Bobby Knight says what we all want to say

[BD80]

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/bob-knight-slams-legendary-coach-john-wooden-says-ucla-cheated-in-recruiting/

"I have a lot of respect for Wooden as a coach, how he coached," Knight said. "He was a good coach. But from then on, and I don't mind saying it, I don't respect Wooden, because he allowed Sam Gilbert to do whatever it took to recruit kids.
"And one time [Wooden] told me, he said, 'I just didn't know how to deal with Sam Gilbert.' And I'm saying to myself, 'I damn sure could have dealt with him.'"

[dudog84]

I saw that also. Would someone please ask him about uNC.

[BandAlum83]

After 2016, I don't put much stock into anything Bobby Knight says....

[Duke95]

After 2016, I don't put much stock into anything Bobby Knight says...

Exactly. +1

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Oh geez. I forgot about Bobby Knight 2016

[Devil549]

You don't have to put stock in what coach Knight says but he is right......Wooden knew what was going on also IIRC never won a NCAA Championship until Gilbert became the money man for the team. Bill Walton in an interview said he bought 10 speed bikes for the team when he was a rookie in NBA. If you think Wooden did not know about the bikes then I have some beach front property for you real cheap in Nebraska.

Earlier post asked about Knight's thoughts on UNC and DES knowing about fake classes, Knight might refuse to answer but DES knew in fact for those who think he did not same property at 1/2 price is available.

[Jeffrey]

It's pretty easy to find fault with what other people did in the 60's & 70's when you put a 2017 lens on it.

IMO, Wooden coached the GOAT college basketball player. Few players were as challenging to coach as Bill Walton.

IMO, Wooden and K are the two GOAT college basketball coaches. Knight does not make my top 10. Bobby needs better mirrors.

[Atlanta Duke]

Knight does not make my top 10. Bobby needs better mirrors.

Last undefeated men's national champion and three national championships - he is a horrible person but I cannot see 10 coaches (men and women combined) who make the list ahead of him

[Henderson]

I'm not going to pile on Bob Knight for his behavior in the past 20 years. That said...

It's been almost 50 years since John Wooden won a national championship, his first coming in 1964. Bob Knight was an NCAA Division I head coach starting in 1965 and an assistant before that. He was a DI coach throughout the Wooden championship era.

Was he ringing alarm bells back then? Did he report his concerns at the time? Did he press them? It just seems awfully late, 50 years on, for Bob Knight to be crying about this now, seven years after John Wooden's death when Wooden can no longer respond.

[Jeffrey]

Was he ringing alarm bells back then? Did he report his concerns at the time? Did he press them? It just seems awfully late, 50 years on, for Bob Knight to be crying about this now, seven years after John Wooden's death when Wooden can no longer respond.

Nope, Americans seem to consistently want to first discuss bad behavior 30-50 years after the fact. I'm not sure why many Americans consider that great bravery.

It's pretty easy to find fault with what other people did in the 60's & 70's when you put a 2017 lens on it.

[Atlanta Duke]

I'm not going to pile on Bob Knight for his behavior in the past 20 years. That said...

It's been almost 50 years since John Wooden won a national championship, his first coming in 1964. Bob Knight was an NCAA Division I head coach starting in 1965 and an assistant before that. He was a DI coach throughout the Wooden championship era.

Was he ringing alarm bells back then? Did he report his concerns at the time? Did he press them? It just seems awfully late, 50 years on, for Bob Knight to be crying about this now, seven years after John Wooden's death when Wooden can no longer respond.

This beef goes back to before Coach Wooden's death and the criticism went in both directions - this article ran in 2010 shortly after Coach Wooden passed

Knight has publicly stated that Wooden let the likes of Sam Gilbert, a notorious booster who allegedly provided some UCLA players with gifts in violation of NCAA rules, remain far too close to the Bruins’ program...

“I wouldn’t want anybody I love to play for Bob Knight,” Wooden once said.

https://www.ibj.com/blogs/4-the-score/post/20398-differences-drove-wedge-between-knight-and-wooden?v=preview?v=preview

[Jeffrey]

Last undefeated men's national champion and three national championships - he is a horrible person but I cannot see 10 coaches (men and women combined) who make the list ahead of him

You're right! To be honest, I did not start to create a top 10 list. Upon reflection, I'd have him at 6 (behind Wooden, K, Rupp, Summitt, and Auriemma). While I'm confessing, I'd put Smith at 7.

[cato]

Last undefeated men's national champion and three national championships - he is a horrible person but I cannot see 10 coaches (men and women combined) who make the list ahead of him

Indeed. Unlike his more successful protege, Robert Montgomery Knight did not keep pace with the changes in college basketball or the culture of the kids who play it. But he is one of the great coaches. Period.

Who ranks ahead of Knight? Of the modern coaches, I would only put K and potentially Calipari (he needs to improve his resume to get there, but he certainly is on the way) ahead of Knight.

One could argue Dean Smith accomplished more, but I would take Knight’s undefeated season, edge in championships and overall wins. Actually, now that I type that, I don’t see how you rank Smith above Knight. Maybe put them in the same band below K and Wooden.

Who else? Not Roy; not Boeheim; not Pitino; not John Thompson Jr; not Billy Donovan. Not Calhoun — to inconsistent. Not Lute Olson.

On the women’s side, you have to put Pat Summit and Geno Auriemma above Knight.

So:

K
Wooden
Summit
Auriemma
Knight

Going back before the modern era, I don’t know what you do with figures like Phog Allen and Adolph Rupp. But even if you put them above The General, he is still comfortably top 10.

Finally, since we are talking about coaching, I think you have to give Knight a bump for being such an important influence on the greatest men’s basketball coach of all.

To bad he isn’t as complete of a person as K.

ETA: Jeffrey beat me to the punch, but didn’t show his work, so I award myself more credit.

[cato]

This beef goes back to before Coach Wooden's death and the criticism went in both directions - this article ran in 2010 shortly after Coach Wooden passed

Knight has publicly stated that Wooden let the likes of Sam Gilbert, a notorious booster who allegedly provided some UCLA players with gifts in violation of NCAA rules, remain far too close to the Bruins’ program...

“I wouldn’t want anybody I love to play for Bob Knight,” Wooden once said.

https://www.ibj.com/blogs/4-the-score/post/20398-differences-drove-wedge-between-knight-and-wooden?v=preview?v=preview

And both men had a point.

I will note that K has expressed nothing but admiration for Wooden, which makes me reconsider every time I want to take the Gilbert thing too far.

[Jeffrey]

ETA: Jeffrey beat me to the punch, but didn’t show his work, so I award myself more credit.

Agreed, you win. However, be careful showing your work in our highly litigious society. I'd rather give up the points.

