Wooden's Legacy Tainted?

[Poincaré]

Walton, who played on two national championship teams in 1972 and 1973, confirmed players were paid in his book, "On the Road with the Portland Trailblazers."

"It's hard for me to have a proper perspective on financial matters, since I've always had whatever I wanted since I enrolled at UCLA," he wrote.

Wait, Bill Walton admitted that he was paid by Gilbert while at UCLA? That's crazy. I would still be inclined to believe that Wooden himself was clean, because I want to believe that.

Starting today, I am going to start giving John Calipari the benefit of the doubt. Imagine the furor if Derek Rose or Marcus Camby had said the same thing (and they haven't). If even John Wooden could be hoodwinked, then who's to say that people couldn't pull the wool over Calipari's eyes?

[Newton_14]

Boozer, am I to understand from your post that if something should suddenly happen to Jerry Tarkanian, Eddie Sutton, John Calipari, etc., that you will wait 10 years before discussing anything negative about those people, factual or not? Or is it because of Wooden's longtime dedication to emphasizing good character and behavior that gives him this benefit? If so, if Jimmy Carter passes away soon, will his longtime work with Habitat from Humanity shield his admirers (for 10 years?) from frank discussions about the ups and downs of his presidency?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Well, 10 years was just a number I tossed out, the point being, let some time pass before embarking on this topic. To answer your question though, no it is not the same for everyone, though even the worst of the worst deserve a tad bit of respect. I do think given who Wooden was, and what he accomplished on and off the court, it is distasteful to immediately start a thread like this.

At least let some amount of time pass. As for the other guys you listed, I would mention none of them in the same breath as Wooden. The terms would certainly be different for them. Wooden was a living legend who did far more good than bad in this world. The others, not so much.

My belief is there are times when if you don't have anything good to say, it is best to say nothing. This is one of those times.

Did Wooden cheat? I have no idea. One day I will research it and decide one way or the other. It will just not be anytime soon, and certainly not today.

[Poincaré]

Wooden was a living legend who did far more good than bad in this world. The others, not so much.

My belief is there are times when if you don't have anything good to say, it is best to say nothing. This is one of those times.

Did Wooden cheat? I have no idea. One day I will research it and decide one way or the other. It will just not be anytime soon, and certainly not today.

I respect John Wooden and respect where this is coming from... However, I think that there is a tasteful way to discuss his possible shortcomings (from what I understand, these are suspected shortcomings, not substantiated shortcomings). After all, how are we to decide if he did more good than bad if we are not allowed to discuss the bad? The timing is awkward but not inappropriate. Will there be other occasions upon which to discuss whether his legacy was tainted or not? People will discuss things as they come up. Of course, people should not be discussing such matters at Wooden's funeral or in obituaries, for those serve the purpose of actually paying him the respect that he is due.

Perhaps a good solution would be to ask the moderators to close this thread temporarily and reopen it after an appropriate length of time has passed. Or better yet, let DBR pay its respect to Wooden on the main page, while the members of this board pay their respects to Wooden in private, without posting to the board. If there is some controversy regarding the legitimacy of Wooden's program, it is only to be expected that some people will feel inclined to respond when he is praised without reservation. After all, about the only thing everyone agrees on here is that the Blue Devils are awesome and Austin Rivers should come to Duke, right?

The part I find the most appealing about Wooden's story isn't his coaching accomplishments or life lessons, but the great love he held for his late wife. That is not something you will hear about most coaches, even if they do love their wives. It reminds us that he was a human being before he was a great coach. Once we start treating him as a person so holy that potential criticism cannot be aired against him on an internet bulletin board of all places, I think that dehumanizes him a little.

Just my two cents. I will end my participation here in this thread, which I would have avoided if not for the cursed contrarian bone in my body, with something that might be said for any interesting man. Rest in peace, John Wooden, your life was a notable one, so much so that people everywhere are eager to talk about both the good and bad of it.

[killerleft]

The story of the film so far:

John Wooden was respected so much, and beloved by many. This respect and love was so great that the scandalous behavior of Sam Gilbert, while public knowledge, was kept under wraps (more or less) until Mr. Wooden passed away.

