I’ll say it now. I contend the Game did not pass him by. The Game got bastardized with rules changes that should NOT have trickled down from the NBA. That promoted rougher play and more reliance on athletic talent and less on team play, which I adore. I can’t stand the shit that’s been played for years now. Knight was a purist from an era of basketball that we should still be in.
The Game DIDN’T pass RMK by.
- Thread starter t4mink
- Start date
Millennials ruined the game because they dont like being yelled at! That’s why I can never be a head coach. I use RMK as inspiration in my coaching style, without all the violence though! But, I’d get thrown out of every game these days thanks to my disdain of officiating and my bad potty mouth!🤬
One of my favorite quote of his about young people was “ kids haven’t changed, parents have”
Give me the purity of the motion offense!
When run right it was a thing of beauty.
When run right it was a thing of beauty.
Great coach.
Never behind the curve.
Innovative to the end of his career.
Flawed human exactly like the rest of us.
Much like any controversial public figure his sycophants bothered/bother me more than he.
RIP General.
Never behind the curve.
Innovative to the end of his career.
Flawed human exactly like the rest of us.
Much like any controversial public figure his sycophants bothered/bother me more than he.
RIP General.
In the early days of VCRs, I would tape the IU games and rewatch the key plays and try to learn WHY player x made the key basket. Because he moved without the ball as player y set a solid screen, player z then read the cut and delivered the pass right in the shooting pocket. Swish.
Poetry.
It generally was never one on one isolation or hero ball, it was 5 players all connected, reading and moving as if of one mind.
And Woody got his share of ‘swish’, like Scottie and Steve before him.
Let’s not forget Woody got his daily dose of Bobby’s defensive principles every practice.
I don't think Knight would have wanted anything to do with NIL...the shoe companies were bad enough.
Nick Saban yells a lot. Players can handle being yelled at.
The game didn’t pass him by. The players did. They wouldn’t tolerate Knight’s discipline.
when ESPN came along around 1979-80, the game was bastardized by SportsCenter which wanted more dunking.
traveling, double dribble, palming, were all effectively stricken from the rules, because the biggest most athletic guys were all far more prone to travel, double dribble, palm, the ball.
then they added that beyond ridiculous no defense circle under the basket, which has to be one of the worst and most dangerous rules in all of sport.
being more liberal with palming was needed, but not near as liberal as it's gotten.
as for the amount of traveling and double dribble that goes on now, it's beyond ridiculous.
all to benefit the bigger more athletic less skilled player, at the expense of the more skilled better ball handler, so we could have more dunking for sports center.
His style of play would have thrived had he been able to keep up with relating to the kids.
I think people need to "accept" that part of what made Coach Knight great was his stubbornness and brashness. He broke his teams down, and then by sheer force and will, built them back up as well oiled machines. When those machines had the proper amount of talent, they won B10 titles, and competed for National titles. But even when they didn't, they were still competitive.
An instrumental part of his success, and program, was mentally breaking kids down and forcing them to play his way. The Fab Five generation, the rise of AAU, the rise in overall individuality, and most importantly, Parents getting MUCH softer on what they'll allow others to say and do with their kids... these things didn't mesh with Coach Knight. So he stopped getting as much of the higher end talent...so he was left with having solid teams that weren't great... And I think that's because the style of offense and defense he was coaching was soooo advanced, and soooo good, that he could coach up most any group to be a 20 ish win team.
I think people need to "accept" that part of what made Coach Knight great was his stubbornness and brashness. He broke his teams down, and then by sheer force and will, built them back up as well oiled machines. When those machines had the proper amount of talent, they won B10 titles, and competed for National titles. But even when they didn't, they were still competitive.
An instrumental part of his success, and program, was mentally breaking kids down and forcing them to play his way. The Fab Five generation, the rise of AAU, the rise in overall individuality, and most importantly, Parents getting MUCH softer on what they'll allow others to say and do with their kids... these things didn't mesh with Coach Knight. So he stopped getting as much of the higher end talent...so he was left with having solid teams that weren't great... And I think that's because the style of offense and defense he was coaching was soooo advanced, and soooo good, that he could coach up most any group to be a 20 ish win team.
