Wooden's Legacy Tainted?

[cspan37421]

IIRC in 1991, just after Duke avenged their loss against seemingly invincible UNLV, Wooden remarked (upon being asked about how great the UNLV team was), "a lot of teams have won the NCAA championship once in a row."

As for his legacy, obviously there are all the consecutive championships. But I've heard many say (incl. ex players) that the program wasn't exactly clean, by modern standards. Perhaps a different standard applied then? (e.g., paying players in cash or in kind, extra benefits etc). It's all hearsay to me ... except that which I heard B. Walton mention.

[DevilHorns]

As for his legacy, obviously there are all the consecutive championships. But I've heard many say (incl. ex players) that the program wasn't exactly clean, by modern standards. Perhaps a different standard applied then? (e.g., paying players in cash or in kind, extra benefits etc). It's all hearsay to me ... except that which I heard B. Walton mention.

Everything I've ever heard about Wooden echoes that he is a great human being. He is and will forever be a great ambassador for the college game.

However, his legacy IMO is tainted. The fact is, Wooden was at UCLA for 15 years, from 1948-63, without winning an NCAA championship. And then from 1964-76 he won 10 titles in 12 years. What changed? Sam Gilbert's involvement changed. Sam Gilbert was a huge UCLA booster (this is well documented). Fact is, if this happened in the modern era (or closer to the modern era), there is no way this would stand in the eyes of public opinion. Because it happened so so long ago it's almost immune from any media or public scrutiny. You know, why pick on someone old enough to be your great-grandpa? Why bring up the past?

[Verga3]

IIRC in 1991, just after Duke avenged their loss against seemingly invincible UNLV, Wooden remarked (upon being asked about how great the UNLV team was), "a lot of teams have won the NCAA championship once in a row."

As for his legacy, obviously there are all the consecutive championships. But I've heard many say (incl. ex players) that the program wasn't exactly clean, by modern standards. Perhaps a different standard applied then? (e.g., paying players in cash or in kind, extra benefits etc). It's all hearsay to me ... except that which I heard B. Walton mention.

Unfortunately, the moderators did not agree with me, but disgraceful to bring this up tonight. Start a new Wooden Cheats thread if you have the goods on the Coach....but, on another day. The man may be dying tonight. DBR is better than this.

[Verga3]

Everything I've ever heard about Wooden echoes that he is a great human being. He is and will forever be a great ambassador for the college game.

However, his legacy IMO is tainted. The fact is, Wooden was at UCLA for 15 years, from 1948-63, without winning an NCAA championship. And then from 1964-76 he won 10 titles in 12 years. What changed? Sam Gilbert's involvement changed. Sam Gilbert was a huge UCLA booster (this is well documented). Fact is, if this happened in the modern era (or closer to the modern era), there is no way this would stand in the eyes of public opinion. Because it happened so so long ago it's almost immune from any media or public scrutiny. You know, why pick on someone old enough to be your great-grandpa? Why bring up the past?

Unfortunately, the moderators did not agree with me, but disgraceful to bring this up tonight. Start a new Wooden Cheats thread if you have the goods on the Coach....but, on another day. The man may be dying tonight. DBR is better than this.

[DevilHorns]

Unfortunately, the moderators did not agree with me, but disgraceful to bring this up tonight. Start a new Wooden Cheats thread if you have the goods on the Coach....but, on another day. The man may be dying tonight. DBR is better than this.

Sorry to upset you (and anybody else who was upset by my reply to the "legacy" notion).

As I said in my above post, all I have heard about Wooden was that he is a great human being.

[cspan37421]

Unfortunately, the moderators did not agree with me, but disgraceful to bring this up tonight. Start a new Wooden Cheats thread if you have the goods on the Coach....but, on another day. The man may be dying tonight. DBR is better than this.

I'm sorry to offend your sensibilities. I'm not protesting at his funeral or anything. But if this is only a eulogy thread or an appreciation thread, please don't read further.

