<p>…although I would never engage in some of the extremes that Knight did, to say there are “50 examples of abuse” is absurd. Did anyone happen to watch the Olympic segment last Friday on the 1996 gymnastics team? Kerri Strugs was talking about Bela Karolyi, her coach. She said “I didn’t like him, he wasn’t nice…but he wasn’t there to be a father figure or friend, he was my coach & his job was to get the best out of his athletes” The players at IU knew what they were signing up for. Now as grown men, if asked was their experience playing for Knight worth 50 incidents of “abuse”…what do you think they’d say?</p>
<p>Knight’s “coaching style” and explosive personality were well known. Hell, I even knew about it back in the day, and I am the farthest thing from a college basketball fan. Knight was notorious, even then. This is not hindsight, or judging someone by today’s standards. The fact that Reed was forewarned by Knight’s reputation does not make Knight’s behavior an acceptable “style” of coaching. The fact that Knight may have routinely laid hands on players the way he laid hands on Reed does not make Reed wrong to object to it and leave. What WAS definitely wrong is the attempt to smear him by denying that it ever happened at all. Dismissing it by saying he “wasn’t a fit”… seriously? It seems to me that what we have here is an example of a guy who was out of control for a long time, but he was enabled and excuses were made for him because he was winning. It is unfortunate for all concerned that Knight’s behavior was shrugged off as a “coaching style” for so long. If Knight were a genuinely talented basketball coach–and there’s no reason to think he wasn’t–he could have developed winning teams without it.</p>
<p>Let me draw your attention to the post by MizBee, who actually saw the reality:</p>
<p>Re no. 21: I think it would depend on the player and how good the team was when that player played. Players might put up with more for a great team if they buy in to the notion that such aggression is necessary. Knight had a lot of very good teams. However, not every championship coach is as harsh as Knight was, so his methods do not appear to have been necessary, they were just his way. Great players stopped coming to IU and IU stopped winning as much because of Knight’s reputation as a bully. What do you think his players would say about his handling of the Reed transfer and portraying Reed as a liar? I would hope they would be shocked and embarrassed that Coach Knight would stoop so low to protect himself from his own folly.</p>
<p>…they stopped coming to IU because Knight wouldn’t play the dirty game of recruiting that coaches such as Calapari, etc. are willing to do. Did his treatment of players go over the line? Absolutely, however all of the things that Knight did right (and better than any other coach) in running the IU basketball program shouldn’t be dismissed because of it.</p>
<p>^^^ Yes, Knight’s teams continued to be excellent and he usually did so without the sort of super stars Calipari paid to come to his teams. Knight ran a clean program, did SO much for players and their families behind the scenes despite having a style that we don’t like. Those were not the days of “everybody gets a trophy”- remember that, too.</p>
<p>Bogney’s post almost implies that Coach Knight’s “choking” of Neil Reed caused a “broken heart” that led to congenital heart failure.</p>
<p>I’m not condoning choking athletes, but any college player of almost any sport can likely relate to tougher incidents than that from coaches during their tenure.</p>
<p>As a Texas Tech fan that watched Coach Knight finish his career, I came to appreciate his genius for the game and to detest his ego and some of his tactics. Like many of the all time great coaches, he was tough and prone to some stupid acts.</p>
<p>Knight’s supporters here keep ignoring the point of the thread. (Of course, I buried the point in a very long essay, so that is understandable.) While I would have never sent my son to him, one can at least debate the merits of his method and program when it comes to how hard he pushed his players ostensibly to get the most out of them. Can anyone really defend Knight’s conduct toward Reed? </p>
<p>Minimizing it is no real defense. Knight may have done a lot of good with other people and other players, but he behaved despicably and showed cowardice in this instance. To quote Monty Python, "when danger reared its ugly head, Coach Knight turned around and fled. " When the stakes were high for his career, he showed zero character while touting himself as the coach who displayed real character in running a clean program. When push came to choke, Knight was dishonest. Given his emphasis on character, I find that to be hypocritical. </p>
<p>As I hope is apparent in the OP, I am no fan of big time athletic programs that cheat to win either. However, Knight tried to deceive the country to keep his job. In so doing, he lost the high ground on ethics which appeared to have been important to him. He could do something about that still by acknowledging his gross mishandling of the Reed transfer. That would show some courage and be a positive example about how an adult should behave.</p>
<p>…no just that every school he coaches at ends up on probation. Does Calipari pay? I’m sure the answer is no…but does someone pay & Calipari turn a blind eye to it? I’m betting the house on it…John Wooden junior!</p>