He had a pretty solid team ready to go in 2000. Knight was never for everybody. But Dane Fife said last night he went to IU to play for BK.
He wasn't a fool and he always said there were different approaches you needed to take with different kids.
He wasn't a fool and he always said there were different approaches you needed to take with different kids.
It certainly would have been interesting to see what he could have done with those early 2000's teams.
Watching clips of the IU teams in the 70s-early 90s running the motion offense is, to me, so much more enjoyable than the crappy 3 point chucking contests I see on TV today. However, the style of the motion offense- the patience needed- would not be usable today in the 30-second shot clock game. Just not enough time in each possession. The rules were changed to cater to the least-common denominator- the casual fan with short attention span who wants to see the game sped up and maybe witness one of ESPN's "top 10 at 10" moments. The game was altered for more mass market viewing; the ADHD generation won the battle and the game changed. For better or worse? Not my call, I'm just one guy who grew up playing during that earlier period of time, with coaches who tried to replicate RMK's offensive principles, so my view is obviously biased. But I don't enjoy watching the game as much anymore...even when I'm watching IU play. Just doesn't appeal like it used to.
I read an interesting tidbit the other day...the '86 Lakers/Celtics finals...one of the greatest ever (series where McHale clotheslined Rambis and Bird/Kareem almost got into a fist fight; Celtics got pushed around in game 3 (?) and Bird called his teammates 'sissies' to the press after the game, and Celts came out swinging the next game- literally )....that series has some historically good shooters- Bird (obviously), Michael Cooper - and for a 7 game series, there were 46 three pointers attempted...in the ENTIRE series. Shows you how the game changed.
I read an interesting tidbit the other day...the '86 Lakers/Celtics finals...one of the greatest ever (series where McHale clotheslined Rambis and Bird/Kareem almost got into a fist fight; Celtics got pushed around in game 3 (?) and Bird called his teammates 'sissies' to the press after the game, and Celts came out swinging the next game- literally )....that series has some historically good shooters- Bird (obviously), Michael Cooper - and for a 7 game series, there were 46 three pointers attempted...in the ENTIRE series. Shows you how the game changed.
Last edited:
As evidenced by what he did with TT, especially the job he did turning around that program so quickly with a patched together roster.
For sure. His floor is what we're now aspiring to get to as our next step. THAT's how great he was, and how far we've fallen.
The ever-shorter shot clock and sabermetrics telling everyone to dribble down and chuck threes makes it pretty unwatchable. College ball is just becoming an NBA clone, and apart from watching Jordan and Reggie Miller, the NBA hasn't been watchable in a very long time.
I still find it very enjoyable. Still quite a lot more varying styles in college, than in the NBA.
I also am enjoying watching the NBA more and more lately too, for what its worth. And since you mentioned Reggie Miller... you don't think watching Steph Curry is enjoyable????
Two coaches had this phrase used to describe their genius. "He could take his'n and beat your'n then turn round and take your'n and beat his'n.". He was surely the genius.
True w/r/t the styles in college, but it continues to narrow to an NBA-lite. Of course, as others mentioned, that started with SportsCenter decades ago.
RE: Steph Curry, I was a Jordan fan until his first retirement and then started following the Pacers/Miller. But once Miller retired, I pretty much stopped watching. Steph can be fun to watch, but I've lost enough interest that it's not worth enduring the game itself.
If you can stomach Draymond Green's whining...you should watch some Warriors games.
Especially if they're playing Kings, Suns, or Nuggets...Grizzlies and Thunder can be fun to watch as well.
I'm not as big of a fan of the top Eastern conference teams...it feels like they're more "Big Ten" ish to me. But the Celtics can be fun to watch, at times. And though I haven't watched them, I imagine watching Dame and Giannis together is pretty fascinating (Bucks).
To bring an IU tie in...watching Steph, in some ways, is what it was like watching Alford play. He runs off bazillion different types of screens and cuts, and is a wizard shooting and ball handling when he catches it. I can watch an entire Warriors game, and be as captivated as I am any IU game.
