Robert Montgomery Knight -- either you love him or you hate him. There does not seem to be much middle ground.
It says a great deal to me that his players and fellow coaches, nearly universally, have nothing but praise for the man. These are the people that seem to know him the best, and who went into their "relationship" with him with open eyes.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/b ... tion.0848/
Yet, for many in the media and those in the general public, there is the lasting images of a darker side. They mainly see a man who seemingly did not follow everything that he preached, including discipline.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/ ... ortCat=ncb
In one of their interactive polls on ESPN, they had that question that has followed Knight for years and is part of every public discussion:
Would you let your son play for Bobby Knight?
For over two decades, I always have answered "yes". Knight is about putting the student, first and foremost, into student-athlete. He is about helping young men achieve their potential and become better people. However, it also has been abundently clear to me that he should have retired over a decade ago. It was clear that he could not, would not, alter his coaching style and philosophy to match the change in attitude of the players.
One of the comments left on ESPN was as follows: "I can honestly say that if your kid is raised right in the household, he should be in good hands with Coach Knight. Now, if he is weak, undisciplined, disrespectful or anything like that, then you might have a problem." It is much too simplistic of a comment, but there is some truth in the thought. Starting in the 1990s, it has been increasingly harder to get young players to buy into the concept of "team first", defense as the foundation for victory, and moving the ball rather than isolated one on ones. As the NBA rose in popularity, its style of play changed, and high schoolers and college freshmen flooded into the league, Knight's philiosophy did not work with players who had spent the previous years of their life being told that they were great, could do no wrong, and would certainly play in the NBA.
I also must admit that I always thought that I understood Knight, as he was so similar to my high school's longtime coach, who aptly was known by the moniker "Killer". To the outsider, he looked like a yelling, screaming, raving lunatic. It shocked them to see the coach of a Catholic high school cursing so much. He yelled at players. If you made a mistake, you would hear all about it (loudly). The better you were, the louder and "meaner" he seemed to be. (There were rumors of Coach breaking clipboards over the head of one player who went on to play afootball at Nebraska. Most versions did have the player wearing a helmet.) He preached ball movmenet and the 1-3-1 half-court zone. He had a set list of plays, and you would run them to perfection. There was no showboating, and dunking was nearly verboten (you could dunk, but if you ever missed, "you might as well keep running right out of the gym.")
As I finished my high school years, it was becoming clear that there was more and more budding "rebellion" against his way of playing the game. For the first time, you started to see players quitting or deciding no longer to play. Underclassman wanted to emulate the moves that they would see on Sportscenter. For the first time, he would have to deal with disciplining for off-court activities. The win-loss records got worse, and trips to the state tournament went from annual events to rare happenings.
Like Knight, he was beloved by everyone who played for him. To a man, they will tell you that they were a better student and better man becuase of him. When he passed in 2003, they flocked from around the country to lay him to rest.
In the end, I believe that Knight has done much more good than bad in his life, which is something that we all hope can be said about our impact on each other.