The same behavior by a booster of Duke University athletics would sound with a sonic boom across the college sports world the moment it was known.

That's some nice respect given to John Wooden, eh? Any coach today would be tarred-and-feathered and have death threats made against him.

In the meantime, this could have waited a week or two to show respect to John Wooden. Truthfully, it could have. But the respect shown by even his detractors is amazing in this day and age.

[Olympic Fan]

The story of the film so far:

John Wooden was respected so much, and beloved by many. This respect and love was so great that the scandalous behavior of Sam Gilbert, while public knowledge, was kept under wraps (more or less) until Mr. Wooden passed away.

The same behavior by a booster of Duke University athletics would sound with a sonic boom across the college sports world the moment it was known.

That's some nice respect given to John Wooden, eh? Any coach today would be tarred-and-feathered and have death threats made against him.

In the meantime, this could have waited a week or two to show respect to John Wooden. Truthfully, it could have. But the respect shown by even his detractors is amazing in this day and age.

Just to be clear, I don't think the story of Sam Gilbert and his influence over UCLA was exactly kept under wraps until his death.

Jerry Tarkanien was publically complaning about Gilbert in 1971, when he was battling the NCAA. Gene Bartow, who succeeded Wooden, was widely quoted as saying that he feared for his life if he tried to testify against Gilbert (he later "clarified" the quote, but in view of the later evidence that emerged that Gilbert was laundering drug money for the mob, Bartow may have been right). Gilbert's long influence on UCLA basketball was exposed by the NCAA when they slammed Larry Brown's version of the program in 1980. Heck, Time Magazine did a long expose on Gilbert and his influence in 1994.

This is nothing new -- and the long exposure has done little to taint Wooden's legacy ... and it shouldn't.

There needs to be perspective here.

Sometimes people have trouble understanding degrees of guilt. Just an example -- the USA had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in WWII. The Nazis had concentration camps for Jews, Communists. gays and gypsies. As the two morally equivilent as some US critics have claimed? Absolutely not ... but just because the American concentration camps weren't anywhere near the blotch on human history that the Nazi camps proved to be, doesn't mean that they aren't a stain on our history. We can condemn the mistake of our forefathers without the hyperbole of comparing it to the Nazis.

John Wooden's program was aided by Sam Gilbert's illegal largess.

Should we condemn that? Yes ... but to then go and link Wooden to serial cheaters such as Jerry Tarkanien, Eddie Sutton and John Calipari is the intellectual equivilent of equating Manzinar to Dachau.

Just to keep this story in perspective:

(1) Wooden never worked with Gilbert, never used him to recruit or help his players and, in fact, made several (unsuccessful) efforts to keep him away from his players.

(2) Gilbert was a jocksniffer who first became involved AFTER UCLA became great ... he was not the reason Wooden first won. His first contact with UCLA players occurred during the 1967-67 season (after Wooden had his first two titles and had recruited Alcindor and company, who would win three more).

(3) No player has ever testified (or evidence emerged) that Gilbert ever influenced a recruit to attend UCLA. His violations were gifts to players already on campus (who may, to be fair, have told prospective recruits, if you come, you'll be taken care of).

(4) Almost every big-time program has sugar daddies. Remember Rick Robey and his racehorse? The $100 handshake is notorious. I'd like to think that Duke was above that and I hope it is today -- but I know when Gene Banks and Kenny Dennard were around, they ate free at a popular restaurant near campus. I also know of an Italian place in Chapel Hill that fed Dean's boys for free for years.

Again, not equating those episodes or the more normal booster gifts with what Gilbert did -- his was worse by a large degree ... but only by degree.

So what does that make Wooden?

A great coach whose honor and dignity was respected by almost everyone who knew him -- and most of those knew about Sam Gilbert.

John Wooden was not a saint and did not run a perfect program, but he was not a cheat and UCLA's dynasty was not built on Sam Gilbert's illegal gifts.

Gilbert is a small, distasteful footnote in John Wooden's life story, not a major chapter and it's a shame that in the hours and days of his death that detractors would try to use it to smear his memory.

[killerleft]

Just to be clear, I don't think the story of Sam Gilbert and his influence over UCLA was exactly kept under wraps until his death.

