driven individual, and I have no doubt he will do everything in his power to keep this from happening again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top