[jimsumner]

I've heard this story from multiple sources.

Shortly after Gene Bartow took over as Wooden's replacement, he walked into his surprisingly unlocked office.

He found a man sitting in his chair, with his feet on the desk.

Bartow asked the man who he was and what he was doing in his office.

"I'm the man who got you hired and I'm the man who can get you fired."

It was Sam Gilbert.

Bartow lasted two seasons at UCLA.

[Jeffrey]

I've heard this story from multiple sources.

Shortly after Gene Bartow took over as Wooden's replacement, he walked into his surprisingly unlocked office.

He found a man sitting in his chair, with his feet on the desk.

Bartow asked the man who he was and what he was doing in his office.

"I'm the man who got you hired and I'm the man who can get you fired."

It was Sam Gilbert.

Bartow lasted two seasons at UCLA.

As usual, IMO, the best post of the thread. Thanks!

[wobatus]

Indeed. Unlike his more successful protege, Robert Montgomery Knight did not keep pace with the changes in college basketball or the culture of the kids who play it. But he is one of the great coaches. Period.

Who ranks ahead of Knight? Of the modern coaches, I would only put K and potentially Calipari (he needs to improve his resume to get there, but he certainly is on the way) ahead of Knight.

One could argue Dean Smith accomplished more, but I would take Knight’s undefeated season, edge in championships and overall wins. Actually, now that I type that, I don’t see how you rank Smith above Knight. Maybe put them in the same band below K and Wooden.

Who else? Not Roy; not Boeheim; not Pitino; not John Thompson Jr; not Billy Donovan. Not Calhoun — to inconsistent. Not Lute Olson.

On the women’s side, you have to put Pat Summit and Geno Auriemma above Knight.

So:

K
Wooden
Summit
Auriemma
Knight

Going back before the modern era, I don’t know what you do with figures like Phog Allen and Adolph Rupp. But even if you put them above The General, he is still comfortably top 10.

Finally, since we are talking about coaching, I think you have to give Knight a bump for being such an important influence on the greatest men’s basketball coach of all.

To bad he isn’t as complete of a person as K.

ETA: Jeffrey beat me to the punch, but didn’t show his work, so I award myself more credit.

I think Knight is a top 10 men's coach, certainly. I would go Smith over Knight. The undefeated season only goes so far to me. And yes, it's 3 championships to 2. Then there's head to head. Dean actually had a 3-2 record versus Knight, but the 2 losses were in the title game in '81 and the NCAAs in 1984, the biggest profile games. Even at that I give the edge to Dean. .776 winning percentage to .706 for Knight. Just at Indiana Knight was .731. And it's 11 Final 4s to 5. Flags fly forever, but I think as a fan you want as many trips to the Final 4 and Elite 8 as possible. Knight's teams were less consistently good, probably because he could squeeze the most out of some teams, but some teams couldn't take the strain. More mercurial, and inconsistent.

Then there's the question of innovation. Staying away from who came up with what defense or offense. I'm not going to say 4 corners was some big innovation. But Dean did pioneer tempo free stats, points per possession, which became a big part of advanced analytics after he was gone.

All leaving aside questions about the paper classes, or Knight's treatment of players. Strictly as a coach, it's close, but I'd go with Smith for a program (maybe concede Knight in a season on the line game, but I don't think I'd overplay the extra title or 2 NCAA games as the tell-all proof).

As for Roy William and Knight, well, there you actually have Williams with the same number of titles. A career winning percentage of .791 to .706 (and again, Knight at .731 at Indiana if you want to compare just his tenure at a traditional basketball power). Final 4s it's 9 for Williams to 5 for Knight. And 5-1 head to head, including the '91 Sweet 16 and the '93 Elite 8.

Wooden is #1 even with Gilbert, i think. K is in the conversation, and much harder to win titles now. Easier to make the field (since not just 1 per conference like long ago, although the ACC was a tougher conference I think), but more games to win, 3 point shot evens the field a bit. UCLA also had the advantage, at least compared to Bubas's early teams and Dean's early teams, of being able to recruit across racial lines. Walt Hazzard was mvp of '64 NCAAs. Then he gets Alcindor and from there the snowball kept rolling until David Thompson and NC state.

BTW, I don't know if Gilbert was around for Wooden's first 2 titles. Jerry Norman was. He was the assistant who did the recruiting Wooden hated, but more than that he was the one who supposedly convinced Wooden to use the full-court zone press. Before he got there UCLA went to 3 NCAAs in 13 years and lost their opening game each time.

[Devil549]

You don't have to put stock in what coach Knight says but he is right...Wooden knew what was going on also IIRC never won a NCAA Championship until Gilbert became the money man for the team. Bill Walton in an interview said he bought 10 speed bikes for the team when he was a rookie in NBA. If you think Wooden did not know about the bikes then I have some beach front property for you real cheap in Nebraska.

Earlier post asked about Knight's thoughts on UNC and DES knowing about fake classes, Knight might refuse to answer but DES knew in fact for those who think he did not same property at 1/2 price is available.

You can think what you like but Knight talked about this in the late 70s and early 80s....really not Knight's job to police other schools. Maybe he did call NCAA office maybe not but IMO with out Gilbert UCLA does not win all those Championships......not the only factor but one of the biggest factor in Wooden's success. Yes he was a great man and coach but he had help just like the fake classes helped UNC.

[johnb]

One won with some of the greatest players of all time, and he did so graciously and with interpersonal restraint, and he won as a direct result of years and years of directly-condoned cheating.

The other won with excellent but not awesome college players, and he did so with episodic outbursts and rudeness, and without a hint of an ethical lapse.

If I were choosing a coach for my child, I know that I would prefer s/he play for the one with an ethical backbone rather than one with a polished personality but a win-at-any-cost moral framework.

[sagegrouse]

You can think what you like but Knight talked about this in the late 70s and early 80s...really not Knight's job to police other schools. Maybe he did call NCAA office maybe not but IMO with out Gilbert UCLA does not win all those Championships...not the only factor but one of the biggest factor in Wooden's success. Yes he was a great man and coach but he had help just like the fake classes helped UNC.

When was the Sports Illustrated story that exposed Gilbert? I thought it was more than 30 years ago. Seems to me that the story was pretty well documented, giving anyone a license to comment then or now.

[cato]

I think Knight is a top 10 men's coach, certainly. I would go Smith over Knight. The undefeated season only goes so far to me. And yes, it's 3 championships to 2. Then there's head to head. Dean actually had a 3-2 record versus Knight, but the 2 losses were in the title game in '81 and the NCAAs in 1984, the biggest profile games. Even at that I give the edge to Dean. .776 winning percentage to .706 for Knight. Just at Indiana Knight was .731. And it's 11 Final 4s to 5. Flags fly forever, but I think as a fan you want as many trips to the Final 4 and Elite 8 as possible. Knight's teams were less consistently good, probably because he could squeeze the most out of some teams, but some teams couldn't take the strain. More mercurial, and inconsistent.