To give a bigger picture, let me say that I once saw him give his pyramid of success talk on PBS or something like that, and was exceedingly impressed - so much so as to recommend to a colleague that their management book club check out anything he had written about it. So I do respect the man.

Our Coach K currently stands behind Rupp (5) and Wooden (10) in coaching teams to national titles. When making such comparisons, it's sometimes wise to ensure you're comparing apples to apples. That's all I'm saying. It may have been a different era.

[Olympic Fan]

There is a time and a place for everything ... including a time to discuss and debate how we view Sam Gilbert's impact on John Wooden's legacy. I'd submit this is not the time or the place to do that.

But since the issue has been brought up, let me combat the notion that Wooden never won a title in the 15 years before Gilbert got involved and then won 10 in 12 years after Gilbert began lavishing gifts on the UCLA players.

That's not quite right. As documented by Time Magazine in 1974, Gilbert's first contact with the UCLA program occurred sometime during the 1966-67 season, when former UCLA player Willie Naulls (who had met Gilbert after leaving UCLA) brought sophomores Lew Alcindor and Lucius Allen over to meet him. Gilbert, who was usually described as "in construction" was actually more of an all-purpose hustler (a 1991 trial, four years after his death, revealed that he was heavily involved in laundering Miami drug money). He "advised" Alcindor and Allen and eventually became their agent after college. That's when the gifts started:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...879296,00.html

My point is that Wooden won two championships (1964 and 1965) AND recruited the class that would anchor three more titles (1967-69) before Gilbert got involved in the program.

Gilbert gave thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars -- to UCLA players illegally between 1967 and 1980. Alcindor, Walton, Wicks and Rowe were special favorites who got plenty from him. Impossible to know how big a role that played in Wooden's incredible run -- but it's clear that even if Sam Gilbert had never existed, Wooden was a great coach with multiple championships.

And it's also very clear that he never used Gilbert and in fact made several efforts to keep him away from his players. Did he try hard enough? Well, that's an issue for another time and place.

Right now, I'd rather honor the most successful college basketball coach of all time.

[blueprofessor]

I am friends with several former players who, like the UCLA players, were properly recruited to attend school, but became aware after enrolling that a fifty dollar bill would be handed by an alumnus or two to some of the players in locker rooms and on special occasions.These were top academic schools.

To single UCLA out for Gilbert (and what he did was just as wrong as slipping players cash) is grossly selective.There were many Sam Gilberts (and still may be) in many programs in America. J. D. Morgan ,UCLA AD, never severed the ties to Gilbert and,certainly, those ties should have ended.No one disputes the venality of Gilbert's or other Gilberts' actions.

Wooden got great players because they wanted to play for him and his system. A good number had been recommended to him--he had never seen them play. He coached them great and they beat all comers.They were a beautiful,clean, finesse team---a marvel to the spectator's eye. Always beating my teams, I passionately disliked them.
Wooden was a decent, humble ,honest,honorable,to-the-point
man who was respected by his players as much as any man who ever coached.

What is also interesting is how shabbily Wooden was treated when it came to pay. IIRC, he was paid about $45,000 annually-- embarrassingly small. He never bargained, just took the offer. He did not have a lot of money when he retired and he lived modestly. UCLA should have done better by the coach--perhaps the greatest coach in college during the last half of the 20th century.

All respect and best wishes to Coach John Wooden.
Blueprofessor

[cspan37421]

blueprof - thanks for your post.

re: embarrassingly small - I wonder what %-ile $45,000 would have been among div. I college basketball coaches back then (and was "then" 1949 or 1975, or ??). I'm not saying you're wrong, but keep in mind not only inflation, but a much larger factor: huge TV contracts. Discount for those, and today's endorsements, book and video deals, huge speaking fees, camps, etc., maybe it is merely below-avg for his achievements, but not embarrassingly so.

