|
|
Post by mbogo on Feb 9, 2008 14:25:40 GMT -5
Many a coach has issues but unless it was Bob Knight it is hardly a story. Several coaches have DUIs, some multiple times but that is hardly a story and quickly forgotten. At least one coach has tried to punch out an opposing coach after a game, but I would be suprised if anyone else knows who that was. A coach had a player intentionally hurt an opposing player, how many remember who that was? If Knight had done any of that it would be well known, often repeated and like most other things, greatly exagerated.
All those he taught turned out better than him and that is no small amount of praise. As the behaviour of one of Keady's proteges so clearly demonstrated this week, you can't say the same for Geno. The people that know Knight the best are his staunchest defenders and for me that is all I really need to know. I'll leave it to others to throw stones if they must.
|
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Feb 9, 2008 15:12:33 GMT -5
Me I am just going to hit a couple of Russ's bad points real quick and you can decide how bad they really are/were or if they are really worth putting in as bad points. Hunting violations. As I recall one was for hunting over a baited field. Lets see he was over 100 yards from the field and it was a picked soybean field. Russ we all could be sited for that every deer season. It was thrown out of court for being ludicrous. Real question there was should the over zealous CO been made to apologize. And No I am not picking on CO's just stating a fact. Shot a hunting partner. Yes this has happened a couple of times. Guess that actually shows that Knight does not look beyond his target to see what else could be hit by his shot. I would call that simply bad shot selection and I would personally make sure that I would be outside of the area that bird shot would be effective. Hitting a policeman? Are you kidding? Well I guess you could call poking one with a finger as hitting, but then again just touching someone else with a pointed finger could be construed as hitting.
Tantrums on the basketball court? Yeah there were several. Threw a chair. Yup sure did. Did you see that call. Bad, real bad. Walked around referee after being ejected (did not throw chair here), another really bad call. Question that should be asked besides does he need anger management should or could be how many of his tantrums were for the express purpose of taking the heat off of the players.
People smaller than Knight? Better than 75% of the world is smaller than he is.
Coach K has a different personality than knight, very much more introspective. Someday he will have the most wins if he coaches that long.
|
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Feb 9, 2008 15:22:35 GMT -5
A yahoo sports writer did a story yesterday on Knight retiring as the winningest coach ever. In the article he said Knight won the most games and didn't cheat and there where only two or three other coaches in the history of college basketball that didn't cheat to win. Knight did it the right way and won the most which makes him the best. h.h.
|
|
|
|
Post by fftce67 on Feb 9, 2008 17:17:03 GMT -5
Coach Knight is just awesome he will be surely missed from the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Feb 9, 2008 17:31:16 GMT -5
This is what I was thinking too. You can compare coaches all day, but it just comes down to the fact that they all are role models that need to step up to the plate in controlling their behavior and not acting out impulsively--especially a coach with as much skill and talent as Bobby Knight.
|
|
|
|
Post by fftce67 on Feb 9, 2008 17:37:05 GMT -5
that is so true
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Feb 9, 2008 21:32:12 GMT -5
Everyone has an opinion about Knight-and you either love the man, or you hate him. Many point to his ill temper, and his demanding temperament-his insistence that officials call the game the way the rules dictate, his loud, often times expletive filled exchanges with them, as some of the reasons he is so strongly disliked. Some considered him a bully, and I have to laugh to read that “he only picked on people smaller than him”. What a hoot, that`s a falsehood, Knight was never selective about where he spread his wrath-and at 6’6” and some 200 plus pounds, it would be hard to find many who were bigger anyway. Interestingly, none of the kids who played for him their entire college career ever had anything but praise for him-the only one`s who had harsh words for him, were the kids who ran from the program, unable to withstand the heat that Knight brought to bear, even when they knew full well what they were walking into when they committed to the program. It was never any secret what Knight was about, or what he expected-it was never any surprise that all his players at one time or another would feel the mans wrath. Knight didn`t sneak around, he believed in what he did, how he did it, and he expected the kids to toe the line. In a world that had lost all meaning and direction, having given them up to become politically correct, Knight was a throwback, refusing to bow down to the PC gods, doing things, running his program the way he felt was proper, and much of the kinder, gentler crowd berated him for it. I never condoned everything the man said and did-there were times you just knew he was a victim of his own rage, and had momentarily lost control-and I daresay, there are many, even some here who can relate to that, but I also know that Bob Knight stood, and still stands for excellence, hard work, discipline and sacrifice for the greater good, and THAT is what his critics ignore in their eagerness to attack his character; because they know if they acknowledge those things, that their campaign against him loses it`s substance. Knight took all his kids through a boot camp of sorts, challenging them, physically as well as mentally and emotionally, teaching them life lessons, and demanding from them only the very best they had to give. No, he didn`t coddle them, his was “tough love” as tough as it got, but the kids who stayed with him came to love the man, and the lessons they took with them into manhood. I think it`s laughable, that when those who endured the program have only praise for him, that anyone on the outside can find the gall to criticize Knight or his methods. Not for the faint of heart to be sure, not for those who would rather give their kids “time out” than old-fashioned discipline, but then, with a name like The General, what did you expect?  |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 10, 2008 13:21:09 GMT -5
480,
Well said.