Then there's the question of innovation. Staying away from who came up with what defense or offense. I'm not going to say 4 corners was some big innovation. But Dean did pioneer tempo free stats, points per possession, which became a big part of advanced analytics after he was gone.

All leaving aside questions about the paper classes, or Knight's treatment of players. Strictly as a coach, it's close, but I'd go with Smith for a program (maybe concede Knight in a season on the line game, but I don't think I'd overplay the extra title or 2 NCAA games as the tell-all proof).

As for Roy William and Knight, well, there you actually have Williams with the same number of titles. A career winning percentage of .791 to .706 (and again, Knight at .731 at Indiana if you want to compare just his tenure at a traditional basketball power). Final 4s it's 9 for Williams to 5 for Knight. And 5-1 head to head, including the '91 Sweet 16 and the '93 Elite 8.

Wooden is #1 even with Gilbert, i think. K is in the conversation, and much harder to win titles now. Easier to make the field (since not just 1 per conference like long ago, although the ACC was a tougher conference I think), but more games to win, 3 point shot evens the field a bit. UCLA also had the advantage, at least compared to Bubas's early teams and Dean's early teams, of being able to recruit across racial lines. Walt Hazzard was mvp of '64 NCAAs. Then he gets Alcindor and from there the snowball kept rolling until David Thompson and NC state.

BTW, I don't know if Gilbert was around for Wooden's first 2 titles. Jerry Norman was. He was the assistant who did the recruiting Wooden hated, but more than that he was the one who supposedly convinced Wooden to use the full-court zone press. Before he got there UCLA went to 3 NCAAs in 13 years and lost their opening game each time.

K and Knight achieved their accomplishments without cheating. All indications are otherwise for Wooden and Dean.

Case closed.

[jv001]

I'm reluctant to put NC State's Everett Case in the top ten of college basketball coaches just as I am reluctant to include Dean Smith and Coach Wooden. Many people have said that Coach Case brought big time basketball to the South and particular North Carolina(the State). Everett served in the US Navy before coming to NC State. He was the leader in forming the ACC Tournament, and the Dixie Classic(which he won many times). Case coached at State for 18 years compiling a 377-134(.737) record.

However State was put on probation for 4 years for giving money to a recruit so he would come to NC State and not Kentucky. I believe his name is Jackie Moreland from Louisiana. Then in 1960 State was once again put on probation for a point shaving scandal. Of the 3 coaches, I would put Case in my top 10 over Smith and Wooden because Coach Case's scandals did not last as long as Smith and Wooden. Coach Case and Coach Bubas are two of my favorite all time coaches. GoDuke!

[Scorp4me]

As evidenced by this thread, sometimes Knight says the correct thing, not the politically correct thing.

[ohioguy2]

I attended a clinic where Knight was the main speaker sometimes in the 70’s. He ranted about Wooden then. IFIRC this was in response to an audience question about great teams of all time.

[flyingdutchdevil]

K and Knight achieved their accomplishments without cheating. All indications are otherwise for Wooden and Dean.

Case closed.

I put Knight's tactics of berating, insulting, punishing, and harming players in the same boat as academic cheating. So no, I don't see a difference between Knight and Wooden/Dean. Coach K? Yes. Cus all that we've heard about him is that he has a potty mouth.

[dudog84]

Why not ask the expert?

This is the front page of the espn mens basketball page. For those that don't want to click espn, the title is "The Bilas Opus: Here to rescue college basketball".

And the teaser: "Only one person can solve college hoops' ills. (We know the NCAA can't do it.) One man can tell you everything that will happen (champs, Final Four faves, best shooters, coaches and defenders) before it happens. Enter the Bilastrator."

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/

I didn't read it. Click on the link if you want to see an insipid picture. I have to go wash now.

[jimsumner]

I'm reluctant to put NC State's Everett Case in the top ten of college basketball coaches just as I am reluctant to include Dean Smith and Coach Wooden. Many people have said that Coach Case brought big time basketball to the South and particular North Carolina(the State). Everett served in the US Navy before coming to NC State. He was the leader in forming the ACC Tournament, and the Dixie Classic(which he won many times). Case coached at State for 18 years compiling a 377-134(.737) record.

However State was put on probation for 4 years for giving money to a recruit so he would come to NC State and not Kentucky. I believe his name is Jackie Moreland from Louisiana. Then in 1960 State was once again put on probation for a point shaving scandal. Of the 3 coaches, I would put Case in my top 10 over Smith and Wooden because Coach Case's scandals did not last as long as Smith and Wooden. Coach Case and Coach Bubas are two of my favorite all time coaches. GoDuke!

State was on NCAA probation twice during Case's tenure. The first was a one-year ban for violations during the recruitment of Shavlik Randolph's grandfather Ronnie Shavlik.

The second was the Moreland case, deemed so egregious by the NCAA that they placed on probation all of NC State's sports teams, costing the Wolfpack an ACC football title.

State was not placed on probation because of the point-shaving scandal. The UNC system did however punish both State and UNC by reducing scholarships and OOC games and canceling the Dixie Classic.

Frank McGuire and UNC were placed on probation for one year around this time for recruiting violations but not the point-shaving scandal.

[COYS]

Nope, Americans seem to consistently want to first discuss bad behavior 30-50 years after the fact. I'm not sure why many Americans consider that great bravery.

It's pretty easy to find fault with what other people did in the 60's & 70's when you put a 2017 lens on it.

Not to veer too far off topic, but I think this is because the consequences for any potential whistle-blower are often far, far, far more severe than for the perpetrator of a particular misdeed, especially if there exists a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the whistle-blower. That, and also people tend not to believe and/or ignore whistle-blowers even when they do come forward. I'm speaking in generalities here, of course.

I agree that it seems a bit odd for Knight to start sounding off about Wooden now. I'll defer to others who are more knowledgeable to weigh in on the veracity of Knights' claims. However, just because he is bringing this up now does not mean it is any less true, necessarily. It is even possible he brought this up to the NCAA or other people back in the 60's and 70's too and just didn't get any traction. And, as far as I can tell, what Knight is accusing Wooden of doing was considered just as wrong in the 60's and 70's as it is, now, so I don't think it's fair to say that he's using a modern moral lens to view rather innocuous behavior from a half-decade ago.

[Olympic Fan]

State was on NCAA probation twice during Case's tenure. The first was a one-year ban for violations during the recruitment of Shavlik Randolph's grandfather Ronnie Shavlik.
The second was the Moreland case, deemed so egregious by the NCAA that they placed on probation all of NC State's sports teams, costing the Wolfpack an ACC football title.

