Knight and The Fab Five

[tbyers11]

It wasn't the baggy shorts. It was the black shoes and black socks MIXED with the baggy shorts worn by a group of hip hop loving freshmen.

It wasn't that they were the first all black team. It was the fact that they were all freshmen and the first of the "hip hop" kids to come thru. It was the individual rankings. The way they committed. The first time some KIDS decided to make a championship team (and they did indeed rule their conference). They rapped. They danced. They dunked on people viciously.

They WERE a hip hop phenomenon. They were fabulous.

Considering the respective lengths of Webber and Howard's careers and the fact that one of the group ended up with a NBA championship, I'm of the viewpoint that they are probably celebrated right about where they should be.

Fab Five was a very good team. They won a lot of games. Made it to 2 National Championship games. They had a BIG cultural impact. However, they NEVER won a Big Ten conference championship. T-3 in 1992 (Ohio State won) and 2nd to Indiana in 1993. Big Ten did not have a conference tourney then.

[ncexnyc]

I think he meant something more like this:

That's pretty much the look, however back in the day it would have been black shoes with laces. The hat would have been one of those staw fedoras. And on a really hot day the shirt would be open exposing the classic white guido t-shirt. Also you need a can of Rheingold in a brown paper bag to make this photo complete.

[oldnavy]

What many fail to realize is that at the time Michigan as a University was FRESH off of a championship and the University as a whole was winning in a major way (Heisman Trophy too). They were the cherry on top for Michigan athletics. (love the UK comparison btw)

And while I don't necessarily like how Greybeard is stating his opinion - there's some truth in it. These KIDS came in and got what they wanted and they brought their "hoods" with them, something that many were forced to give up on the court. They represented and they are revered for that. Sometimes the game is about more than championships - sometimes the game really IS life. If you disagree then I doubt you were a teenage black male in 1992. Let's not forget at this VERY same time Allen Iverson was at Georgetown CONFORMING to John Thompson's program. But you don't hear me though...

SupraDave, I find myself in the very rare position of having to disagree with you.

The 'cherry on top' as you call them left a big old stain on the UM program that has taken the program years to recover from.

At the time, I didn't really care for them because I saw them as a major threat to Duke on the court, however I admired their collective and individual talent.

But now I find very little to admire about them as a group. They came in and made a big 'cultural splash' due mainly to media hype, didn't win a title of any kind, and left the program in worse shape for them having been there.

How do you reconcile the blemish that they left on the University with the various scandles and NCAA violations?

What viture(s) did they possess or represent that deserves admiration? What am I missing?

[Indoor66]

Yep, I meant 1991, not 2001. Those pesky decades keep messing me up. Unfortunately, I have been through a lot of them. -- sagegrouse

What the heck do you mean "unfortunately"? Jarhead, Jim3k and others, along with me, take umbrage at that. Consider the alternative, young man.

[tommy]

What many fail to realize is that at the time Michigan as a University was FRESH off of a championship and the University as a whole was winning in a major way (Heisman Trophy too). They were the cherry on top for Michigan athletics. (love the UK comparison btw)

And while I don't necessarily like how Greybeard is stating his opinion - there's some truth in it. These KIDS came in and got what they wanted and they brought their "hoods" with them, something that many were forced to give up on the court. They represented and they are revered for that. Sometimes the game is about more than championships - sometimes the game really IS life. If you disagree then I doubt you were a teenage black male in 1992. Let's not forget at this VERY same time Allen Iverson was at Georgetown CONFORMING to John Thompson's program. But you don't hear me though...

Their "hoods" meaning the leafy suburb of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, where Chris Webber went to high school at Detroit Country Day? Ray Jackson and Jimmy King come from Austin and Plano, Texas; neither was the type of "inner city" environment they sought to portray themselves as being from.

But be that as it may. The Fab 5 really was a celebration of style over substance. They wore baggy shorts and black socks? So what? That makes them latter-day Jackie Robinsons or Muhammad Ali's? Granted, I wasn't a young black guy in the early '90's, but my answer would be: no. Not even close.

The thing that I'm surprised gets forgotten so easily by those who sing the praises of the Fab 5 is that the real cultural trailblazers were John Thompson's Georgetown teams a decade earlier, as well as Tark's UNLV teams, including those Rebel teams who played right around the same time as Michigan's guys were getting all their hype. The Thompson-Ewing Hoyas, they of "Hoya Paranoia," were the true inner city, all-black teams who rocked the establishment with their swarming, intimidating style of play, and their attitude. They are the ones who opened doors for future teams and coaches. And oh by the way, they won championships. If I was someone involved with that program at that time, I would resent the hell out of the Michigan players claiming the mantle of true challengers to the white status quo, when it was me and my teammates who were the first. It was Georgetown who had substance; Michigan, only style. And even their style was, ultimately, derivative. It was the Michigan players who didn't have the focus, discipline, maturity, and respect necessary to harness the great skills they had, in order to be champions. Georgetown and, later, UNLV, did.