[allenmurray]

blueprof - thanks for your post.

re: embarrassingly small - I wonder what %-ile $45,000 would have been among div. I college basketball coaches back then (and was "then" 1949 or 1975, or ??). I'm not saying you're wrong, but keep in mind not only inflation, but a much larger factor: huge TV contracts. Discount for those, and today's endorsements, book and video deals, huge speaking fees, camps, etc., maybe it is merely below-avg for his achievements, but not embarrassingly so.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to have said that todays coaching salaries are embarrassingly high.

[blueprofessor]

blueprof - thanks for your post.

re: embarrassingly small - I wonder what %-ile $45,000 would have been among div. I college basketball coaches back then (and was "then" 1949 or 1975, or ??). I'm not saying you're wrong, but keep in mind not only inflation, but a much larger factor: huge TV contracts. Discount for those, and today's endorsements, book and video deals, huge speaking fees, camps, etc., maybe it is merely below-avg for his achievements, but not embarrassingly so.

Yes , quite , embarrassingly low. I am assuming you aren't joking in your questioning the description of Wooden's salary.
For instance, top business school grads were being hired for 60k plus by consulting firms in 1975. Investment banking firms were as competitive. Charts of salaries 6 or 7 years later show average salaries by occupation (many of which encompass hundreds of thousands of people):
Accountant (GS 13 level) 48k
Chief accountant (GS 13 level) 50k
Chief accountant (GS 14) 61k
Engineer (GS 13) 47k
Engineer (GS 14) 54k
Engineer (GS 15) 62k
Director of personnel (GS 13) 47k
Director of personnel (GS 14) 57k
Attorney (GS 13) 49k
Attorney (GS 14) 61k
Attorney (GS 15) 75k

Note the above are averages and do not show the earnings of the outliers (top 10%) which are much,much larger. Many lawyers, for instance, earned well over 250k in 1975.Some over a million dollars.
And, Wooden was the prototypical outlier---ESPN would select him as the greatest coach in any sport in the 20th century!

And, his true salary in 1975 was $32,500 (page 102, John Wooden, An American Treasure, by Steve Bisheff, 2004).
He had started in 1948 at $6,000 a year, but ,the source, the Association of Students, was not part of the UCLA retirement fund, so Wooden was deprived of retirement benefits the first 12 years he coached UCLA.

Top secretaries in my firm earned $30,000 in 1975.

My post did not speak to the ridiculously high salaries of today---only to the incredibly ridiculous salary of the greatest basketball (perhaps in any sport) coach of the last century while still at his peak.

Yes, UCLA's treatment of Wooden was disgraceful.

Best regards--Blueprofessor

[Poincaré]

Yes, UCLA's treatment of Wooden was disgraceful.

Why? He was a man who did not care much about money, so they wouldn't have been giving him that much more happiness by increasing his salary. If he wanted to, I am guessing that Wooden could have easily obtained a higher salary from UCLA, but chose not to do so. Doesn't a university have obligations to its students as well. If it could have Wooden at below market price and save that money for an extra scholarship for a needy kid or improvements to academic facilities, why is it disgraceful? It's not exactly like Wal-mart taking advantage of employees with no bargaining power.

I bet Wooden himself did not see this as being disgraceful, and that's part of what made him a good man.

[blueprofessor]

Why? He was a man who did not care much about money, so they wouldn't have been giving him that much more happiness by increasing his salary. If he wanted to, I am guessing that Wooden could have easily obtained a higher salary from UCLA, but chose not to do so. Doesn't a university have obligations to its students as well. If it could have Wooden at below market price and save that money for an extra scholarship for a needy kid or improvements to academic facilities, why is it disgraceful? It's not exactly like Wal-mart taking advantage of employees with no bargaining power.

I bet Wooden himself did not see this as being disgraceful, and that's part of what made him a good man.

The family (daughter Nan as well as wife Nell-before her death)are on record in the authorized biography by Wooden close friend (and the journalist who covered Coach Wooden longer and more thoroughly than any other journalist) Steve Bisheff as being "really angry" about the ridiculously low salary.Wooden commented that had he known he was not receiving a retirement for the first 12 years ," I would have never come to UCLA."