State was not placed on probation because of the point-shaving scandal. The UNC system did however punish both State and UNC by reducing scholarships and OOC games and canceling the Dixie Classic.

Frank McGuire and UNC were placed on probation for one year around this time for recruiting violations but not the point-shaving scandal.

That's an oft-repeated myth. The NCAA started investigating NC State because Adolph Rupp complained that Case had violated rules to get Shavlik. But the investigation found no improprieties dealing with Shavlik. Instead, they found Case running an illegal tryout camp (in which he tried out and rejected Lennie Rosenbluth). That earned State a one-year probation, costing them a trip to the 1955 NCAA Tournament. Duke got to make its first NCAA trip in their place.

The Moreland case did indeed cost State a second probation. Since it was the second violation in a short time, it brought a semi-Death Penalty -- four years of probation in ALL sports. State won the '57 ACC football title, but Duke got the league's berth in the Orange Bowl in their place. State also won the '59 ACC basketball title, but UNC got to replace them in the ACC.

As for Wooden (and Smith), I don't see why it has to be all or nothing. We can acknowledge that they were great coaches with great records, but also acknowledge their flaws. Sam Gilbert does tarnish Wooden's record and the AFAM scandal does tarnish Saint Dean's image.

Both -- along with Knight -- are clearly in the top 10 all-time coaches. So is Rupp, who had issues of his own.

[jimsumner]

My understanding is that Case conducted numerous illegal tryouts, including at least one with Shavlik, the original target of the investigation.

Case also turned down Dickie Hemric after a tryout.

Player evaluation may not have been his long-suit.

And by all accounts, Case and Rupp absolutely loathed each other. And if we're talking about ethically-challenged successful coaches, Adolph Rupp has to be in the discussion.

[cato]

I put Knight's tactics of berating, insulting, punishing, and harming players in the same boat as academic cheating. So no, I don't see a difference between Knight and Wooden/Dean. Coach K? Yes. Cus all that we've heard about him is that he has a potty mouth.

Well, you have a point. As Wooden retorted, he wouldn’t want his kid to play for Bob Knight.

Cheating taints success. But getting fired from the school which made Knight Knight taints his claim to greatness.

So Dean get points for being the type of person you would be thrilled to have coach your kid. And for not getting fired.

I’m not sure it’s enough to get him alone in 3rd/5th place. They probably all belong in a band with Roy, Calipari, Calhoun, Pitino and others.

Calipari is the only one with a chance to get in the K/Wooden conversation.

[Atlanta Duke]

And if we're talking about ethically-challenged successful coaches, Adolph Rupp has to be in the discussion.

This description of Rupp by Mark Titus of The Ringer fits

Rupp was a superstitious racist who in the 1950s began one of the great college basketball traditions in the state of Kentucky by claiming that he had no idea that severe NCAA violations were happening in his program

https://www.theringer.com/2017/11/7/16600142/jim-boeheim-syracuse-orange-coaching-legacy

[Jeffrey]

Not to veer too far off topic, but I think this is because the consequences for any potential whistle-blower are often far, far, far more severe than for the perpetrator of a particular misdeed, especially if there exists a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the whistle-blower. That, and also people tend not to believe and/or ignore whistle-blowers even when they do come forward. I'm speaking in generalities here, of course.

I'll not speak in generalities. I'm the President/CEO of a financial institution. Shortly after my arrival, at age 33, it was brought to my attention our Vice-Chairman of the Board had received an illegal loan, approved by our past President/CEO, and our Chairman of the Board had covered it up. Multiple Board members were their friends and I knew none of them, when I accepted the position. My career was at risk (especially, since I had recently been terminated as a CFO for refusing to support an incompetent CEO) and their worst outcome was losing a Board position. Ten months after my arrival, the Vice-Chairman had resigned, the Chairman had been removed for cause (6-1 Board vote), and the only Board member who voted to keep the corrupt Chairman had resigned. Sure, I could have wimped out and waited 20 years to address my concerns. However, doing so, 20 years later, would not have been an act of bravery.

[Olympic Fan]

My understanding is that Case conducted numerous illegal tryouts, including at least one with Shavlik, the original target of the investigation.

Case also turned down Dickie Hemric after a tryout.

Player evaluation may not have been his long-suit.

And by all accounts, Case and Rupp absolutely loathed each other. And if we're talking about ethically-challenged successful coaches, Adolph Rupp has to be in the discussion.

No tryout for Shavlik -- at least that's what Vic Bubas told me. Bubas was the assistant coach who landed Shavlik and he insisted that it was all on the up and up. Nothing about Shavlik showed up in the newspaper accounts of the 1955 probation.

Yes, Case conducted many tryouts, but for the first part of his career, they were not illegal. When Case rejected Hemric in 1951, the tryout was legal. By the time he rejected Rosenbluth in 1952, the rule had changed and the tryout was illegal. (Rosenbluth needed a year of prep school before he could enter UNC in 1953).

It should be noted that Case always had a contempt for the rules. During his 20 years as a high school coach in Indiana, he won four state titles, but he also waged almost continuous war with Arthur Tressler, the head of the Indiana high school association. Case was famous for finding high paying jobs in Frankfurt for the parents of talented players.

As for Rupp, I wouldn't pay attention to what Mark Titus (why is he a credible source?) says. Rupp was a racist? It's not that simple -- not nearly that simple.

He coached in a racist age at a racist school in an uber-racist conference. He chose not to challenge that racism. But personally, he seemed to be ahead of the curve. He coached black players as a high school coach in Illinois in the 1920s. He was famous in Kentucky for helping black coaches get jobs and black athletes get scholarships (in the North). Don Barksdale, the first black Olympic basketball player in 1948, said that Rupp treated him better than anyone else with the team and helped him prepare for the NBA after the Olympics. Rupp famously wrote Frank McGuire in 1952 and asked him not to bring Solly Walker to a game Lexington, when McGuire brought his black star, however, Rupp went out of his way to make sure that Walker was treated well.

(It's worth noting that while McGuire coached blacks at St. John's, he never recruited a black at UNC -- another school that was not ready for integration).

Rupp tried to break the color line at Kentucky in the early 1960s (even though Mississippi State and at least two other SEC schools said they would break up the league if Kentucky integrated). I know there is some dispute as to how hard he recruited Butch Beard and Wesley Unseld, but when he was criticized by a big money donor for recruiting blacks, Rupp blasted the donor and told him to take his money and support anther school.