I do disagree with you on a few points (no surprise there, I suppose).
I neither loved nor hated Knight. I certainly admired his abilities as a tactician and a teacher, and said so. His accomplisments were unquestionable, and I said that as well in the earlier post.
I was a fan of his for some time, but gradually became more embarrassed and disgusted by his behavior until I was glad to see him leave IU when he finally went beyond what the administration could stomach.
My younger brother is a Knight fan, and used to hunt with some former players and ran around with a few of them socially. He told me of some other very admirable things that the coach did and kept out of the news. Most of those stories were secondhand from the players or others who were in Knight's inner circles, but I have no reason to suspect that they were false.
I didn't say he was the Devil incarnate. Just that his personal behavior was bad enough, often enough, to deduct very substantially from his obvious greatness in other areas.
I personally thought his handling of the players was less than ideal, and I recall some who left his program who were very good, but who just couldn't stand his bullying methods. That matter was his decision and the numbers suggest that it worked overall for him, so I'll give him credit for it being right for him, at least.
Not sure that the testimonials from those who stayed and endured the abuse are necessarily the end-all argument in behalf of that sort of treatment, though. I think we've all had tough teachers, coaches, or mentors that we've endured at one time or another. Maybe some of them were also effective teachers, maybe not. We remember the ones we learned from with fondness, and recall with pride the fact that we survived them all, with age softening the memory of the ones whose bullying we survived but who taught us little except that we had the ability to endure. But his tactics in that arena were his to choose and use, and as I said above, can't argue with the numbers as to the result.
No argument about his talent. Enjoyed watching IU win myself. The few hours of college I got were there, and IU was always my "home team".
Just saying that the rule applies even to the best, that one "aw, crap" makes up for a hundred "atta boy's". When the personal behavior BS gets to the breaking point, I don't care if you're a Bobby Knight, Woody Hayes, Michael Vick, Terrell Owens, or Tony Stewart, your ego and behavior starts to detract from your performance and hurts your image, your team's image, and your sport. And that those things might not count if we're talking about the "winningest" coach ever, but it does if we're talking about the "greatest coach". Again, just my opinion.
By the way, your comment about giving kids a "time out" brought a smile. My boy's 42 in a couple weeks, and a successful executive up in the Detroit area. I think if you asked him about the discipline he received growing up, the words "time out" wouldn't come up in the conversation 8^). We did always try to point out the error in his ways, and the reasons why it was not acceptable behavior, but that was quite often following the more traditional corporal punishment, not instead of it. Well before he was college age, though, we had graduated from the need for physical discipline to being able to speak reasonably and settle our differences in a more adult manner. He was a freshman in HS and already taller than I was, the last time I had to lay a hand on him, and that was just to quickly get his attention, not really a punishment. Glad I didn't have to get physical later than that. He could probably have handled me then if he'd had the confidence.
I suspect that most disciplinary measures, if applied consistently, work pretty well. And that even the harshest and most physical don't work well if not used consistently and with the reasons for the necessity of it explained. And I still think there's no substitute for warming up their little fannies under some circumstances, to get the point across.
