PDA

View Full Version : Wooden's Legacy Tainted?



cspan37421
06-03-2010, 10:37 PM
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
06-03-2010, 11:09 PM
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
06-03-2010, 11:56 PM
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
06-03-2010, 11:57 PM
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
06-04-2010, 12:12 AM
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
06-04-2010, 08:04 AM
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
06-04-2010, 11:01 AM
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/article/0,9171,879296,00.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
06-04-2010, 12:31 PM
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
06-04-2010, 02:52 PM
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
06-04-2010, 03:03 PM
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
06-04-2010, 04:25 PM
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
06-04-2010, 11:43 PM
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
06-05-2010, 05:01 AM
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
06-05-2010, 08:28 AM
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
06-05-2010, 08:54 AM
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
06-05-2010, 09:03 AM
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
06-05-2010, 10:35 AM
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
06-05-2010, 11:54 AM
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
06-05-2010, 02:50 PM
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
06-05-2010, 03:23 PM
this discussions seems both tasteless and ill-timed.

blueprofessor
06-05-2010, 04:06 PM
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/article/0,9171,879296,00.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.

Agreed, and there was never an insinuation that Wooden ever violated recruiting rules or that Gilbert helped recruit any player.

Gilbert was a classic jock-sniffer. He became pals with some players after they came to Westwood.

I rooted against UCLA because they beat my teams. I always respected their clean, team play, as well as Coach Wooden's talent and character.
If you are too young to have seen his teams, you missed something really big.

It means something that ESPN picked Wooden as the greatest coach in any sport of the 20th century. Think about that for a moment.

Best regards. Blueprofessor of ethics

Cameron
06-05-2010, 04:40 PM
There's no denying the Bill Walton "confessions," or the Sam Gilbert cloud that surrounds Wooden's most successful years in Westwood. I very much enjoyed Wooden the human being, for the simple slices of life he shared and the sincerity in which he did so. In that respect, he was genuine. But I do not respect the improprieties Bill Walton has more than hinted toward having taken place while he played for the Bruins. Why would Walton, arguably Wooden's greatest player, lie about such damning assertions?

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.

And that's that.

Someone raised an interesting question earlier, concerning whether or not Coach K is the greatest living coach. In my book, Coach took not only that honor, but also the honor of greatest in history, from Bobby Knight after winning Duke's fourth national title in April.

Wooden was a great man, but the ghosts associated with his past are too apparent. They just happened so long ago that no one cares.

cspan37421
06-05-2010, 05:11 PM
Oh boy. I'm sure it's happened to others before, but this is a first for me.

Although I'm no believer in any "sacred cow", I'd like to go on record that I didn't start or name this thread; it was split off from another thread in which I mentioned - after citing a funny quip that Wooden made about UNLV winning it all "once in a row" - that I had heard that some people said his players received benefits that today would get that program on probation, if not worse. [One of those persons was Bill Walton himself, though he didn't consider the implications to be that bad, more of just what commonly happened in that era.]

That he had many admirable qualities is not something I dispute.

P.S. I actually like Bill Walton a lot, too.

JBDuke
06-05-2010, 06:03 PM
Oh boy. I'm sure it's happened to others before, but this is a first for me.

Although I'm no believer in any "sacred cow", I'd like to go on record that I didn't start or name this thread; it was split off from another thread in which I mentioned - after citing a funny quip that Wooden made about UNLV winning it all "once in a row" - that I had heard that some people said his players received benefits that today would get that program on probation, if not worse. [One of those persons was Bill Walton himself, though he didn't consider the implications to be that bad, more of just what commonly happened in that era.]

That he had many admirable qualities is not something I dispute.

P.S. I actually like Bill Walton a lot, too.

While you didn't name this thread - that was my choice after moving these posts out of the original remembrance thread - you were the one that decided to open the door to talk about Wooden's program at UCLA being not "exactly clean, by modern standards".

cspan37421
06-05-2010, 07:04 PM
While you didn't name this thread - that was my choice after moving these posts out of the original remembrance thread - you were the one that decided to open the door to talk about Wooden's program at UCLA being not "exactly clean, by modern standards".

Did I raise the question? Yes. Was it my claim? No, and unfortunately you chose to leave off words important for context, "But I've heard many say (incl. ex players) that the program wasn't ...." So I'd rather not have ire directed at me; I'm raising the question based on what Bill Walton has already publicly said.

So why bring it up at all? Because our Coach K is often brought up in conversation about who is the best college BB coach - now or ever. To me, evaluating this includes not only titles, wins (or win%), longevity, character, but running a clean program, not landing it on probation through acts of commission or omission. If what Walton (and others) have claimed is true, and our program is as clean as it appears to be, I give the nod to K.

