I’ve been spending a lot of time on LinkedIn in the past year. Such is the song and dance of a college senior who hasn’t figured out what he’s doing postgrad.
Between the competition, networking and a skyrocketing cost of living, the search for employment is rarely an easy or smooth process. Even if you’re excited about it, getting a job is scary.
Especially if that job was previously occupied by arguably the best person to ever do that job.
Thus, I present Hubert Davis and Jon Scheyer — two head coaches tasked with carrying on two of the most un-carry-on-able dynasties in college basketball. For Davis, that’s following up on Dean Smith and Roy Williams’ five combined national titles. For Scheyer, it’s chasing a sixth banner after Mike Krzyzewski hung five.
With Davis in his fourth year at North Carolina’s helm and Scheyer in his third at Duke’s — at rival blue bloods separated by just a 15-minute drive, no less — the pair of first-time head coaches have understandably been pitted as each other’s yardstick and nemesis.
That positioning is apt, but I think it’s time to admit their “rivalry” is not equally yoked, even if the circumstances of their hiring and the programs they inherited are similar. This season is the most separated Duke and North Carolina have been in years: As Scheyer propels his Blue Devils toward their best shot at a national title since 2015, Davis’ Tar Heels are in danger of a second NCAA Tournament snub in three years.
The reasons for this are multiple. Scheyer is a better and more consistent recruiter, a better developer of talent and a better in-game manager. With Scheyer’s embrace of the transfer portal in a substantive way, his teams are also more balanced. But most importantly, Scheyer’s progression as a coach is clearer and the positive changes he’s made as a result of his past shortcomings are more evident.
That’s an encouraging sign for those in Durham and a damning one for those in Chapel Hill. Better or worse, depending on your preferred hex code, looking at both coaches’ careers indicates little chance either’s trajectory will change anytime soon. The important thing with both these coaches is to see progression, and the simple fact is that Scheyer’s is clear and Davis’ isn’t.
In addition to a lot of time on LinkedIn, I’ve also become quite invested in Formula One. If the hours I’ve spent watching races has taught me one thing, it’s that crashes are sudden. The things that cause them, however — worn-out tires, driver fatigue, poor preparation and bad strategy — are not.
I should acknowledge that of the two coaches, Davis has gotten far closer to raising a banner. That infamous 2021-22 run to the championship game is the crowning achievement of Davis’ career and a legendary piece of Tar Heel lore, particularly the bit where they effectively retired Krzyzewski twice.
But if you look beyond the emotion of that run — which is certainly relevant — Davis’ first season was up-and-down. If you zoom out, his whole coaching career has been.
In 2021-22, North Carolina had exactly two ranked wins and was a bubble team until a five-game win streak to close the regular season secured the team a berth. It escaped a 25-point blown lead in the Round of 32 against Baylor and failed to escape a 16-point blown lead in the title game against Kansas. Both of the Tar Heels’ runs, one to secure a NCAA Tournament spot and the other in the Big Dance, rested on abnormally good shooting from Caleb Love and Brady Manek, the likes of which neither has come close to replicating.
The following season, Davis’ Tar Heels were preseason No. 1 with four returning starters and highly sought-after transfer forward Pete Nance. They went 20-13, lost to Duke twice and missed the NCAA Tournament, the first time a preseason No. 1 team was excluded since 1985.
North Carolina bounced back in 2023-24 by securing a No. 1 seed in the tournament with a National Player of the Year contender in RJ Davis and an elite supporting cast, won the ACC regular-season title and took down Duke twice. Even still, the Tar Heels exited in the Sweet 16 to No. 4-seed Alabama as the Blue Devils upset No. 1-seed Houston and made it to the Elite Eight with an inferior roster and no true center.
And finally we arrive at 2024-25, where the Tar Heels are yet again an enigma: unranked, 13-9, on the bubble and winning games they should lose and losing games they should win.
This backslide boils down to a few factors, many of which are Davis’ responsibility. For one, he failed to sufficiently refresh the roster.
The gaping hole left by Armando Bacot in the post was not filled last offseason and has gotten bigger as teams exploit it. RJ Davis’ production has decreased since 2023-24. North Carolina has all the tools to compete with the best of them on the recruiting trail, but Davis’ recruits have largely underwhelmed, with Seth Trimble not taking enough of a leap in production to compensate for the loss of Harrison Ingram and Elliot Cadeau remaining a complete non-factor on the perimeter. Ian Jackson has been great as a freshman and Drake Powell has been serviceable, but neither have set the team on fire the way Duke’s cohort of Cooper Flagg, Khaman Maluach and Kon Knueppel have this year.
Davis’ scheming, preparation and in-game management have also been subpar. North Carolina sits 156th nationally in rebound margin, 297th in scoring defense and 88th in assist-to-turnover ratio this year. While scoring can come in spurts and often relies on players’ individual performances, defense, rebounding, playmaking and turnovers are more coachable aspects that translate between games. Duke, with a similarly competitive schedule to the Tar Heels, sits eighth, fifth and 10th in those respective metrics.
This isn’t to say the Blue Devils are perfect, but it is illustrative of a more comprehensive plan on Scheyer’s end to build a balanced roster and instill a cohesive playing philosophy.
Scheyer’s three recruiting classes so far have sat first, second and first nationally, with another top-ranked class on the way in 2025-26. Each is well-balanced, mixing high-volume scorers like Knueppel, Kyle Filipowski or Jared McCain with high-upside defenders like Tyrese Proctor, Maluach or Dereck Lively II. Each team has had flaws, as any does — Scheyer’s inaugural team lacked explosiveness, his second team lacked a dominant post player (Filipowski is a natural forward) and his 2024-25 team has a tendency to start slow — but by years’ end he has consistently amended those flaws.
Despite a fraught 2022-23 campaign, Scheyer still found a way to win the ACC Tournament and close the season on a 10-game winning streak. His team’s exit from the NCAA Tournament to Tennessee in the Round of 32, by players’ own admission, helped it become tougher, resulting in an Elite Eight run through a grind-it-out, physical win against Houston. In just his third year, as a direct result from the faults of his first and second, Scheyer has put together arguably the best squad in the nation with a realistic path to a championship.
That improvement has coincided with Scheyer’s development as an in-game coach, with more proactive substitutions, extended minutes for players on hot streaks and ruthless lineup changes that better combat the strengths of Duke’s opponents.
I don’t think Davis has underperformed because he hasn’t won The Big One. I think he has underperformed because his program-building is lagging.
If recruits don’t develop year-to-year in a large enough capacity to fill the shoes of departed upperclassmen, if defensive efficiency is lagging and his players are wasteful with the ball, that’s a sign that the coach isn’t doing what he needs to. Scheyer isn’t perfect, but it’s clear that his recruiting, in-game management, approach to roster construction and development of talent is improving.
Matchups between Duke and North Carolina always matter, but this year more than most, the game is a point of inflection between perpendicular lines. The upward slope belongs to Scheyer, the downward slope to Davis.
If the Blue Devils dominate as their resume says they should, it will be as much a kudos to Scheyer’s growth as an admonition of his rival’s lack thereof.