Wooden, Carr, & RR
We all have had a few days to absorb the passing of John Wooden. I just read a great column by Rick Reilly at ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=5260677) sharing his personal recollections on Wooden. Regardless of what you think of Reilly, positive or negative, it was a very nice column. His piece, published today, reminded me of some of the reasons I loved hearing about Coach Carr. Carr, like Wooden, was well read, and an educator. Carr, like Wooden, was not about PR and putting himself in front of the camera. Carr, like Wooden, was loved by many of his players. Carr, like Wooden, always wanted to do things the right way, win or lose. Carr, like Wooden, was loyal, sometimes to a fault.
Obviously, Carr is not Wooden, and the analogies eventually fall down. I was ready for Carr to retire, and am thrilled that RR is our coach. I support RR wholeheartedly, and pray that MSC and DB give him plenty of time to succeed. Nonetheless, reflecting on Wooden brought back many good memories of Carr. I loved his smile, and the thought that there was a warm heart of gold behind the curmudgeon sometimes on display for the mass media. I loved his dictionary, his interest in history, and literature, his character, his entire being. It is my hope that like Carr, we will see many wonderful things about RR over many years to come.
Thinking of Wooden and Carr does bring to mind one thing I just don't want to ever see at Michigan. If winning championships ever means you have to cheat, to compromise your values, to whore yourself and your school, then let me off the bus. Mind you, I do believe that RR wants to do things the right way, which is why the whole "major violations" and "NCAA sanctions" debacle pains him so greatly. But there are too many coaches and athletes and others who will cut corners for success. It wasn't worth it to Wooden, or to Carr, or, not that it matters, to me.
As Wooden, quipped, Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are. I don't want any more stupid discussions and threads on "Michigan Men." I do want my alma mater to do things the right way, out of the right character.
Lastly, slightly off topic, but cut from the same cloth as this post, I was thrilled in the meta topic about "Blogs with Balls" to see Brian's concern with ethics. Brian's desire to do things the right way is one of the reasons that I come to this website more than any other.
p.s. If you want more of Wooden, ESPN also compiled a bunch of his quotes. You can find them at http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5249709.
but a lot of the UCLA players were on the take from boosters during Wooden's time there and his knowledge about the situation is still debated.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/12227/the-oth…
I don't want any more stupid discussions and threads on "Michigan Men." I do want my alma mater to do things the right way, out of the right character.
Amen. People who think that Rich Rodriguez isn't a man of great character, haven't even attempted to find out anything about him. Just watch the videos on MgoBlue, from last year and this year. The players love him, they're doing well in school, and they're doing great work in the community.
i can tell you've never heard of sam gilbert. the man almost solely responsible for bringing in the talent that won john wooden all those national titles. players were paid whatever it took to get them to LA and keep them from transferring. both kareem abdul jabbar and bill walton have admitted to these things in their books. the image doesn't match the reality
Sorry to hear that. I'm hopelessly naive. One question: Reilly alludes to what you've said, but holds that Wooden was in the dark, and not complicit. Your thoughts? I.e., do you think that Wooden was all reputation, but really a slimy character when all is said and done?
it's highly unlikely that a guy goes from not winning anything his first 15 yrs at a school to all of a sudden getting some of college basketball's greatest players of all time without having some clue as to what was going on.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879296,00.html
This article is dated February 1974, when Wooden was still coaching at UCLA. Seems pretty clear he knew or should have known what was going on.
To me he is one of the greatest hypocrites in the history of sports (though this is further fueled by the hero worship of him in the media). He acts as though teaching players how to tie their shoes and insisting they sport clean-cut hair-dos while throwing out a few cliches turned his players into champions. As Digger Phelps has pointed out, Wooden never included the giant "Sam Gilbert" block in his pyramid of success.
Comparing Carr to Wooden is an enormous insult.
Of course, this assumes that Carr's program was entirely on the up-and-up.
College sports - even nonrevenue sports - is far, far dirtier than most of us want to admit.
Wooden turned UCLA around immediately, leading them to the conference championship in his very first year and also to their first season with over twenty victories. He did this again the next 3 seasons, and during his entire tenure at UCLA, which began in 1948, he never finished lower than 3rd place.
These posts about him not winning anything for his first 15 years are really out of left field. It should also be noted he took Indiana State to the finals and lost to Louisville prior to the NCAA ever hosting tourney, and in two years there led them to over 40 wins.
But if you're bound and determined to repeat only what you've heard, without putting any time into research, you'll just keep repeating untruths about a damn great coach, be it with purchased players or not. I sincerely doubt such was the case in his first 15 years, and he proved he really didn't need Sam Gilbert to win basketball games at UCLA.
I'll add this also, NC, most notably has fielded teams in recent years with every bit the talent the UCLA teams had during their miraculous run, yet no team has dominated the NCAA tournament like UCLA did, and comparing Carr to him is in no way an insult.
Wooden was the Bear Bryant of college basketball. He was a winner pure and simple.
Great post. My sentiments exactly. People rarely let the facts get in the way of their learned opinion.
that's all.
Wooden never finished lower than third place in his division within the old Pacific Coast Conference (they had a split formate throughout the early years of his tenure). This is not the same as finishing in the top three in the conference overall (though he did have a good record pre-Gilbert).
Wooden was obviously a good coach and a great player before that, but he went 13 years before he made the final four at UCLA, then went in twelve of the next fourteen seasons and won 10 championships. At that time, players like Alcindor, Walton, Allen, Bibby, and basically everyone on the team were all getting paid by Sam Gilbert. Being a pretty good coach before the cheating started doesn't exonerate someone from overseeing the most corrupt basketball program in NCAA history for roughly a decade. Every single one of his wins from at least the mid-sixties on should have been vacated.
