THE GENERAL AND THE WIZARD

A FANTASY THEME ANALYSIS

OF COLLEGIATE COACHING SUCCESS

A MASTER’S THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
BETHEL UNIVERSITY

By

KYLE A. LEAF

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN COMMUNICATION

SAINT PAUL, MN
JANUARY, 2011 - BETHEL UNIVERSITY
 BETHEL
UNIVERSITY

The general and the wizard: A fantasy theme analysis of collegiate

coaching success

Kyle A. Leaf

January, 2011

Approved: _____________________________________________ , Thesis Advisor

Leta Frazier, PhD

_____________________________________________
Scott Sochay, PhD

_____________________________________________
Artie Terry, PhD

Accepted: _____________________________________________ ,
Department Chairperson

_____________________________________________ ,
Dean of Graduate and Continuing Studies
 Acknowledgements

Thank you first and foremost to the most important person in my life, my
wife, Jamie. Marveling at the beautiful smiling faces of Abby, Ella, and
Andrew each and every day provided wonderful motivation to see things
through; but the emotional and psychological support you provided over the
course of this Masters program made it immeasurably easier to handle the
stresses associated with going back to school. I will continue to strive to be
the spiritual leader of our family, but know that you are our family’s rock, and
I will forever be thankful for the woman God has blessed me with.

Secondly, I want to thank my parents, Les and Brenda, who supported me in

many ways as well, through the course of this program. The work ethic and
wisdom that both of you exemplify in your everyday lives has impacted both
of your boys in ways that go far beyond what you can see. Thank you for the
guidance you provided years ago, and for the guidance you provide yet
today.

In addition, I would like to thank many folks at Bethel, beginning with my

thesis advisor. Thank you Leta for the caring, encouragement, and direction
you offered; many BU Communication grads have had their lives enhanced
simply by crossing paths with you. Thank you as well, to the many other
professors and instructors who made this program a great experience.
Finally, in terms of Bethel folk, I’d like to thank James Timp and Mike Fregeau,
your flexibility and support was very much appreciated; coaching with both of
you has, more often than not, been a wonderful experience, and it has always
been a valuable one.

Finally, thank you to Dale Eng, spending four hours every Thursday in a small
room with 17 or so other folks was made infinitely more enjoyable by your
presence.
 Abstract

This research examines the seemingly contrasting communication

styles of two successful basketball coaches, John Wooden and Bobby
Knight. Analyzing auto-biographical, biographical, and topical texts
relating to each individual, the study uses Bormann’s Fantasy Theme
Analysis and Symbolic Convergence Theory. Identifying the similarities
and differences in each man’s teaching approach, an effort is made to
examine the rhetorical visions which chained out in the psyches of the
individuals and teams who competed under the tutelage of each
coaching icon.
 Table of Contents

Chapter I – Introduction to the Study ....................................3

Chapter II – Rhetorical Methodology and Review of the

Literature ..................................................................................10

Methodology and Theoretical Approach ................................10

Review of the Literature.........................................................13

Fantasy Themes........................................................14

Leadership Styles......................................................17

Coach Specific Studies..............................................19

Coach Athlete Communication Dynamics.................25

Chapter III – Biographical Information .................................31

Bob Knight.........................................................................31

John Wooden......................................................................36

Chapter IV – Comparative Differentiation and Fantasy

Theme Analysis ........................................................................43

Comparative Differentiation .............................................44

Fantasy Theme Analysis ...................................................57

Bob Knight ..............................................................58

John Wooden ...........................................................67

Chapter V – Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research

Possibilities...............................................................................78
Chapter I – Introduction to the Study

The wide-ranging nature of Communication as an academic focus

lends to a variety of areas for study; one area ripe for examination is

the communicative relationship between coach and athlete. The coach

/ athlete relationship is similar to the academic relationship of

teacher /student; where there is a good amount of data relating to the

study of the latter relationship, until recently, comparatively little has

been published regarding the former. Rocca, Toale, and Martin (1998)

share this opinion, noting that “the area of coaching as a form of

teaching and of instructional communication has been overlooked in

communication literature” (p. 445).

This topic is important in many ways, not the least being the

benefits that individual athletes experience as a result of athletic

involvement. When a coach helps an individual achieve success,

regardless of how success is defined, that individual is gaining more

than just the satisfaction of athletic achievement. According to

Turman and Schrodt (2004) researchers in the sport socialization field

have suggested that a competitive sport setting offers an arena in

which children can learn to develop character, integrity, and

confidence, while also learning important lessons about sportsmanship

and teamwork (p.133).

 The duties and responsibilities of a coach go deeper than trying

to win games or championships. In the arena of academics, teachers

assist in the quest for knowledge and understanding on an individual

level. In the environs of team based competition, however, coaches

assist young men and women in group settings, striving to instruct

them in such a manner as to have them work proficiently and

collectively as a unit, accomplishing shared goals and visions. This skill

set is important in today’s workplace, an environment where there

exists a high level of dependency upon an individual’s ability to work

cohesively with another person or with a group / team.