Now, I'm not saying Rupp is a saint or a civil rights leader, but he actually was not so different than Dean Smith, who is sometimes portrayed as a civil rights "leader". The fact is that on the day Dean became head coach at UNC in August of 1961, he got a call from his pastor reminding him that he now had the chance to break the color line and UNC and in the ACC. Dean then spent the next four years looking for the "right' African American to break the color line at UNC. By the time he finally found his man, Maryland and Duke were already playing blacks, while Wake and Davidson and State landed their first blacks at exactly the same time. That's some civil rights groundbreaker.

All I'm really saying is that I hate the holier than thou perspective of somebody looking back and condemning men who were faced with challenges the young guys don't understand. Do I wish Rupp had used his position to break color barriers? Yes. But I wish Dean Smith had done the same (and, yes, I know he was involved in one quiet civil rights action when he accompanied his pastor and a black grad student to dinner at the Pines, where UNC's basketball team ate its pregame meals).

[Atlanta Duke]

As for Rupp, I wouldn't pay attention to what Mark Titus (why is he a credible source?) says. Rupp was a racist? It's not that simple -- not nearly that simple.

He coached in a racist age at a racist school in an uber-racist conference. He chose not to challenge that racism. But personally, he seemed to be ahead of the curve.

Where would you place the curve in 1966? This does not appear to be ahead of it, at least from my experiences at the time.

Rupp allowed Sports Illustrated writer Frank Deford to stand in the Wildcats' locker room at halftime. Deford said he was stunned by Rupp's racist halftime exhortations.

"He said, `You've got to beat those coons,' " Deford said. "He turned to (center) Thad Jaracz. `You go after that big coon.'

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-11-30/sports/9712020327_1_adolph-rupp-kentucky-tricky/2

[COYS]

I'll not speak in generalities. I'm the President/CEO of a financial institution. Shortly after my arrival, at age 33, it was brought to my attention our Vice-Chairman of the Board had received an illegal loan, approved by our past President/CEO, and our Chairman of the Board had covered it up. Multiple Board members were their friends and I knew none of them, when I accepted the position. My career was at risk (especially, since I had recently been terminated as a CFO for refusing to support an incompetent CEO) and their worst outcome was losing a Board position. Ten months after my arrival, the Vice-Chairman had resigned, the Chairman had been removed for cause (6-1 Board vote), and the only Board member who voted to keep the corrupt Chairman had resigned. Sure, I could have wimped out and waited 20 years to address my concerns. However, doing so, 20 years later, would not have been an act of bravery.

That is impressive! It would seem that you have a particularly strong grasp of just how much whistle-blowers have to lose. You made the ethical choice and it worked out for you, but you did so by taking on a big risk to your career. That is indeed brave. But you can probably imagine other scenarios, particularly ones in which the power imbalance is more severe, in which your career ending would would be a certainty, not just one of a number of possible outcomes. That’s why my original post was responding to your generalization that coming out about wrongdoing years after the fact is, by definition, not brave and that it is wrong to use a modern ethical lens to view the actions of people a few decades ago. Admittedly, part of the motivation for my response is personal. Not speaking in generalities but also unable to speak with too much specificity, there are people close to me who have been forced into silence about serious wrongdoing because they have absolutely no power in the situation nor the ability to prove anything. I’ve come to realize that such scenarios are far more common than I’d known and that there is often a lot of bravery in silence, as well. Trust me, the people who are remaining silent would JUMP at even the smallest opportunity to set things straight. The problem is that there is absolutely no chance of that happening at all. They would just be blowing themselves up for no reason.

Anyway, none of this, it seems, applies to Coach RMK. He comes across as a particularly prickly personality who has an axe to grind. There is nothing brave about his statements. We can definitely agree on that.

[Olympic Fan]

Where would you place the curve in 1966? This does not appear to be ahead of it, at least from my experiences at the time.

Rupp allowed Sports Illustrated writer Frank Deford to stand in the Wildcats' locker room at halftime. Deford said he was stunned by Rupp's racist halftime exhortations.

"He said, `You've got to beat those coons,' " Deford said. "He turned to (center) Thad Jaracz. `You go after that big coon.'

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-11-30/sports/9712020327_1_adolph-rupp-kentucky-tricky/2

There are actually some problems with DeFord's story.

First, why did he wait 31 years to write it -- long after Rupp's death?

Nothing he wrote during the 1966 Final Four or immediately after it even hinted at a racial factor in the game. In fact, he specifically DENIED there was an racial overtime to the game -- despite, he wrote, the efforts of agitators to make it a big deal.

In addition, three Kentucky players who were there -- Jaracz, Kron and Conley -- have disputed DeFord's account. As Conley told Mark Bradley, Conley insists he never heard Rupp deploy such slurs: “I’m not going to say it didn’t happen. I’m saying I never heard it.”

Even if Rupp did use racial slurs, I don't think that changes my perception. Racial language was much cruder in that era. Harry Truman pushed some real civil rights reforms (one reason Strom Thurmond left the Democratic Party to run against him), but he frequently used the n-word and told racial jokes. LBJ pushed the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, but he also used the term "coons" to describe blacks. It was not uncommon language at the time -- even for those who were on the right side of the curve.

Whatever language he used, I cited a half-dozen instances where Rupp belied the racist stereotype that lazy young sports writers have decided to hang on him

I continue to insist Rupp's legacy is not that simple.

[Jim3k]

Where would you place the curve in 1966? This does not appear to be ahead of it, at least from my experiences at the time.

Rupp allowed Sports Illustrated writer Frank Deford to stand in the Wildcats' locker room at halftime. Deford said he was stunned by Rupp's racist halftime exhortations.

"He said, `You've got to beat those coons,' " Deford said. "He turned to (center) Thad Jaracz. `You go after that big coon.'

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-11-30/sports/9712020327_1_adolph-rupp-kentucky-tricky/2

Look, I'm not going to defend racism in any form. But I will put Rupp's exhortation in context. He was a coach at a segregated school and in a segregated conference. Naturally, he had racist players and such a player was being beaten by a better player who happened to be black. If the opponent had been something else, don't you think Rupp would have used a derogatory term appropriate to that player in order to motivate his guy? Sure he would. He knew what buttons to push and in those times, the 1950s and 60s, it was common to hear such horrid slurs--but they were not regarded by the speaker or most white listeners as horrid.

Here's a 1970 Korean War movie, M*A*S*H, which makes the point. Spearchucker Jones (played by NFL great Fred Williamson) is a renowned chest surgeon who prior to becoming a doctor had been a pro football player. When the unit is challenged to a football game, Col. Blake calls upon him to coach the 4077th team. During the game, the following occurs:

[Negro Lineman] Cpl. Judson: Bastard, 88, called me a coon.
Spearchucker: Called you a what?
Cpl. Judson: Coon.
Spearchucker: OK, that's an old pro trick, to get you thrown out of the ball game.
Cpl. Judson: Well...
Spearchucker: Why don't you do the same thing to him?
Cpl. Judson: What, call him a coon?