Jerry Tarkanien was publically complaning about Gilbert in 1971, when he was battling the NCAA. Gene Bartow, who succeeded Wooden, was widely quoted as saying that he feared for his life if he tried to testify against Gilbert (he later "clarified" the quote, but in view of the later evidence that emerged that Gilbert was laundering drug money for the mob, Bartow may have been right). Gilbert's long influence on UCLA basketball was exposed by the NCAA when they slammed Larry Brown's version of the program in 1980. Heck, Time Magazine did a long expose on Gilbert and his influence in 1994.

This is nothing new -- and the long exposure has done little to taint Wooden's legacy ... and it shouldn't.

There needs to be perspective here.

Sometimes people have trouble understanding degrees of guilt. Just an example -- the USA had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans in WWII. The Nazis had concentration camps for Jews, Communists. gays and gypsies. As the two morally equivilent as some US critics have claimed? Absolutely not ... but just because the American concentration camps weren't anywhere near the blotch on human history that the Nazi camps proved to be, doesn't mean that they aren't a stain on our history. We can condemn the mistake of our forefathers without the hyperbole of comparing it to the Nazis.

John Wooden's program was aided by Sam Gilbert's illegal largess.

Should we condemn that? Yes ... but to then go and link Wooden to serial cheaters such as Jerry Tarkanien, Eddie Sutton and John Calipari is the intellectual equivilent of equating Manzinar to Dachau.

Just to keep this story in perspective:

(1) Wooden never worked with Gilbert, never used him to recruit or help his players and, in fact, made several (unsuccessful) efforts to keep him away from his players.

(2) Gilbert was a jocksniffer who first became involved AFTER UCLA became great ... he was not the reason Wooden first won. His first contact with UCLA players occurred during the 1967-67 season (after Wooden had his first two titles and had recruited Alcindor and company, who would win three more).

(3) No player has ever testified (or evidence emerged) that Gilbert ever influenced a recruit to attend UCLA. His violations were gifts to players already on campus (who may, to be fair, have told prospective recruits, if you come, you'll be taken care of).

(4) Almost every big-time program has sugar daddies. Remember Rick Robey and his racehorse? The $100 handshake is notorious. I'd like to think that Duke was above that and I hope it is today -- but I know when Gene Banks and Kenny Dennard were around, they ate free at a popular restaurant near campus. I also know of an Italian place in Chapel Hill that fed Dean's boys for free for years.

Again, not equating those episodes or the more normal booster gifts with what Gilbert did -- his was worse by a large degree ... but only by degree.

So what does that make Wooden?

A great coach whose honor and dignity was respected by almost everyone who knew him -- and most of those knew about Sam Gilbert.

John Wooden was not a saint and did not run a perfect program, but he was not a cheat and UCLA's dynasty was not built on Sam Gilbert's illegal gifts.

Gilbert is a small, distasteful footnote in John Wooden's life story, not a major chapter and it's a shame that in the hours and days of his death that detractors would try to use it to smear his memory.

I have no idea what Wooden knew or didn't know. I merely pointed out that keeping Gilbert's "antics" from becoming a major issue seems to be due to the enormous respect given to Wooden by almost all who knew him.

[Verga3]

Nice piece by Rick O'Reilly. Maybe should be on the other Wooden thread, but he speaks quite personally about the character of John Wooden (and Sam does gets a mention). http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5260677

Agree with all DBR posters who believe we wait a good, long while to do a Gilbert/UCLA program autopsy. If it's still important to any of you after a respectful period, then go for it...whatever IT is. In the meantime, let's respect the family (and extended family) members that may have read these posts...and really do think a lot of Coach K.

[DevilHorns]

I told myself I wasn't going to post on this thread since I now realize that this isn't the time to discuss any of this, but after doing a little reading on the UCLA forum to read thoughts on their coach, I came upon this, and to be honest, I thought it would be better for the DBR community to read it. A lot of forums are having the same debate on whether Wooden's legacy should be discussed at all just as we are. I now firmly hold the stance that it should be closed presently. Here is my last contribution to this thread:

http://bruinzone.com/b12/messages/84236.shtml

This offers an insight into the program from someone who knows the situation first-hand. It's a pretty long post so I can't cut and paste it due to copyright infringement issues, but I feel it's well worth the time.

