Society turning softer, underdisciplined

College basketball's winningest and most controversial coach, Bobby Knight, resigned this past season as the head basketball coach at Texas Tech. He left college basketball after 43 years, 902 wins and no small amount of debate and dispute regarding his coaching techniques.

Knight was fired from Indiana University in 2002 after behavior that university President Myles Brand termed, "uncivil, defiant and unacceptable." He nonetheless landed on his feet at Texas Tech and continued his winning (and controversial) ways.

He was roundly criticized for putting his hands around a player's neck and hitting him under his chin while coaching during a Texas Tech game. Though it was reported that the player had mouthed off to Knight and, if so, deserved this "Shut your mouth, son!" gesture by the coach, Knight's reputation for a violent temper and rough handling of players continued to haunt him.

While his history of rough coaching discipline and questionable methods were legendary, he was also known for what some would term more positive leadership methods.

The Associated Press quoted Sally Logue, a Texas Tech representative, saying after Knight's resignation, "His love for teaching and the students has been a hallmark of this tenure at Texas Tech."

Leadership experts, though, might disagree that any of Knight's coaching or teaching techniques were appropriate or effective. Publicly at least, Knight was known more for his "in our face" tirades, for manhandling his players and for getting thrown out of games than he was for complying with "coaching guidelines" that leadership experts theorize as being required by successful coaches.

A study of Knight's coaching style would probably indicate to many leadership theorists (and Knight's critics) that, while successful in the win column, he failed to live by accepted guidelines.

These modern coaching norms include developing supportive working relationships, giving praise and recognition, avoiding blame and embarrassment, having team members access their own performance and refraining from criticism.

Are Knight's dismissal from Indiana University, the wide criticism of his coaching techniques and the controversies that followed him through most of his career issues that are indicative of a preference of leadership theory over coaching success?

Or was Knight's excoriation over his coaching techniques, instead, indicative of changing societal norms?

Has "kindler and gentler" replaced "spare the rod and spoil the child?"

U.S. Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, would answer that last question vehemently in the affirmative. Shortly after Knight was fired from Indiana, Traficant addressed the House of Representatives.

"Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that Bob Knight was fired," he said. "But think about this. Bob Knight's athletes did not rape women, did not commit murder, did not molest children, did not carry guns, and did not sell drugs.

"In fact, Bob Knight's athletes were most noted for graduating, winning championships, being gentlemen and exhibiting discipline and respect. Beam me up, Scotty. Bob Knight was a coach, not a guidance counselor or a spiritual leader. I yield back to all those zero-tolerant, overpaid (Indiana University) administrators that Bob Knight should have kicked right in the crotch."

Few would agree with Traficant that crotch-kicking is the appropriate means to deal with differences in our society over acceptance of appropriate coaching techniques. Nonetheless, there are differences.

It is left for us to decide, then, whether the ends justify the means and whether those techniques that do not comply strictly with coaching and leadership theories - but nonetheless work in creating winning teams and disciplined players - are acceptable in our society.

It is left for us to decide if we can continue to offer societal approval of the strong-handed coaching techniques of Knight, especially for boys, who to become productive citizens need the uber-discipline and strong hand of coaching often absent from their upbringings at home.

And, it is left for us to determine whether coaches will be permitted to lead in ways that they believe are best for their players and for the team (in the real world as opposed to theoretical leadership treatises by elitists who couldn't coach their way out of a paper bag).

We must ask ourselves whether we can accept the personality quirks of men like Knight, quirks that are a natural outgrowth of coaching fervor, distaste for mediocrity and passion for success.

Can we at least accept - if we cannot celebrate - these coaches regardless of their noncompliance with leadership theory, these coaches who have such great and lasting influence on our young men, young men who crave the strong discipline and thrive because of it?

In the final analysis, we must ask ourselves whether we are going to permit "kindler and gentler" to trump "spare the rod and spoil the child," and therefore ultimately also accept the consequences of a soft and underdisciplined society.

Barry Fetzer is a retired Marine whose column appears in the Havelock News every other week.