In addition, as the subject of an authorized biography, Wooden, a very meticulous person his entire life and always concerned about truth and impressions, would have had access to the manuscript in order to correct any errors. I have given the subjects of my books the same courtesy---after all, any author wants his books to be accurate. If he had not wanted the ridiculously low salary to be prominent in his biography, he would have had any such references excised before publication.

Wooden's pride would have played a role---not that he was not extremely upset about being low-balled in the contract J.D. Morgan sent -- he would not have demanded more than he was offered---which was "less than a bottom-rug assistant at many major universities." To say Wooden was "below market" would be the most extreme example of understatement. Certainly, living for 35 years after retirement, he would have needed such an appropriate salary ,savings from which to fall back on.

Wooden's teams earned a fortune in money and goodwill for UCLA, no doubt providing a generous addition to student financial assistance. In the process, additional contributions from proud alumni would have enhanced students' academic experience, as well.
The difference between $32,500,a low-rung assistant's compensation, and a salary commensurate with Coach Wooden's performance as the greatest coach of the 20th century still at his peak would have been a tiny portion of the tangible and intangible riches he brought to the university.

Coach, rest in peace. Thank you for your class and brilliance.
Best wishes and condolences to the Wooden family .
Blueprofessor

[JohnGalt]

However, his legacy IMO is tainted. The fact is, Wooden was at UCLA for 15 years, from 1948-63, without winning an NCAA championship. And then from 1964-76 he won 10 titles in 12 years. What changed? Sam Gilbert's involvement changed. Sam Gilbert was a huge UCLA booster (this is well documented). Fact is, if this happened in the modern era (or closer to the modern era), there is no way this would stand in the eyes of public opinion. Because it happened so so long ago it's almost immune from any media or public scrutiny. You know, why pick on someone old enough to be your great-grandpa? Why bring up the past?

This is a classic attempt at framing the past within modern day context. Two separate generations have to be viewed exclusive to one another or it becomes evident [rather quickly] that all "accomplishments" are not only perfectly ordinary, but achieved around mitigating circumstances.

John Wooden's career is notable as much for his building of men, as for his building of a dynasty. Vin Scully pulled the right one:

"His life was gentle, and the elements
So mixed in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the World, 'This was a Man!'"
- Shakespeare

[Atlanta Duke]

The fact is, Wooden was at UCLA for 15 years, from 1948-63, without winning an NCAA championship. And then from 1964-76 he won 10 titles in 12 years. What changed? Sam Gilbert's involvement changed. Sam Gilbert was a huge UCLA booster (this is well documented). Fact is, if this happened in the modern era (or closer to the modern era), there is no way this would stand in the eyes of public opinion. Because it happened so so long ago it's almost immune from any media or public scrutiny. You know, why pick on someone old enough to be your great-grandpa? Why bring up the past?

Stay classy

If you are going to plagarize Gregg Doyel at least cite to him

[T]he fact is, Wooden was at UCLA for 15 years, from 1948-63, without winning an NCAA championship. And then from 1964-76 he won 10 titles in 12 years. What changed? Sam Gilbert's involvement changed.

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/11757857

[BD80]

The family ... are on record in the authorized biography by Wooden close friend ... Steve Bisheff as being "really angry" about the ridiculously low salary.Wooden commented that had he known he was not receiving a retirement for the first 12 years ," I would have never come to UCLA."
...

The difference between $32,500,a low-rung assistant's compensation, and a salary commensurate with Coach Wooden's performance as the greatest coach of the 20th century still at his peak would have been a tiny portion of the tangible and intangible riches he brought to the university.

Coach, rest in peace. Thank you for your class and brilliance.
Best wishes and condolences to the Wooden family .
Blueprofessor

Anyone else find it ironic that the paragon of amateur athletics was paid less as a coaching professional than his players made as "amateurs?"