In 2006, Sport Decision, a Canadian initiative of Health, Science

and Marketing professionals dedicated to researching trends in sports,

made public a study by Elizabeth Mulholland, an independent public

policy consultant. This examination demonstrated that individuals

who participate in team sports have a stronger sense of belonging, are

more involved in their community outside of the sport venue, and are

less self-centered and more open to learning than those who

concentrate on individual sports.

The above paragraphs illustrate why the quest for a greater

understanding of coaching efficiency and success from a

communication perspective is a valuable study. Deriving an

adequate/appropriate answer to the question “what common

communication variables do successful coaches share”, is a complex

undertaking. On the surface, the answer seems pretty straight

forward; in competition, the coach who can best master the x’s and o’s

of strategy will triumph. However, it is the efficiency and degree of

clarity with which a coach can convey these instructional messages

that ultimately determines the level of success enjoyed by the athlete

and/or team.

Framing this question in the context of motivation, successful

coaches must not only be efficient communicators of basic instruction;

but they must possess the ability to inspire and motivate. Warren

(1983) echoes this idea when he comments that by focusing entirely

on the execution of plays and neglecting or forgetting the personalities

of the players, the coach is taking motivation for granted and not

improving the odds for success for his/her individual athletes or his/her

team (p.30).

In addition, there is a significant psychological component to

successful coaching. Fuoss and Troppmann (1981) espouse this view:

…sport psychology encompasses many interrelationships – those

among the coach, the athlete, and the sport – and the effective
use of this information results in effective coaching. There is
much more to coaching than the application of technical,
tactical, and strategical know how (p. 81).

The following paragraphs attempt to tie the threads of successful

coaching cohesively within the tapestry of communication.

Attempting to not communicate is impossible; every action taken

by a coach and/or athlete is saturated with messages. A coach

communicates values and philosophy through such actions as who is

chosen for the team, the manner in which the team is directed, and

how decisions are made. Similarly, an athlete can nonverbally

communicate information pertaining to motivation through such means

as effort levels, persistency, and intensity (LaVoi p.31). In every

second of every game, there is continuous communication occurring

between athletes and the coaches who preside over them.

At its core, communication is the ability to share meaning with

others by way of an interchange of information and/or experience.

Similar in nature to the interaction that occurs between teachers and

students in the classroom, Turman (2003) notes that coaches

communicate with their athletes to create a learning atmosphere

conducive to positive learning outcomes (p. 73). In order for the

communication to be effective, the athlete must possess the capability

to not only receive the information, but also to understand and accept

this information within the desired and intended context

(brianmac.co.uk retrieved 3/16/2010). In this type of interchange, the

building blocks of communication are illustrated, including the

presence of a sender, a receiver, a message, a channel, and noise. All

of these aspects exist on a fundamental level in the coach / athlete

relationship.

Interpersonal communication is an invaluable component of

effective coaching; it is the vehicle by which competence, knowledge

and skills are transmitted. Interpersonal communication is also the

primary means of developing a healthy coach-athlete relationship,

helping to convey care, concern, respect, and trust. The formation,

development, maintenance, and dissolution of the coach-athlete

relationship occur through communication processes. LaVoi (2007)

asserts that communication expertise is arguably more important to

the success of the coach-athlete relationship and the well being of both

parties than the coach’s mastery of technical aspects relating to the

competition at hand (p.30). Jowett and Cockerill (2003) state that

open channels of communication allow coaches and athletes to share

each other’s experiences, beliefs, values, thoughts, and worries; and in

turn, the channels facilitate the value of co-orientation (p. 316).

Intrinsic to the success of a communication event is the way in

which messages are sent and received. As referenced in

Communication Strategies of Successful Coaches (Yust, 2008) Shelley

and Sherman (1997) highlight the significance of a coach’s ability to

actively listen. Active listening involves a commitment on the coach’s

part to put in the time and effort necessary to understand what

athletes might be thinking and feeling and how they view their roles on

the team. In order to be effective, the coach must overcome any

internal biases or judgments that could color the interaction while

listening (p. 13). In addition, Shelley and Sherman make note of how

important clarity is when making statements related to one’s own

feelings and opinions in order to cultivate an open communication

environment typified by mutual respect (pp. 112-113). This

heightened level of understanding creates a more efficient platform

from which to send and receive messages.

Coaches aspire to motivate the athletes they work with and to

provide these competitors with information that allows them to train

effectively, improving performance on both an individual and a team

level. While in many cases, an athlete’s motivation to succeed is, to

some degree, inherent in the framework of the competitive psyche, it

is also true that communication events from the coach to the athlete

can augment these innate motivations and initiate appropriate actions

in order to achieve the desired ends. Amorose and Anderson-Butcher

(2007), citing Horn (2002), note that the way in which coaches

structure practices and training, their decision making style, and the

quantity and quality of the feedback they provide to their athletes are

all communicative behaviors which may carry significant motivational

implications (p. 655).