The laughter in the the theater was explosive. Why? Because it showed three things: the underlying racist provocation, the cool response and a second response exposing the whole thing as only a shallow motivational ploy. As a scene, it aimed to show how a racist word could be rendered harmless.

When generally used, the term was to disparage an entire race. In our examples both Rupp and director Robert Altman used it to motivate a player/player-character during a time (early 1950s) when such deprecatory language could be used without fear of blowback. It was also a time for Altman to make fun of it.

Was Rupp right? Of course not. Even in the Thirties the N-word was becoming taboo in all parts of the country except the Deep South. 'Coon' was equally offensive to African Americans, but not commonly used outside the South. From a historical POV, keep in mind that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 hadn't been considered possible in 1953. Nor had its mores taken root by the time Altman conceived the film in 1970, much less when novelist Richard Hooker conceived his book in 1968. To compare, Jackie Robinson's major league debut was in 1947 while President Truman ordered the military integrated in 1948.

The film itself, an Oscar and Golden Globes winner, is a great movie (perhaps overrun by the TV series). See it if you haven't. I think it is available on both DVD and streaming. Try for the R rated version.

[RPS]

One could argue Dean Smith accomplished more, but I would take Knight’s undefeated season, edge in championships and overall wins. Actually, now that I type that, I don’t see how you rank Smith above Knight. Maybe put them in the same band below K and Wooden.Given the randomness inherent in individual outcomes, especially among relatively evenly matched teams (as in the Final Four). I think we put too much emphasis on championships when we set out to rank coaches and players. I don't discount championships entirely, of course, but I'd weight Final Four and Elite Eight appearances more highly than others in this thread and championships won less highly.

To use another sport to illustrate my point -- there was a fair amount of discussion after the World Series that the (hated) Dodgers had a wasted season because they did not win it all. Yet the outcome of game two and the Series itself may well have gone in the other direction had an errant 10th inning Astro pick-off throw not stuck an umpire, keeping the runner at second. Self-serving bias is our altogether human tendency to think our failures are due to bad luck while our successes are because we were so good. Outside of chess, randomness has a far more significant impact on outcomes than we commonly assume.

[devildeac]

I attended a clinic where Knight was the main speaker sometimes in the 70’s. He ranted about Wooden then. IFIRC this was in response to an audience question about great teams of all time.

Long time, no post. Welcome back.

The Ymm, Beer thread is still running if you're interested in joining us again, we'd greatly enjoy your company. ;)

[jv001]

My understanding is that Case conducted numerous illegal tryouts, including at least one with Shavlik, the original target of the investigation.

Case also turned down Dickie Hemric after a tryout.

Player evaluation may not have been his long-suit.

And by all accounts, Case and Rupp absolutely loathed each other. And if we're talking about ethically-challenged successful coaches, Adolph Rupp has to be in the discussion.

Turned down Hemric and Rosenbluth? Wow, I may have to think again on Everett Case in my top ten. GoDuke!

[jv001]

Given the randomness inherent in individual outcomes, especially among relatively evenly matched teams (as in the Final Four). I think we put too much emphasis on championships when we set out to rank coaches and players. I don't discount championships entirely, of course, but I'd weight Final Four and Elite Eight appearances more highly than others in this thread and championships won less highly.

To use another sport to illustrate my point -- there was a fair amount of discussion after the World Series that the (hated) Dodgers had a wasted season because they did not win it all. Yet the outcome of game two and the Series itself may well have gone in the other direction had an errant 10th inning Astro pick-off throw not stuck an umpire, keeping the runner at second. Self-serving bias is our altogether human tendency to think our failures are due to bad luck while our successes are because we were so good. Outside of chess, randomness has a far more significant impact on outcomes than we commonly assume.

I agree with this poster. Coach Wooden won NCAA Championships during an era in which it was easier to make a run to the FF. Coach K has taken teams to the FF in the: 80s-90s-00s-10s. To me his accomplishments are more impressive than Coach Woodens' and our coach has done this without any cloud of improper benefits, etc. I will not even compare Deans or any coach at OJU to that of our HOF/GOAT. GoDuke!

[jimsumner]

Turned down Hemric and Rosenbluth? Wow, I may have to think again on Everett Case in my top ten. GoDuke!

Hemric was still miffed about it 50 years later.

[fuse]

Why not ask the expert?

This is the front page of the espn mens basketball page. For those that don't want to click espn, the title is "The Bilas Opus: Here to rescue college basketball".

And the teaser: "Only one person can solve college hoops' ills. (We know the NCAA can't do it.) One man can tell you everything that will happen (champs, Final Four faves, best shooters, coaches and defenders) before it happens. Enter the Bilastrator."

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/

I didn't read it. Click on the link if you want to see an insipid picture. I have to go wash now.

This really deserves its own thread.
I admire and respect Jay Bilas.

That said, the opening of this article pinpoints when Jay both simultaneously has “jumped the shark” as well as transitioned, Dick Vitale-esque, into a caricature of his established sports personality.

[jv001]

Hemric was still miffed about it 50 years later.

Hemric's nephew goes to my church. I bet he has some good stories about this. GoDuke!

[Jeffrey]

That is impressive! It would seem that you have a particularly strong grasp of just how much whistle-blowers have to lose. You made the ethical choice and it worked out for you, but you did so by taking on a big risk to your career. That is indeed brave. But you can probably imagine other scenarios, particularly ones in which the power imbalance is more severe, in which your career ending would would be a certainty, not just one of a number of possible outcomes. That’s why my original post was responding to your generalization that coming out about wrongdoing years after the fact is, by definition, not brave and that it is wrong to use a modern ethical lens to view the actions of people a few decades ago. Admittedly, part of the motivation for my response is personal. Not speaking in generalities but also unable to speak with too much specificity, there are people close to me who have been forced into silence about serious wrongdoing because they have absolutely no power in the situation nor the ability to prove anything. I’ve come to realize that such scenarios are far more common than I’d known and that there is often a lot of bravery in silence, as well. Trust me, the people who are remaining silent would JUMP at even the smallest opportunity to set things straight. The problem is that there is absolutely no chance of that happening at all. They would just be blowing themselves up for no reason.


Thank you, very much, for the kind words!

We all make our own choices and I'm only speaking for myself. Placed in the scenario you describe, I would strategically create my action plan and attack evil. Winning, as I perceive it, would be a certainty.

The night before our Board of Directors voted on removing the corrupt Board members, our senior (tenure) Board member came to see me. He repeatedly expressed serious concern that evil would prevail. At the end of our discussion, he asked me, "do you believe in prayer?". I said, "yes, but, if I pray tonight it will not be for me, it will be for this financial institution".

