I don't question his knowledge. I also don't think I know more than him.

You have repeatedly questioned his knowledge about the game by saying that fans who follow the game closely know as much as him, you included.

 

Obviously, for many that are reading this thread, this isn't comprehensible, but I expected as much.

I guess you have just been talking over our heads. :ohbrother:

 

That said, I think people overvalue what knowledge he actually knows.

Not questioning his knowlege, or anything?

 

No where did I say I could out coach or out smart Bob Knight, and if I did, someone can quote it for me.

Thankfully, you didn't go this far, you are right.

 

 

Apparently some of the posters will put two and two together and end up with five and that's why we are at the point we are.

No math needed, you plainly stated how you felt and it didn't leave any room for interpretation. We ended up at this point because the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread feel you have some ridiculous ideas about the level of basketball knowlege possessed by elite coaches vs. avid fans. But maybe we just aren't smart enough to do the math. :idunno:

 

I am finished with this thread.

At some point, you have to lay down the shovel and quit digging. :lol:

I could agree with that as well.

 

But you all make it out to be rocket science and Knight being a scientist and everyone else being mentally challenged.

 

I don't believe that Rich Brooks is a rocket scientist, but I would be willing to bet that given his experience, if I sat down with him, I would learn something about football, ... a game which I truly love and understand pretty well.

 

I believe that posters on here (at least most) are not mentally challenged and don't think anyone alluded to that. But experience is a great teacher and I give these guys their due.

 

Noone seems to believe that George Bush is a brilliant man, however, I bet that if I sat down to discuss politics with him, I would learn something because of his experience.

 

In other words, when someone has 'been there and done that' at a high level, they have an experience that most of us don't have.

My two cents:

 

I certainly have no problem accepting the fact that Bob Knight (or any other great coach) knows more about basketball than I do. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says, nor does it mean he's always right.

 

I've always felt that a vast knowledge of "X's and O's" is, by and large, overrated. Basketball is not that complicated in that respect. Knowing when to step back and let your players play is more important than being a clipboard genius. Its not rocket science...you get the ball in the hands of your best player(s) and you try to exploit mismatches.

 

I believe what makes the great ones great is not their knowledge of "X's and O's", but their ability to relate to their players...developing, motivating, teaching. The guys who can develop players on an individual level, while also molding the group of individuals into a unit are successful. I believe most college basketball coaches know enough about the game, but not all of them are as adept at conveying that to their players and molding them into a cohesive team.

 

Finally, talent is a must. And, that centers around recruiting. I view recruiting as something separate in general, but its also something that's crucial to being a successful college coach.

 

And, that brings me full circle, back to Bob Knight. The job he did in '87 (I believe) was incredible. For me personally, that's the most impressive coaching job I've seen in the college game. To win a title with that roster...few, if any, IMO, could have pulled that off. I'm not saying they were scrubs, but they certainly weren't the most talented team I've ever seen.

You have repeatedly questioned his knowledge about the game by saying that fans who follow the game closely know as much as him, you included.

 

I guess you have just been talking over our heads. :ohbrother:

 

Not questioning his knowlege, or anything?

 

Thankfully, you didn't go this far, you are right.

 

 

No math needed, you plainly stated how you felt and it didn't leave any room for interpretation. We ended up at this point because the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread feel you have some ridiculous ideas about the level of basketball knowlege possessed by elite coaches vs. avid fans. But maybe we just aren't smart enough to do the math. :idunno:

 

At some point, you have to lay down the shovel and quit digging. :lol:

 

If I didn't go as far as saying that I consider myself equal to Bob Knight in knowledge, where did this come from?

 

Who knows as much as Coach Knight?

1. Anyone who follows bball

2. especially those who follow it closely

3. me (SSF)

4. anyone else

 

You obviously jumped to conclusions when I said that and tried to make it out as me saying it.

 

If you read the first post, my first comparison was to a coach with 200 wins, then to a basketball scout, and then to a fan. If you follow the basic left to right reading theory, the main question was comparing him to a coach that has 200 wins, compared to 900. What did Knight prove in the last 15 years of his career that makes him that much more knowledgeable than Mark Few or Tom Crean, or Bruce Pearl?

 

I never questioned his knowledge. I never said I or anyone had as much knowledge about the game compared to him. I did point out that just because he has 900 wins doesn't mean he has forgotten more basketball than others know (figure of speech, but the point behind it).

 

Does his 900 wins make him any more knowledgeable about the game that K? Pitino? Anyone post 1987?

 

This is a message board, I didn't know I had to leave room for discussion about the subject, I thought that was a given, since I asked a question in the very first post.

 

So more or less, you jumped to conclusions and assumed, without seeing it anywhere, that I said I knew as much as Knight.

 

But I expected nothing more.

I don't believe that Rich Brooks is a rocket scientist, but I would be willing to bet that given his experience, if I sat down with him, I would learn something about football, ... a game which I truly love and understand pretty well.

 

I believe that posters on here (at least most) are not mentally challenged and don't think anyone alluded to that. But experience is a great teacher and I give these guys their due.

 

Noone seems to believe that George Bush is a brilliant man, however, I bet that if I sat down to discuss politics with him, I would learn something because of his experience.

 

In other words, when someone has 'been there and done that' at a high level, they have an experience that most of us don't have.

 

I was using it as a comparative example. No, I know you didn't allude to that. The point being, Bob Knight is not vastly superior to anyone I listed, outside of the avid fan, in the very first post. You don't see anyone making the same comparisons to other coaches (Donovan, Pearl, etc.). Fifteen mediocre seasons to end his career just so he could have the title as all-time winningest coach makes him no more knowledgeable about the sport than a coach with 400 or 500 wins.

I'd say Bob Knight probably couldn't coach is way out of a 5th grade basketball tournament. The "15 mediocre" seasons are what the real Bob Knight was about, he just got lucky for the other quarter of a century. No other coaches ever went to Indiana or Texas Tech practices to pick anything up or ever got in touch with Knight to learn from him. And Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno don't know a thing about football either....:idunno:

If I didn't go as far as saying that I consider myself equal to Bob Knight in knowledge, where did this come from?

 

You obviously jumped to conclusions when I said that and tried to make it out as me saying it.

 

I never questioned his knowledge. I never said I or anyone had as much knowledge about the game compared to him.

 

So more or less, you jumped to conclusions and assumed, without seeing it anywhere, that I said I knew as much as Knight.

 

But I expected nothing more.

 

This post from you that I linked above says exactly what I outlined. I didn't jump to any conclusions, didn't have to.

 

Anyone who follows basketball, especially those who follow it closely, know the ins and outs of the game. What is there that Bob Knight knows that someone else doesn't? Maybe to the casual viewer, he may know more. But to anyone who follows the game and watches it closely, they know just as much as he does.

 

Just because he has a bunch of wins doesn't mean he knows more about basketball than me, or anyone else.

Has someone like Mark Few or John Brady forgot more about basketball?

 

SSF, I hate to pile on, but if you were comparing Few and Brady in terms of coaching prowess...I'd have to disagree.

 

Aweseome pic! I always love a good 'Office Space' reference!!! :notworthy:

Also, I can't believe you would act like Knight was a scrub at TT. I thought he did an amazing job there considering the lack of talent TT had in comparison to Kansas and Texas and other Big 12 schools. IMO he did an awesome job there. Kind of off topic but I'm still in awe at most of this convo.

SSF, I hate to pile on, but if you were comparing Few and Brady in terms of coaching prowess...I'd have to disagree.

 

I don't compare Brady, or even Few, who I highly respect, to Knight.

 

Brady is an awful, awful coach, that is why I listed him.