[DevilHorns]

classy post

Stay classy

If you are going to plagarize Gregg Doyel at least cite to him

[T]he fact is, Wooden was at UCLA for 15 years, from 1948-63, without winning an NCAA championship. And then from 1964-76 he won 10 titles in 12 years. What changed? Sam Gilbert's involvement changed.

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/11757857

This is a classic attempt at framing the past within modern day context. Two separate generations have to be viewed exclusive to one another or it becomes evident [rather quickly] that all "accomplishments" are not only perfectly ordinary, but achieved around mitigating circumstances.

John Wooden's career is notable as much for his building of men, as for his building of a dynasty. Vin Scully pulled the right one:

"His life was gentle, and the elements
So mixed in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the World, 'This was a Man!'"
- Shakespeare

I posted my comment before I realized he was as severely sick as he was (a few days ago, before any big editorials were referencing the story) as a reply to someone posting about his "legacy". I also couldn't edit it to delete it for some unknown reason after there was a post about someone being offended (I've noticed this editing problem actually with other posts as well?). If you look down a few posts you can see that I did post an apology to those offended.

And in terms of plagarizing, I was just getting the dates as I had read this article a while back. Didn't realize it was that incredibly important to cite a reference.

Anyway, enough of this. I will not be a distraction anymore.

RIP John Wooden. Your impact on the game is unparalleled. You will be missed.

[Poincaré]

The family (daughter Nan as well as wife Nell-before her death)are on record in the authorized biography by Wooden close friend (and the journalist who covered Coach Wooden longer and more thoroughly than any other journalist) Steve Bisheff as being "really angry" about the ridiculously low salary.Wooden commented that had he known he was not receiving a retirement for the first 12 years ," I would have never come to UCLA."

In addition, as the subject of an authorized biography, Wooden, a very meticulous person his entire life and always concerned about truth and impressions, would have had access to the manuscript in order to correct any errors. I have given the subjects of my books the same courtesy---after all, any author wants his books to be accurate. If he had not wanted the ridiculously low salary to be prominent in his biography, he would have had any such references excised before publication.

Wooden's pride would have played a role---not that he was not extremely upset about being low-balled in the contract J.D. Morgan sent -- he would not have demanded more than he was offered---which was "less than a bottom-rug assistant at many major universities." To say Wooden was "below market" would be the most extreme example of understatement. Certainly, living for 35 years after retirement, he would have needed such an appropriate salary ,savings from which to fall back on.

Wooden's teams earned a fortune in money and goodwill for UCLA, no doubt providing a generous addition to student financial assistance. In the process, additional contributions from proud alumni would have enhanced students' academic experience, as well.
The difference between $32,500,a low-rung assistant's compensation, and a salary commensurate with Coach Wooden's performance as the greatest coach of the 20th century still at his peak would have been a tiny portion of the tangible and intangible riches he brought to the university.

Coach, rest in peace. Thank you for your class and brilliance.
Best wishes and condolences to the Wooden family .
Blueprofessor

That's really interesting, and thanks for sharing. I'm going to have to read that book one of these days. It still doesn't change the fact that he could have negotiated a better salary but chose not to do so. If it was because of pride and not because of disinterest in money, that makes the matter entirely his fault. A free market relies on each party to bargain to the best of their abilities. However, this just makes John Wooden a more interesting person. I would feel closer to him knowing that he was also occasionally victim to personal flaws like pride like the rest of us. I certainly don't feel that he was the golden cow everyone is making him out to be, but rather a real person. A real person who was better at overcoming human weaknesses than the rest of us, but a real person who was susceptible to those same weaknesses nonetheless. He was a good man, but not a perfect one, and I think that's okay.

In honor of John Wooden, I will be putting on my socks the right way today before hitting the hardwood. He was onto something there. I've never gotten a blister since I started paying attention to that.

[JBDuke]

Please note that I've pulled these posts from the RIP thread, which we'll leave for less controversial posts regarding the death of John Wooden. If you want to discuss other topics not related to his passing, but instead to his history at UCLA, then do it here.

[ReformedAggie]

this discussions seems both tasteless and ill-timed.