|
|
|
|
Post by bomonster on Feb 10, 2008 14:11:37 GMT -5
Coach Knight, will go down as the best coach in NCAA history. Coach K. might break his win record, but who was his teach? I do believe he made a choice to reitre or whatever people may believe just to give his son some time on his own to figure it out. Smart move if you are a Knight fan and believe that he has been tutoring his son since Pat's playing days at I.U.( The Indiana University) The Big Ten hasn't been the same since he left. P.S. Keady who?  |
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Feb 10, 2008 18:29:03 GMT -5
480, Well said. I do disagree with you on a few points (no surprise there, I suppose). I neither loved nor hated Knight. I certainly admired his abilities as a tactician and a teacher, and said so. His accomplisments were unquestionable, and I said that as well in the earlier post. I was a fan of his for some time, but gradually became more embarrassed and disgusted by his behavior until I was glad to see him leave IU when he finally went beyond what the administration could stomach. My younger brother is a Knight fan, and used to hunt with some former players and ran around with a few of them socially. He told me of some other very admirable things that the coach did and kept out of the news. Most of those stories were secondhand from the players or others who were in Knight's inner circles, but I have no reason to suspect that they were false. I didn't say he was the Devil incarnate. Just that his personal behavior was bad enough, often enough, to deduct very substantially from his obvious greatness in other areas. I personally thought his handling of the players was less than ideal, and I recall some who left his program who were very good, but who just couldn't stand his bullying methods. That matter was his decision and the numbers suggest that it worked overall for him, so I'll give him credit for it being right for him, at least. Not sure that the testimonials from those who stayed and endured the abuse are necessarily the end-all argument in behalf of that sort of treatment, though. I think we've all had tough teachers, coaches, or mentors that we've endured at one time or another. Maybe some of them were also effective teachers, maybe not. We remember the ones we learned from with fondness, and recall with pride the fact that we survived them all, with age softening the memory of the ones whose bullying we survived but who taught us little except that we had the ability to endure. But his tactics in that arena were his to choose and use, and as I said above, can't argue with the numbers as to the result. No argument about his talent. Enjoyed watching IU win myself. The few hours of college I got were there, and IU was always my "home team". Just saying that the rule applies even to the best, that one "aw, crap" makes up for a hundred "atta boy's". When the personal behavior BS gets to the breaking point, I don't care if you're a Bobby Knight, Woody Hayes, Michael Vick, Terrell Owens, or Tony Stewart, your ego and behavior starts to detract from your performance and hurts your image, your team's image, and your sport. And that those things might not count if we're talking about the "winningest" coach ever, but it does if we're talking about the "greatest coach". Again, just my opinion. By the way, your comment about giving kids a "time out" brought a smile. My boy's 42 in a couple weeks, and a successful executive up in the Detroit area. I think if you asked him about the discipline he received growing up, the words "time out" wouldn't come up in the conversation 8^). We did always try to point out the error in his ways, and the reasons why it was not acceptable behavior, but that was quite often following the more traditional corporal punishment, not instead of it. Well before he was college age, though, we had graduated from the need for physical discipline to being able to speak reasonably and settle our differences in a more adult manner. He was a freshman in HS and already taller than I was, the last time I had to lay a hand on him, and that was just to quickly get his attention, not really a punishment. Glad I didn't have to get physical later than that. He could probably have handled me then if he'd had the confidence. I suspect that most disciplinary measures, if applied consistently, work pretty well. And that even the harshest and most physical don't work well if not used consistently and with the reasons for the necessity of it explained. And I still think there's no substitute for warming up their little fannies under some circumstances, to get the point across. Your thoughtful, and well expressed views Russ, are but a couple of the reasons I respect you, even though we seldom agree on things.  I suppose we just disagree on Coach Knight, and I see that our perspectives are just coming from different angles, but I do appreciate your point of view, even if I don`t embrace it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 10, 2008 19:45:32 GMT -5
Thank you, 480. The respect is mutual.
I suspect we agree on many things that most of us here agree on, and differ on just a few. It's just that we're not likely to see the need to express the same opinion that most everyone else shares, so our posts tend to be on those few things that may bring out a variety of views among the HI folk, and on those issues we often are on different sides.
I take that to be a characteristic of this form of communication. It groups people with similar interests, which is great, but does tend to magnify the remaining differences of opinion, which might make it seem like the group is a bit testy at times.
I remember an uncle by marriage who had a twin brother.... couldn't tell them apart. But Danny was a diehard Chevy man, and David would drive only Fords. They were both beagle enthusiasts, but David was a field trialer and Danny had no use for the competitions. I forget now which one was the short dog fancier, but the other wouldn't have a beagle that didn't measure a couple inches taller. Their similarities were tremendous, but it made their differences even more intense, and they would argue them with much passion.
|
|