[greybeard]

I have no idea what Wooden knew or didn't know. I merely pointed out that keeping Gilbert's "antics" from becoming a major issue seems to be due to the enormous respect given to Wooden by almost all who knew him.

There has been some suggestion here that Gilbert was seriously mobbed up. There was a time that people with such ties were not to be trifled with.

It certainly seemed unseemly to talk about the seeming disconnect to the Pyramid and virtue and the coincidence of the tremendous luck in recruiting and Gilbert's largess to kid's who decided UCLA was the place to be during Wooden's later years, which kind of lasted a lifetime. So, had Wooden lived a good long life of 4 score and 4, give or take, this issue would have been ventilated long ago.

It seems to me that if the reality of big time basketball during the Wooden era was filed with Gilbert-types, and if the progenitor of Virtue turned a blind eye to it while being celebrated for all those Championships won the right way and never once discussed the influences on the game and his success, it says something about WINNING that Wooden himself DISCLAIMED.

You can decide how long to wait, but it seems to me that honor was paid to the man and his great accomplishments in his lifetime; perhaps there is something beyond the Pyramid to be learned about what it took to be KING OF THE HILL AND GLORY IN IT all these years. Perhaps that conversation has waited long enough.

[sagegrouse]

I
http://bruinzone.com/b12/messages/84236.shtml

This offers an insight into the program from someone who knows the situation first-hand. It's a pretty long post so I can't cut and paste it due to copyright infringement issues, but I feel it's well worth the time.

I won't quote this at length, but this guy claims all the stuff Sam Gilbert actually did doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The referenced blog is by a guy who lived very close to Sam Gilbert in the Palisades (which was where I lived from 1972-1975) and knew him from the neighborhood and many of the UCLA players while a student there (1971-1975).

sagegrouse

[greybeard]

I won't quote this at length, but this guy claims all the stuff Sam Gilbert actually did doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The referenced blog is by a guy who lived very close to Sam Gilbert in the Palisades (which was where I lived from 1972-1975) and knew him from the neighborhood and many of the UCLA players while a student there (1971-1975).

sagegrouse

Was Sam that charming to attrack world class stars, certainly the stars of Westwood, who must have had other suiters who would have loved to have had them over to Sunday dinner, in droves and over several iterations of the team? You apparently knew the guy. What was the attraction?

Look, Sam as portrayed in this article seems mystically to have attracted a whole slew of UCLA basketball players, super stars in a city of stars, who spent a lot of time around an old guy. For a hot meal and a hair cut? Really.

We do know that Wooden had to agree to bend the rules when it came to William and to own up to it because, well, William, made no secret about his alternative life style and the weed that went with it. I'm not hatin on Wooden for that. I think it was rather progressive of him. On the other hand, it did show more than a little bend in the Pyramid and the virtues that Wooden put forth as the root of his success at Westwood.

It always seemed to me that UCLA had to be the best place ever to play sports--sun, chicks, etc. Only we know now that there are actually many, many finer places to go to school and compete in sports and wink/wink still get the pretty girls. So was it the allure of the Pyramid and the genius of Wooden's leadership, his ability to bring young players into manhood in much the way Phil does through the vehicle of forming an ethos around the Journey of a sports season, that explains his success, or was there something more.

All one hears from his players is how he taught them how to put on their socks and tie their shoe laces. Phil at least had sweat lodges and Lakota rituals to bring the Bulls along.

Sam seems to have had a much stronger attraction to players on a series of UCLA's Championship basketball teams than this article you reference comes close to explaining, at least to me.

[sagegrouse]

Was Sam that charming to attract world class stars, certainly the stars of Westwood, who must have had other suitors who would have loved to have had them over to Sunday dinner, in droves and over several iterations of the team? You apparently knew the guy. What was the attraction?

Not me. Never met him. I just happened to live in Pacific Palisades in the 1970s. And the only time I saw John Wooden in public was at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica at the time one of my children was born.

I did meet Jane Fonda at a restaurant, when she came over to admire our baby (who was later Duke '95).

sagegrouse

[greybeard]

Not me. Never met him. I just happened to live in Pacific Palisades in the 1970s. And the only time I saw John Wooden in public was at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica at the time one of my children was born.

