Jump to content

Taken me a few weeks to start this…


Recommended Posts

I watched the ESPN 30 on 30 about the last days of Bob Knight as HC of IUMBB. It re-aired about a month ago, and I apologize if this is rehashing old conversations.

At first, I thought this was going to be a hack job on Knight and IU. Done by a sports reporter from CNN. Who knew that CNN even had a sports reporter. In some ways it was what my preconceived ideas thought. It did a great job of portraying Knight as he was, late in his IU tenure. Charlie Miller, a staunch RMK advocate, told a  story not too flattering to Knight, and his use of toilet paper to get across his opinion about how his team was playing . 
 

Sorry for the long message, but the show got me to thinking about RMK, the disciples who believe he could do no wrong, and how the fan base seems to be forever divided over his legacy.

Just thought that this might be a good topic for discussion during the off season 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my brothers, who was once a writer for ESPN is now a writer for CNN. Both of which I personally consider perfidious garbage. I haven’t seen this write up but I’m going to assume by its origin, it’s of the same.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the mid 70s-early 90s, you could make a case that he was THE best in the game, both from an in-game tactical standpoint and a strategic one. His methods worked. He knew it. Everyone else knew it.

The issue became that both basketball and society began to change, and Bobby didn’t. Note that the words “good” nor “bad” are in the previous sentence in regards to the aforementioned changes or in regards to RMK not changing. The simple fact was that the world that Knight had perfected his methods in didn’t exist anymore. 
 

I’d say the word “complicated” is perfect to describe Knight’s legacy. As a fan and alumnus, I’m proud to have Bob Knight attached to the history of IU, but I’ll also admit that the man had his flaws (as we all do). The thing with RMK is that any criticism that he may draw is all regarding HIM. It’s all 100% his actions and decisions directly. We’ll never have to worry about a Paterno/Penn State situation where it involved a cover up. RMK never claimed to be a saint, and he would let you know where he stood very clearly. His methods may have been questionable at times, but his moral compass never was. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Inequality said:

One of my brothers, who was once a writer for ESPN is now a writer for CNN. Both of which I personally consider perfidious garbage. I haven’t seen this write up but I’m going to assume by its origin, it’s of the same.

May I ask, what's the point of judging a book by its cover? This story/article could very well be written poorly. It *could* be the worst piece of journalism in the history of the world. But if you haven't read it, and *only* made assumptions about it based off of where it came from, aren't limiting possible outside perspectives and insights?

Genuinely curious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...