[SupaDave]

SupraDave, I find myself in the very rare position of having to disagree with you.

The 'cherry on top' as you call them left a big old stain on the UM program that has taken the program years to recover from.

At the time, I didn't really care for them because I saw them as a major threat to Duke on the court, however I admired their collective and individual talent.

But now I find very little to admire about them as a group. They came in and made a big 'cultural splash' due mainly to media hype, didn't win a title of any kind, and left the program in worse shape for them having been there.

How do you reconcile the blemish that they left on the University with the various scandles and NCAA violations?

What viture(s) did they possess or represent that deserves admiration? What am I missing?

You're not disagreeing with me. It was a cherry on top at the time. The scourge and trail of deception left by Ed Martin devastated the program and I'm still a bit bitter about their treatment of Tommy. Honestly, I too celebrated their demise as a Duke fan and family member to many Ohio State fans.

They didn't win any title but they won quite a bit and considering that freshmen hadn't been doing that too often - they won in a major way. They helped change recruiting and they made coaches and programs be more honest with the public and themselves. They also helped start a trend that carried over to Michigan State with the star players staying at home. Their impact has been far reaching.

Michigan was a full participant in the chaos and profited greatly off the backs of those student athletes and thusly I could care less about how they were affected. But hey - if Michigan itself can come around then so can I...

Actually this just gave me a thought for a thread...

[Starter]

SupraDave, I find myself in the very rare position of having to disagree with you.

The 'cherry on top' as you call them left a big old stain on the UM program that has taken the program years to recover from.

At the time, I didn't really care for them because I saw them as a major threat to Duke on the court, however I admired their collective and individual talent.

But now I find very little to admire about them as a group. They came in and made a big 'cultural splash' due mainly to media hype, didn't win a title of any kind, and left the program in worse shape for them having been there.

How do you reconcile the blemish that they left on the University with the various scandles and NCAA violations?

What viture(s) did they possess or represent that deserves admiration? What am I missing?

I think it's been touched upon just how relevant, influential and successful they were at the time -- and in terms of reshaping basketball uniforms forever, to boot -- so I'll leave that be.

To play devil's advocate on a different topic, it's difficult for me to cast too much scorn on the Fab 5 for the Ed Martin situation when Corey Maggette essentially did the same thing. I was stunned Duke avoided sanctions and such on that, though I was obviously not broken up about it -- I mean, it's not like I'd prefer that -- but I remember thinking at the time that story broke two years after the fact that it was a near-certainty at the time they'd have their NCAA runner-up status revoked from the '99 team. I recall that the difference is the NCAA inferred that the Michigan program had knowledge of Martin and what he was doing, while Duke was ruled to have no idea about Piggie. But then, why should the players be blamed for all those Michigan sanctions? Webber's role was pretty much the same as Maggette's; it's the coaches and athletic departments that were determined to have the culpability that mattered here, right?

If I have anything wrong here historically, I mean, it's possible. I'm just recalling this stuff off the top. And I apologize if this is a tired topic that nobody cares about anymore, or if it's a taboo topic here. But like, why should Webber and such be damned for this while Maggette gets away scot-free? If anything, it's the coaches and athletic department that brought UM down with whatever knowledge of the situation they were deemed to have, not the players who actually took the money. Because if that were true, Duke wouldn't have its 1999 Final Four banner either, and that might have just been the start.

[Duvall]

I think it's been touched upon just how relevant, influential and successful they were at the time -- and in terms of reshaping basketball uniforms forever, to boot -- so I'll leave that be.

To play devil's advocate on a different topic, it's difficult for me to cast too much scorn on the Fab 5 for the Ed Martin situation when Corey Maggette essentially did the same thing.

That's a pretty remarkable stretch, given Martin's decade-long ties to Michigan head and assistant coaches over the years. There's just no comparison to be made to the Maggette situation.

[Starter]

That's a pretty remarkable stretch, given Martin's decade-long ties to Michigan head and assistant coaches over the years. There's just no comparison to be made to the Maggette situation.

There is, if you consider the Fab 5 themselves are being blamed here for bringing down the program with their involvement. My point was they did the same basic thing Maggette did. People are trying to delegitimize the Fab 5 by implying they brought the whole program down for a number of years. It doesn't absolve them, but I don't think it's right to pin all the misfortune that befell the program on Webber and Co., or even a lot of it. If the program had not been tangled with Martin, had no knowledge of the situation and such, there would have been no sanctions whatsoever, assuming the NCAA would have stayed consistent. You've offered further evidence with your link why we should realize that distinction exists.