I did meet Jane Fonda at a restaurant, when she came over to admire our baby (who was later Duke '95).

sagegrouse

I'm sure that your kid, cute as I'm sure he was, was just an excuse, you Devil, you.

[cptnflash]

Excellent article about Gilbert over on Basketball Prospectus today.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/...articleid=1153

[Atlanta Duke]

Excellent article about Gilbert over on Basketball Prospectus today.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/...articleid=1153

Thanks for the link - that article lays out the Sam Gilbert saga in great detail

[LSanders]

Fascinating discussion and fascinating topic.

Why? Because of the discordant connection between John Wooden, the papa who appeared to be the straightest of arrows, and John Wooden, the avowed detail-stickler who "tried but couldn't" keep Sam Gilbert from the program.

Ying and yang ... Black and white ... Day and night.

Which was the real Wooden?

The apologists make a valid argument that Wooden was an excellent coach who altered his system to match the talent of his players. (Sound like another Hall-of-Famer we know?) He won with seven-footers. He won with a skilled group of players no taller than 6'5". Clearly, the man knew his way around a basketball court. Why did he go from zero championships to 10 in 12 years? IMO ... Timing. He signed a "wizard" named Goodrich just at the moment his accumulated knowledge and system fell into place. He got smarter and better over the years. Then, once the championship train left the station, the Waltons, Jabbars, etc. were happy to climb aboard.

Detractors then logically ask why Gilbert was allowed to burrow into this vaunted program if his help wasn't needed. After all, we're talking about a man who was so meticulous he started every season by teaching his players how to put on their socks, as well as lacing and tying their shoes to avoid blisters. To imply that Wooden was not intimately aware of Gilbert's actions strains credulity. Wooden knew EVERYTHING about his program. It's been stated that he tried to sever ties between the program and Gilbert. Really? What did he do and how hard did he try? This wasn't Joe Sixpack ... This was John Wooden!! If the Wizard could have performed his magic without Gilbert ... Why didn't he? Why would the man who taught that a person should be more concerned with his character than his reputation, allow his kids to associate with someone whose very character was in question?

I can't get my arms around this issue. It makes no sense. I know that three of the giants of the game ... Krzyzewski - Knight - Smith ... Will not have discussions like this following them. Why Wooden, if he was scrupulously clean? Is the quote attributed to Walton that if Wooden and UCLA had been put under the same microscope as UNLV and Tarkanian eight of its championships would have been vacated true?

From what I've discerned, Wooden was a terrific man and a dedicated teacher ... Of the game and of life. I'm sure that any life touched by him was probably the better for it.

Yet ... It was Wooden who opened this door. He enabled these discussions to take place. So, I will give the man my respect and certainly send my condolences to his family. But, I will not be made to feel guilty for being interested by the articles and opinions. For a college basketball fan, it is one of the more intriguing conundrums in the game.

[greybeard]

Two LA reporters wrote a book in which they gave Wooden the title, The Wizard of Westwood;" he hated it.

[oldnavy]

Not me. Never met him. I just happened to live in Pacific Palisades in the 1970s. And the only time I saw John Wooden in public was at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica at the time one of my children was born.

I did meet Jane Fonda at a restaurant, when she came over to admire our baby (who was later Duke '95).

sagegrouse

Yuk! Why would you tell anyone about that? At least it sounds like your baby survived the encounter thank goodness!

[sagegrouse]

Originally Posted by sagegrouse


I did meet Jane Fonda at a restaurant, when she came over to admire our baby (who was later Duke '95).

sagegrouse

Yuk! Why would you tell anyone about that? At least it sounds like your baby survived the encounter thank goodness!

Uh, nice looking lady? I was holding baby Catherine when I spotted her coming out of an Italian restaurant where we were waiting in line. I turned and whispered to my wife, and when I looked up she was standing next to me. "How old is the baby," she said. My response has not been recorded for posterity.

But I left out the good part. She was with then hubbie Tom Hayden, shortly before he established the People's Republic of Santa Monica, which (thankfully) occurred after I moved east.

sagegrouse