Wooden's record is only what it is because his program was cheating. He may have stuck his head in the sand but that doesn't excuse what happened in my book. Lloyd Carr didn't coach a team where everyone on that team was getting paid by boosters whose relationship with the squad was advertised in the national media. He has real integrity and didn't just talk about the subject to sell books while ignoring the flagrant rule breaking that allowed for his success, as Wooden did.
From the article you posted it appears UCLA and Wooden had already won a few NC's and had Kareem on campus before Sam Gilbert ever got involved with the program.
-Papa Sam began his relationship with U.C.L.A. basketball in the mid-1960s, when former All-America Willie Naulls brought two disgruntled sophomores, Lew Alcindor (now Jabbar) and Lucius Allen, to him for some counseling
How do you think Naulls, who played for Wooden back in the mid 1950's, decided to take two star basketball players to meet with a middle aged money launderer? And for "counseling" no less? At least 8 of Wooden's championships should have been voided based on the open admissions by players like Jabbar, Allen, and Walton. When a player from a much earlier era set up the players we know took money with the guy we know provided the money for over a decade, it seems pretty plausible that things weren't on the up and up beforehand.
We could go round and round on this, but if Kareem (one of the most sought after recruits ever) did not know Sam Gilbert until his sophomore year... Plus having Kareem around with Lucious Allen and others pretty much guaranteed 2 or 3 more NC's for Wooden.
John Wooden's teams were extremely well coached, I don't think there is any denying that, how many NC's he should forfeit is open for fruitless debate.
Obviously the guy was a good coach, but I think his integrity, which is often lauded by the media, can't help but be called into question based on what happened for such a long period under his watch. To your point, if Kareem and Allen left like they wanted to before Gilbert's gifts came into the picture, Wooden doesn't win those next three national titles (or the ones that came afterward when Gilbert was a known commodity) and we probably don't talk about him all that much today. Don't forget that players were not even eligible until their sophomore year at that time so the relationship between Gilbert and those players started essentially the moment they were able to play in a game.
For some reason Wooden has a saintly reputation when the transgressions that took place in his program dwarf anything we've seen since SMU football in the 1980's. More abrasive coaches won while doing things by the book (Knight) or at least had the balls to admit they bent the rules (like Bryant, who was mentioned earlier). Wooden on the other hand acts like his magical pyramid allowed for ultimate success with unparalleled integrity, when the fact is he oversaw a completely crooked program and never admitted the benefit it provided to his coaching record or acknowledged his own culpability.
Like I said we can go round and round. I'll finish my end with a quote from the great Steve Fisher. "woulda, coulda, shoulda"
That's an ironic choice of people to quote from...
These posts about him not winning anything for his first 15 years are really out of left field.
He didn't finish better than 3rd in a regional, then started that championship run.
a damn great coach, be it with purchased players or not.
"Well, sure, he did insider trading, but man, did he give good investment tips and made a lot of money!" Uhm....sure, he can be a great coach...but if they were purchased (before or after they got there)...HIS TEAM WAS CHEATING!
Wooden was the Bear Bryant of college basketball. He was a winner pure and simple.
Interesting comparison, because I don't think anyone's accused Bama of being too clean a program. By that reasoning, Switzer at Oklahoma was a winner, Miami "The U" was a winner, UNLV with Tark was a winner, Saban is a winner....which would, technically, be accurate. But there's kinda more to it than that, no? Unless you believe in a win at all cost philosophy, which kinda misses the whole point of the argument...
I'll add this also, NC, most notably has fielded teams in recent years with every bit the talent the UCLA teams had during their miraculous run, yet no team has dominated the NCAA tournament like UCLA did
Love to see you list those teams. Vs. the competition they went against (heck, many times they're not the best team in a 100 mile radius). And the spread of talent with tv coverage. And the game's growing popularity post Magic vs. Bird. And the bigger tournament fields which create more games, and more games to get upset in. And the advent of common early departures for the draft (I bet Michael would have been killer as a senior, no?). The UCLA teams had a horde of talent that maybe only the old time Celtics could match for a team that had more talent than anyone else in their game, at their particular level. Maybe some really old Yankees team...but I couldn't really quote or compare them.
comparing Carr to him is in no way an insult.
It was if you were comparing integrity, which was what the original point was. If you were comparing winning, and that's all you're concerned with, then Lloyd would have been lucky to have been as good a coach and won as much as Wooden did. But then Lloyd can sleep at night knowing he never preached one thing, while turning a blind eye to the opposite thing happening rampantly under his watch. I'm not fond of cheaters. But I like hypocrites less. And Wooden lived off preaching an image that he didn't uphold. And the fact that guys like Walton can rail about what's right and wrong in the game, how bad the Fab Five were, and preach the wonders of Wooden's do right philosophy, all the time he was on the take sickens me.
As the posts in front of me stated is on the mark, UCLA was a semi-professional team during their run in Wooden's golden years. Obviously his message is not lost although our society wants us to win at any cost but to instill ethics, morals and values (and winning) along the way. Wooden is a reflection of all of that and Im not citing Mr Wooden with any wrongdoing at a personal level. Our society will not celebrate a .500 coach at Witchita State who carries the same values as Wooden did, you need winning streaks, All-Americans and Titles too.
They each grab a stool and order one shot of bourbon, one shot of scotch and one beer.
The bartender looks at them and says...."
leaving your alma mater and a place where you're the man because you want to be the leader of the leaders and best make you a "michigan man" IMO he's more of a "michigan man" than Miles or Harbagh.