Regardless of the outcome, I was certain to be a winner, as I perceive it. I would have no longer worked for a corrupt Board of Directors.

[jv001]

Thank you, very much, for the kind words!

We all make our own choices and I'm only speaking for myself. Placed in the scenario you describe, I would strategically create my action plan and attack evil. Winning, as I perceive it, would be a certainty.

The night before our Board of Directors voted on removing the corrupt Board members, our senior (tenure) Board member came to see me. He repeatedly expressed serious concern that evil would prevail. At the end of our discussion, he asked me, "do you believe in prayer?". I said, "yes, but, if I pray tonight it will not be for me, it will be for this financial institution".

Regardless of the outcome, I was certain to be a winner, as I perceive it. I would have no longer worked for a corrupt Board of Directors.

I wish I could give you more sporks. GoDuke!

[Jeffrey]

I wish I could give you more sporks. GoDuke!

Thank you, very much, that's very kind of you! Clearly, we would have been well matched partners.

[ObjctvlyModerate]

With the new ESPN 30 for 30 program coming out on ESPN+ (the new 4.99/month streaming service for which I will never pay), Coach Knight is back in the news. Personally, I am not a fan. His incredible coaching knowledge and skill doesn't justify his abhorrent behavior towards others. He is a bully and an extreme hypocrite, as he would never allow anyone to treat him the way he has treated others. I think a lot of his players suffered from a mild form of PTSD. How Coach K was able to survive playing and working for him without picking up his odious manner is a testament to the man he is. The worst part is that Coach Knights hatred kept him for returning to Indiana to celebrate the reunion of the amazing undefeated 1976 team, despite the fact that those who fired him are gone and most everyone wanted him to come back. Being a men's basketball coach means being a leader of men and he is unfortunately a child trapped in the body of a coaching genius. IMO, Coach Knight does not say what we all want to say, his behavior attracts weak people who want to lash out with no respect for others. My top 5 coaches includes Coach K, Coach Wooden, Coach Smith, Coach Williams, and Coach Calhoun (winning at UConn was much harder than at Indiana).

[duke4ever19]

With the new ESPN 30 for 30 program coming out on ESPN+ (the new 4.99/month streaming service for which I will never pay), Coach Knight is back in the news. Personally, I am not a fan. His incredible coaching knowledge and skill doesn't justify his abhorrent behavior towards others. He is a bully and an extreme hypocrite, as he would never allow anyone to treat him the way he has treated others. I think a lot of his players suffered from a mild form of PTSD. How Coach K was able to survive playing and working for him without picking up his odious manner is a testament to the man he is. The worst part is that Coach Knights hatred kept him for returning to Indiana to celebrate the reunion of the amazing undefeated 1976 team, despite the fact that those who fired him are gone and most everyone wanted him to come back. Being a men's basketball coach means being a leader of men and he is unfortunately a child trapped in the body of a coaching genius. IMO, Coach Knight does not say what we all want to say, his behavior attracts weak people who want to lash out with no respect for others. My top 5 coaches includes Coach K, Coach Wooden, Coach Smith, Coach Williams, and Coach Calhoun (winning at UConn was much harder than at Indiana).

Professor Fletcher in the movie 'Whiplash' is probably a good fictional version of what it would have been like to play for Bobby Knight.

It is no accident that Coach K was able to learn under Knight's teaching style. He was probably one of the rare people that were not defeated by Knight's intense, even ruthless, pursuit of excellence.

I had a piano teacher that was this type. With her, you would not, and could not, succeed unless you were willing to meet her almost demonic level of intensity and desire for excellence. She would push you to the breaking-point and either you would rise like a phoenix out the ashes, or you would leave demoralized. Her teaching style was incredibly divisive, but no one could deny the results. Her studio regularly produced pianists that were accepted to Juilliard, Curtis Institute and other top conservatories. Looking back, I feel nothing but love for her. Juilliard was just as intense, but I knew how to handle the stress of it, because I'd spent years preparing for it.

[MartyClark]

With the new ESPN 30 for 30 program coming out on ESPN+ (the new 4.99/month streaming service for which I will never pay), Coach Knight is back in the news. Personally, I am not a fan. His incredible coaching knowledge and skill doesn't justify his abhorrent behavior towards others. He is a bully and an extreme hypocrite, as he would never allow anyone to treat him the way he has treated others. I think a lot of his players suffered from a mild form of PTSD. How Coach K was able to survive playing and working for him without picking up his odious manner is a testament to the man he is. The worst part is that Coach Knights hatred kept him for returning to Indiana to celebrate the reunion of the amazing undefeated 1976 team, despite the fact that those who fired him are gone and most everyone wanted him to come back. Being a men's basketball coach means being a leader of men and he is unfortunately a child trapped in the body of a coaching genius. IMO, Coach Knight does not say what we all want to say, his behavior attracts weak people who want to lash out with no respect for others. My top 5 coaches includes Coach K, Coach Wooden, Coach Smith, Coach Williams, and Coach Calhoun (winning at UConn was much harder than at Indiana).

I'll watch it. In equal measure I am fascinated and repulsed by Knight. Season on the Brink was a sobering look at this brutal coaching genius.

I'm surprised at the number of people who still like and respect him. This old school, brutal coaching style still has appeal for some people. I don't get it.

[arnie]

With the new ESPN 30 for 30 program coming out on ESPN+ (the new 4.99/month streaming service for which I will never pay), Coach Knight is back in the news. Personally, I am not a fan. His incredible coaching knowledge and skill doesn't justify his abhorrent behavior towards others. He is a bully and an extreme hypocrite, as he would never allow anyone to treat him the way he has treated others. I think a lot of his players suffered from a mild form of PTSD. How Coach K was able to survive playing and working for him without picking up his odious manner is a testament to the man he is. The worst part is that Coach Knights hatred kept him for returning to Indiana to celebrate the reunion of the amazing undefeated 1976 team, despite the fact that those who fired him are gone and most everyone wanted him to come back. Being a men's basketball coach means being a leader of men and he is unfortunately a child trapped in the body of a coaching genius. IMO, Coach Knight does not say what we all want to say, his behavior attracts weak people who want to lash out with no respect for others. My top 5 coaches includes Coach K, Coach Wooden, Coach Smith, Coach Williams, and Coach Calhoun (winning at UConn was much harder than at Indiana).

Who is this coach Williams?? Surely you don’t mean the guy who cheated for a decade or so?

[Jeffrey]

Who is this coach Williams?? Surely you don’t mean the guy who cheated for a decade or so?

Appears, he does, since he also listed Dean.

[Saratoga2]

I'll watch it. In equal measure I am fascinated and repulsed by Knight. Season on the Brink was a sobering look at this brutal coaching genius.