Cockabeau
06-05-2010, 08:44 PM
I don't think this discussion is in bad taste. wooden has even admitted the wrongdoings.

He was a great coach, but at the same time he was working with Top 5 talent every year. How many All star's did the man coach in a 10 year period.

I liken Wooden to a Venus or a Serena Williams. All three of them are great at winning. however are they great champions?KOing glass joe for championships is pretty easy but what are you really made of when you go toe-to-toe with your equal

Big Pappa
06-05-2010, 08:47 PM
I liken Wooden to a Venus or a Serena Williams.

That may be the worst comparison I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

77devil
06-05-2010, 09:24 PM
And in terms of plagarizing[sic], 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.

Plagiarism is plagiarism no matter how you try to justify it. If you are too lazy to cite a reference, don't post. And learn how to spell.

NYC Duke Fan
06-05-2010, 09:42 PM
Quite simply put, John Wooden was the greatest college basketball coach of all time....nothing more needs to be said.

DevilHorns
06-05-2010, 09:56 PM
Plagiarism is plagiarism no matter how you try to justify it. If you are too lazy to cite a reference, don't post. And learn how to spell.

I sense some misplaced anger in your post. Hope everything at the household is fine.

Also, English is not my native tongue. I'm trying.

Newton_14
06-05-2010, 10:31 PM
Just my opinion, but posting negative comments whether factual or not about Wooden within 24 hours of his death is highly inappropriate in my book.

Seriously, the man just passed. We should celebrate his life and the many great things he did in his 99 years on this earth. 10 years from now if you want to argue over his legacy, then fine. To do it now is disrespectful to the man and his memory.

RIP JW, You will be missed by many..

Bay Area Duke Fan
06-05-2010, 10:41 PM
He was a great coach, but at the same time he was working with Top 5 talent every year.


You really don't know what you're talking about.

Spret42
06-06-2010, 12:01 AM
I don't think this discussion is in bad taste. wooden has even admitted the wrongdoings.

He was a great coach, but at the same time he was working with Top 5 talent every year. How many All star's did the man coach in a 10 year period.

I liken Wooden to a Venus or a Serena Williams. All three of them are great at winning. however are they great champions?KOing glass joe for championships is pretty easy but what are you really made of when you go toe-to-toe with your equal

WOW.
There are no words. Wait. There are. When they write the history of being wrong, that post is the lead paragraph and closing argument for how to be wrong. There will never be anything written or thought that is more wrong than that post. That post is so far from right, it would take light 45 million years to traverse the distance.
WOW.

blueprofessor
06-06-2010, 05:25 AM
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.

As a general principle ,okay. However, if you do not do right by your top producers before they demand it, you are likely to lose them to an organization that will appreciate them by presenting fair compensation. Coach Wooden was the top producer in sports coaching at the time---the top! This man you want to make happy.

And J.D. Morgan and Wooden were a very small organization of two.
Morgan gambled he could grossly lowball Wooden. He got away with it until 1975.
In 1975, Wooden was 64 (1 year older than Coach K now) and he resigned at the peak of his talent.

If he and Nell had been a little happier (and he did not like Morgan or appreciate being paid "less than a low-rung assistant" at a lesser program), he well may have coached until he was older( perhaps until 70, as we all hope Coach K will)---and through the period the neurotic cheater (Larry Brown ) was at UCLA---thereby making his hire (with the NCAA rule violations ) unnecessary.

Best regards- Blueprofessor:)

davekay1971
06-06-2010, 11:03 AM
And J.D. Morgan and Wooden were a very small organization of two.
Morgan gambled he could grossly lowball Wooden. He got away with it until 1975.
In 1975, Wooden was 64 (1 year older than Coach K now) and he resigned at the peak of his talent.

If he and Nell had been a little happier (and he did not like Morgan or appreciate being paid "less than a low-rung assistant" at a lesser program), he well may have coached until he was older( perhaps until 70, as we all hope Coach K will)---and through the period the neurotic cheater (Larry Brown ) was at UCLA---thereby making his hire (with the NCAA rule violations ) unnecessary.

Best regards- Blueprofessor:)

And, even more importantly, UCLA could have had a longer association with the class and dignity of Wooden, rather than smearing themselves with the slime of being associated (however indirectly) with UNC! That's a stink you just can't wash off, and, no doubt, led inevitably to the ethical morass of the Harrick years. Shows what mistreating a good man will get you - swift and eternal punishment from the basketball gods. Evidence that the vengeance of the gods is continuing: The Wears...

sagegrouse
06-06-2010, 12:58 PM
And J.D. Morgan and Wooden were a very small organization of two.
Morgan gambled he could grossly lowball Wooden. He got away with it until 1975.
In 1975, Wooden was 64 (1 year older than Coach K now) and he resigned at the peak of his talent.