Tommy, by the way, had an interesting point I missed earlier in that those Hoyas teams were most definitely the predecessor to the Fab 5 in terms of cultural relevance. I recall Spike Lee citing them as a touchstone for his own modern understanding of basketball. If anything, with Ewing offering the intimidation he was, they played the part a little better. But I would contend the Fab 5 had a combination of style AND substance, kind of a version of Georgetown's Public Enemy-inflected image updated for the MTV-dominated popular culture of the time. Just because Georgetown came first doesn't mean that both can't be relevant, or that the Fab 5 couldn't have established a vibe and oeuvre all their own. If not, then very few rock bands since the Beatles were worth a damn.

[greybeard]

Fab Five was a very good team. They won a lot of games. Made it to 2 National Championship games. They had a BIG cultural impact. However, they NEVER won a Big Ten conference championship. T-3 in 1992 (Ohio State won) and 2nd to Indiana in 1993. Big Ten did not have a conference tourney then.

I forget for a second, who were the five starters on either of those teams? All five.

[Duvall]

I forget for a second, who were the five starters on either of those teams? All five.

I don't anyone has suggested that the Michigan players lacked for fame - they certainly talk enough even today to keep anyone from forgetting, even if they wanted. It's championships where they are lacking.

[BD80]

Their "hoods" meaning the leafy suburb of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, where Chris Webber went to high school at Detroit Country Day? Ray Jackson and Jimmy King come from Austin and Plano, Texas; neither was the type of "inner city" environment they sought to portray themselves as being from. ...

It bears noting that the one member of the Fab Five that was the "most" inner city, Juwan Howard, was the most coachable, the most willing to endure "oppressive" coaching. He earned a long career and a ring by being coachable and a team player, including on the defensive end. The other two top recruits were far less "coachable" - it took Webber years in the pros to figure out that he needed to play defense, and Jalen never figured it out. These guys weren't "street" they were egomaniacs, more into themselves than in playing basketball to the best of their abilities.

[Cameron]

I forget for a second, who were the five starters on either of those teams? All five.

This is actually a superb point, and why the Fab Five are so iconic. Show me a serious college basketball fan, and I will show you somebody who knows all five of those kids' names. They were sort of like a rap group in that sense. Outside of Duke, '91 Vegas, '92 UK, a few UNC clubs or various teams we have played in the NCAAs throughout the years, there are no other teams in college basketball history for which I could name the starting five, and certainly none from 1992.

To believe that because they never won a national championship they left no impact on the game of college basketball is just silly.

[NashvilleDevil]

I still have my shirt, but it is reallllllly too small for me now.

ricks

I don't know what happened to mine but I still have the Duke Takes the Bite Out of Tark's Sharks shirt.

[tommy]

I forget for a second, who were the five starters on either of those teams? All five.

That's just the point. It wasn't about team success for the Fab 5. Look at me and my baggy shorts and my scowl. For the record, Michigan split with Ohio State in '92 (led by Jim Jackson) and were swept by Indiana (led by Calbert Cheaney) in '93, so they lost three of four.

[throatybeard]

I don't know what happened to mine but I still have the Duke Takes the Bite Out of Tark's Sharks shirt.

Me too, but it's bout near disintegrated because I wore it every third day for the next three or four years.

Ignoring the racialization of the words "thug" and "thuggish," I didn't perceive the Fab Five as thuggish at all, at the time, partly because in the Final Four, they played Cincinnati--who everyone perceived as thuggish. Why this is, I forget. I did root for IU over them, but I also don't remember why.

[77devil]

This is actually a superb point, and why the Fab Five are so iconic. Show me a serious college basketball fan, and I will show you somebody who knows all five of those kids' names. They were sort of like a rap group in that sense. Outside of Duke, '91 Vegas, '92 UK, a few UNC clubs or various teams we have played in the NCAAs throughout the years, there are no other teams in college basketball history for which I could name the starting five, and certainly none from 1992.

To believe that because they never won a national championship they left no impact on the game of college basketball is just silly.

Bob Knight wasn't referring to the Fab 5's impact on the game whatever that means. He simply stated they were the most overrated which is arguably true.

[NashvilleDevil]

Me too, but it's bout near disintegrated because I wore it every third day for the next three or four years.

When we go to my Mom's I get it out of the drawer to look at the tattered shirt. One day it will end up in shirt heaven with your shirt and Jerry Seinfeld's golden boy

[throatybeard]

When we go to my Mom's I get it out of the drawer to look at the tattered shirt. One day it will end up in shirt heaven with your shirt and Jerry Seinfeld's golden boy

What my mother in law did with all my wife's 1990-era shirts was cut out the design and sew them into a massive quilt. It's a rather striking document of the era.

My wife is petite and can still wear my 1986 ACC Championship shirt.

[Cameron]

Bob Knight wasn't referring to the Fab 5's impact on the game whatever that means. He simply stated they were the most overrated which is arguably true.

I was referring to those here who act like nothing the Fab Five did is remembered today. They were rock stars. And like any significant rock band that ever made it famous, the Fab Five is remembered.

By impact on the game I simply mean that the Fab Five left a lasting legacy. Their chapter in college basketball history will never be forgotten.