I'm surprised at the number of people who still like and respect him. This old school, brutal coaching style still has appeal for some people. I don't get it.

Yes, his style was kind of hard to take, but he produced great teams with great players. I would take him over Pitino and Calipari any day.

[ObjctvlyModerate]

Appears, he does, since he also listed Dean.

I fall into the category of believing that 95% of college coaches are trying to do the right thing but 100% of programs break NCAA rules (most of them are archaic) so I am talking about their coaching success and how much those coaches positively effect their players and communities. Bobby Knight is a master tactician and so many people love him for being strong and "brutally honest". I look at him and see a man who has little to no respect for anyone who doesn't do what he wants or believe what he believes. Worse, he denigrates people (his players, coaches, fellow coaches, media, colleagues, fellow-university employees...etc) to the point of killing their spirits. Coach K is an incredible man not for enduring his time with Coach Knight but because he could learn the best of Coach Knight (his genius understanding of basketball) without employing the worst of Coach Knight (his tendency to emotionally brutalize his players). Coach Knight is not in my top 5 because he didn't sustain excellence and I don't believe he was a net-positive for his school or those around him.

[ObjctvlyModerate]

Yes, his style was kind of hard to take, but he produced great teams with great players. I would take him over Pitino and Calipari any day.

I wouldn't take Coach Knight over either Coach Pitino or Coach Calipari. Both have been very successful at 3 different schools (not all of which had winning traditions). Also, I think one of the major jobs of a coach is to prepare the players for their next step. Coach Calipari has done an amazing job of that as has Coach Pitino (to a lesser extent). In addition, ti is really difficult to coach groups of OADs, trying to showcase their talent while also attempting to mold them into a team and Coach Calipari is under-rated in that regard considering what he had done at UK.

[22JumpShots]

Who is this coach Williams?? Surely you don’t mean the guy who cheated for a decade or so?

Probably talking about Gary....:)

[MartyClark]

I wouldn't take Coach Knight over either Coach Pitino or Coach Calipari. Both have been very successful at 3 different schools (not all of which had winning traditions). Also, I think one of the major jobs of a coach is to prepare the players for their next step. Coach Calipari has done an amazing job of that as has Coach Pitino (to a lesser extent). In addition, ti is really difficult to coach groups of OADs, trying to showcase their talent while also attempting to mold them into a team and Coach Calipari is under-rated in that regard considering what he had done at UK.

I've posted this about Knight before and have received some disagreement.

Knight's star player, Landon Turner, was badly injured in a car rollover. Knight was publicly critical of Landon Turner and his attorney, Eric Montross' dad for filing a crashworthiness lawsuit against the car manufacturer. Montross' dad is a highly respected product liability lawyer in Indiana. Knight's public stance caused Montross to go to Carolina rather than Indiana.

Others have pointed out that Knight was subsequently supportive of Landon Turner in some ways. I don't know those details but can't disagree.

Knight, who was so critical of Turner for using the legal system to redress a life changing injury, sued I.U. when he was fired. He hired a Denver attorney, one of his fishing buddies, to file suit against I.U. IIRC, it ended poorly for Knight.

I think he is a bully and a hypocrite. I have little respect for him and, back in the day, if I had a son who was good enough to play Division I basketball would never encourage him to play for Knight.

Knight's treatment of Coach K following a Duke victory over Indiana in the tournament (I can't remember the year) was shameful. Knight made a point of embracing Dean Smith while dismissing K. I guess K and Knight have repaired the relationship but it was disgraceful conduct by Knight.

I'm non violent but I think that some bullies just need to be punched in the nose. Maybe metaphorically, maybe physically. Knight is a bad guy who needed people to stand up to him.

[ObjctvlyModerate]

I think he is a bully and a hypocrite. I have little respect for him and, back in the day, if I had a son who was good enough to play Division I basketball would never encourage him to play for Knight.

Knight's treatment of Coach K following a Duke victory over Indiana in the tournament (I can't remember the year) was shameful. Knight made a point of embracing Dean Smith while dismissing K. I guess K and Knight have repaired the relationship but it was disgraceful conduct by Knight.

I'm non violent but I think that some bullies just need to be punched in the nose. Maybe metaphorically, maybe physically. Knight is a bad guy who needed people to stand up to him.


I totally agree MartyClark. His treatment of Coach K in 1992 and when Coach K was passing him for the all-time record record was reprehensible. Again, worse, he bullied everyone around him. I have always said that Coach Knight and the rest of the world would be better off if someone early in his career punched his light out. Because no one stood up to him, he was allowed to become an empowered bully and, thus, insufferable.

[brevity]

I have always said that Coach Knight and the rest of the world would be better off if someone early in his career punched his light out.

Maybe during his playing years at Ohio State, 1959-1962? Woody Hayes (https://www.si.com/college-football/2016/12/23/woody-hayes-punch-clemson-ohio-state) was RIGHT THERE.

[left_hook_lacey]

Maybe I'm living under a rock, but what did Bobby knight say in 2016?

[Spanarkel]

I totally agree MartyClark. His treatment of Coach K in 1992 and when Coach K was passing him for the all-time record record was reprehensible. Again, worse, he bullied everyone around him. I have always said that Coach Knight and the rest of the world would be better off if someone early in his career punched his light out. Because no one stood up to him, he was allowed to become an empowered bully and, thus, insufferable.

I have a very different recollection of Coach Knight's behavior towards Coach K when his all-time wins record was surpassed. I felt that Coach Knight was very gracious towards Coach K and was genuinely touched by the moment.

https://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball/2011/11/16/2565611/mike-krzyzewski-record-bob-knight-coach-k-903-duke


(I am not condoning Coach Knight's obviously egregious behavior on numerous other instances.)

[porkpa]

I don't think it was so much what he said, but what he did or rather didn't do.
His championship team was being honored by the University of Indiana. It was a big deal to the school and most especially his players and fans of the team.
Because of personal animosity, apparently towards the school , Knight refused to attend. His players and literally thousand of fans literally begged him to come.
Knight refused. It mattered, not at all to him that those who were directly or indirectly involved in his dispute with the school were gone - either by death or otherwise having left the university.
With Bobby Knight, there was only one way - his way. If he believed that for some reason, perceived or otherwise that he was unhappy with you, you were gone from his life for all time.
The only exception to this rule, was I believe, Coach K , who somehow got on his enemies list and then later was removed from it.

[bludevil_33]

Bobby Knight simply isn't credible anymore. I don't think he ever really should have been.

It's not enough in life to be right about things or to be good at stuff or to build cool things. You don't get a pass for being a horrible person just because you're good at a certain thing.

[Wander]

Bob Knight is a pretty clear dbag. That said, the Ivan Renko thing was hilarious and should be googled by those not familiar.