If he and Nell had been a little happier (and he did not like Morgan or appreciate being paid "less than a low-rung assistant" at a lesser program), he well may have coached until he was older( perhaps until 70, as we all hope Coach K will)---and through the period the neurotic cheater (Larry Brown ) was at UCLA---thereby making his hire (with the NCAA rule violations ) unnecessary.

Best regards- Blueprofessor:)

I lived in LA during three of Wooden's last four years. I am having trouble believing the Wooden-omics are as bad as represented. I mean, this was still Hollywood. There was a very good set of sports reporters, led by the legendary columnist Jim Murray, who never missed a trick. There was a real crazy man with a daily radio sports show, Jim Healy, the boxing announcer, who hated J.D. Morgan and never missed a chance to give him the needle. And I don't ever remember Wooden's salary being an issue.

Of course, $45,000 was a decent salary in the early 70s. That's what U.S. Cabinet officers made. A nice house -- not a Hollywood mansion -- cost 100 grand. A few years later you would need to double those numbers.

Didn't he have a TV show, speaking engagements, or other sources of income to supplement the salary?

And this notion that the greatest recruiter of all time couldn't negotiate a fair salary does seem like a "Hmmm?" moment.

I mean, John Wooden was a god, and if there were ever any suggestion he was being shafted financially, the heavens would have erupted. Every UCLA alum would have screamed bloody murder. And a mountain of cash would have appeared outside his door.

I hate to be so skeptical, but then I like to Grouse.

sagegrouse
'Of course, J.D. Morgan did hire the worthless Pepper Rodgers to replace the illustrious Duke grad, Tommy Prothro, as football coach, so I guess anything is possible'

greybeard
06-06-2010, 02:13 PM
If we're going to quote from the Great Bard, how bout from the most off quoted portion of the very play:

"The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones."

I think now is the perfect time to ventilate the issue of Sam's involvment with the program. If a man of Wooden's stature could not keep his players away from Sam it speaks only to Wooden's desire to win Championships over his commitment to the Pyrimad. There really is no other way to look at it, now is there! Not bad to be ambitious but, to quote from the same soliloque, "ambition should be made of sterner stuff."

In the end, I go with my man Allan, Bloom that is, "The errors of great men a vernable," we shall learn from them more "than from the truths of lesser men."

John Wooden was a Giant, but he didn't quite walk the talk as far as I can see and was happy to take a pass. The last part of that sentence is, to me, the really interesting part, but that is for another day, "lest I do Walton wrong, and Wicks wrong, and . . . wrong, . . . then I should wrong myslef and you." Ah, the Bard

cspan37421
06-06-2010, 02:41 PM
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."

hq2
06-06-2010, 06:30 PM
I think the question most people wanted to know about Sam Gilbert was, how much did Wooden know, and did he really try to stop it. He obviously had to know what was going on; Wooden was too meticulous and detail obsessed not to. But did he really try very hard to stop it, or did he just look the other way? It would have been nice if on his deathbed, he had cleared the matter up. Now, he goes to his grave without really defending his reputation. All we'll know now is what his ex players have to say, and I actually have not heard any of them say he had any involvement with Gilbert. Maybe Walton or Jabbar or some of the rest will tell us what they know when their time comes. But that's still a ways off.

77devil
06-06-2010, 06:47 PM
I sense some misplaced anger in your post. Hope everything at the household is fine.

Also, English is not my native tongue. I'm trying.

I take attribution seriously. You should too.

Poincaré
06-06-2010, 08:23 PM
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
06-06-2010, 08:35 PM
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
06-07-2010, 12:27 AM
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
06-07-2010, 09:24 AM
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
06-07-2010, 11:15 AM
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
06-07-2010, 12:04 PM
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
06-07-2010, 08:07 PM
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
06-07-2010, 11:11 PM
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
06-07-2010, 11:18 PM
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
06-08-2010, 01:04 AM
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
06-08-2010, 11:04 AM
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
06-08-2010, 11:54 AM
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
06-08-2010, 01:01 PM
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
06-08-2010, 06:48 PM
Excellent article about Gilbert over on Basketball Prospectus today.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1153

Atlanta Duke
06-08-2010, 07:02 PM
Excellent article about Gilbert over on Basketball Prospectus today.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1153

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

LSanders
06-10-2010, 02:18 PM
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
06-10-2010, 05:59 PM
Two LA reporters wrote a book in which they gave Wooden the title, The Wizard of Westwood;" he hated it.

oldnavy
06-11-2010, 06:26 AM
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
06-12-2010, 12:19 AM
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