True about Curry, although he doesn't do it all the time - also does plenty of standing around, but when he starts his cutting/screening, nobody can keep up with him - one of the few that moves well & fast without the ball, always ends up open & usually makes those more than the long launches.
It's close, but Coach K's yelling was, you can find recordings of his tirades/practices. He has the same short temper, but he was protected more because of Duke and he kept it behind closed doors, not in press conferences. He was a machine protected for the money he brought Duke & the NCAA. Tiger was a perfect example of this, all his temper tantrums, throwing and breaking clubs, all kept under wraps until he screwed up, then everyone let loose on the stories.
The moment NIL became what it is today, he would have retired or moved to the NBA. There is no way he would have continued with the NIL. He wanted players to play for him, for IU, not cash.
The motion offense had a built in stall … “only layups” could require defenders to scramble for minutes.
So in other words the game had passed him by. Thanks, got it.
That isn't completely fair. Talent is far more spread out these days than it used to be. The floors of all coach's would be lower now than back in their day. Anyone think Wooden would have such a high win percentage and as many trophies if he was coaching today rather than back 50+ years ago? Plus, it would be more difficult to pay for your team for an advantage now a days with all the money flowing from all the major players.
Its all relative, in my opinion. My point was his system was good enough to win up to a certain point, like clockwork, without needing elite levels of talent. So relative to the more spread out talent, which I agree with you by the way, I think he'd still have IU perennially in the NCAA tournament. And he might not need 3-4 elite talents to get to FF's...he might only need 1-2...
I think the portal and stuff has accelerated the parity quite a bit, so by the end of his coaching career, his inability to land enough elite talent did put a ceiling on his teams' abilities to compete for trophies and net cutting. But I think the newfound parity, if he were coaching now, would have brought the field back to him a bit, and he would have been a force again. In fact, his principles and philosophies would have been incredible with the skills modern day players have coming in to college.
It’s TBD if there will be more or less parity in the future. One factor that may have influenced things (one way or the other) is the extra Covid year.
Conceptually I would argue that NIL and the portal should destroy parity, at least when talking about the top teams compared to others. What I mean by that is teams have huge differences in payrolls, the results should mirror that. In other words, if a team is paying players $20 million and they play a team with a roster of $200k, they should beat them every time,
It will be interesting to see.
The stereotype is that it was a tightly controlled slow-paced stall-like offense, but it really wasn't. Knight's IU teams led the league in points scored more than any other school, and average time of possession to my estimation was not really extended. Motion breaks down the D and can do it even with a shot clock.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Coach Knight's recruiting was not good his last five to seven yrs while at IU. This is what really hurt his level of winning. It had nothing to do with his ability to game strategize. What I loved about Coach Knight was that when things go wrong he was able to adapt. His 88-89 team was amazing. They got blown out by Syracuse and North Carolina. Then Knight decides to go to a three guard lineup. They won the B1G that yr and beat eventual champion Michigan at least once if not twice.
Game never passes coaches up like Knight.
But recruiting did..
Rule changes had nothing to do with Knight's ability to coach, or not---There were plenty of them during his time, and he always adapted..
1. Shot clock--multiple changes
2. 3 point shot
3. 5 second count
4. Advancing the ball past 28 foot hash
The game changed in a sense that well, players changed. 6'7 PG's----7'0 athletic freaks....6'9" dudes that played like guards... And look at how Knight was starting to recruit, towards the end....
Newton, JJ, Leach, Haston, Miller, Collier, etc....He saw where the game was going, and was starting to adapt to such...
Anyways---the game doesn't pass up HOF coaches. Never bought that for a second.
Thanks for pointing that out. Many seem to think motion is basically running 4 corners compared to modern dribble drive, ball screen, kick out to the open guy to jack up a 3 type offenses but his teams were typically high scoring machines. It's not just that it was fun to watch - it was effective.
I’ll actually agree with you … it’s not a 3 man weave … or 4 corners … famous stall layouts.
Just saying savvy play, when called for, could take the air out of the ball.