The competence motivation theory postulated by Harter (1978)

argues that individuals who perceive themselves as competent in an

activity are more likely to continue in enjoyed involvement with that

activity. At this precise point, one can find a confluence of ideas

concerning the multifaceted relationships between coaching,

communication, and motivation. An athlete’s competence, both actual

and perceived, in a particular activity can be influenced greatly by

coaching; and the degree to which this influence is effective is

dependent upon the coach’s ability to effectually communicate.

In order to explore communicative/motivational characteristics

exemplified by successful coaches, this study examines the similarities

relating to core instructional values, as well as coaching cornerstones

and credos of two well known college basketball coaches. These

similarities in coaching principles are contrasted with an examination

of the coaches’ highly different communicative styles and the culture

surrounding coach / athlete communication within each program.

This research employs fantasy theme analysis to tease out

relevant consequential information from two coaching narratives:

Knight: My Story, by Bobby Knight with Bob Hammel, and They Call Me

Coach, by John Wooden with Jack Tobin. The researcher investigates

the rhetorically assembled realities of these two men, examining the

philosophical approaches to coaching of Coach Knight and Coach

Wooden, as well as the culture which was created around the Indiana

University and UCLA basketball programs as a result of these

philosophies.

Specifically, the study aims to explore whether the fantasy

themes generated by the two coaches are congruent with each man’s

divergent coaching methodology/philosophy and teaching/instructional

style; do the fantasy themes which take root in the recesses of each
man’s team’s consciousness trend towards the similarities which each

coach shares in terms of foundational instructional principles? More

simply, are the fantasy themes which resonate in the collective

consciousness of each man’s teams, more a reflection of instructional

style or instructional principles?

The preceding paragraphs have offered an explanation as to

what is examined in the pages to come, as well as how this topic

relates to the field of communication. A more comprehensive look at

the similarities in each coach’s instructional/team principles, as well as

the contrast in their instructional style, can be found at the

introduction of Chapter IV. Prior to that, however, Chapter II reviews

existing literature relevant to the subject matter, including the method

of analysis of the subject.

 Chapter II – Rhetorical Methodology and Review

of the Literature

Rhetorical Methodology and Theoretical Approach

One of the primary goals of a coach is to motivate his/her

athletes. What forms do these motivational efforts take? Coaches

should strive to provide athletes with information that improves their

performances. How does the delivery method of this information

impact the athlete’s ability to cognitively process that information?

Why is a conciliatory or even passive approach to coaching just as

efficient in achieving the desired results as a confrontational one?

These two questions are at the heart of the word, coach. The last

question provides the investigative motivation for this rhetorical

analysis. What communicative dynamics allow for two seemingly

opposite coaching philosophies to both be highly successful in terms of

wins and losses?

As was mentioned in the previous chapter, in an effort to address

these questions, the researcher employs fantasy theme analysis in

order to tease out consequential data/information from six primary

sources. Principally used are two coaching narratives: Knight: My

Story, by Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, and They Call Me Coach, by

John Wooden with Jack Tobin. In addition, four other books are

referenced frequently: A Season on the Brink; Bob Knight; John

Wooden: An American Treasure; and Wooden on Leadership. The

researcher primarily investigates the rhetorically assembled realities of

these two men, as evidenced by their interpersonal interactions and

experiences with players, and the communicative culture which is

ultimately cultivated in response to the communication styles.

The primary components of fantasy theme analysis include: a

message becoming dramatized (birth), a fantasy theme emerging

(infancy), that fantasy then becoming a fantasy chain (adolescence),

and finally the materialization of a rhetorical vision (adulthood). The

ultimate ambition of fantasy theme analysis application is to recognize

and reconstruct rhetorical visions in order to gain a greater

understanding of the meaning behind shared fantasies within specific

communities of people.

Reinard (2004) lays out Bormann’s method of analysis by

identifying the three basic steps which compose the fantasy theme

analysis process. Step one involves gathering materials from people

belonging to the group or groups to be studied (p. 224); thus selection

of the two coach’s autobiographies, and four secondary sources. Step

two involves sifting through the messages in order to establish

patterns of characterizations (p. 225). In order to accomplish this task,

the selected texts were systematically analyzed with the aim of

recognizing recurring themes, fantasy types and dramatized

messages. Finally, rhetorical visions were identified and interpreted

(p. 225). This process is done with the application of Symbolic

Convergence Theory.

Symbolic Convergence Theory offers a collective explanation of

human communication, providing a description of the dynamic

tendencies within systems of social interaction that cause

communicative practices and forms to evolve (Reinard, p.224). Ernest

Bormann (1982) notes that the theory deals with the human tendency

to interpret signs and objects and give them meaning; and in addition,

he notes that theory also refers to the way two or more symbolic

worlds have a tendency to move toward one another, and in some

cases even overlap, during certain processes of communication (p.51).

Braithwaite, Schrodt, and Kellas (2006) summarize how Symbolic

Convergence Theory can be applied to family/group communication:

Overall, then, SCT focuses our attention on the dramatizing

messages that are shared by group members and that result in
the symbolic convergence process, a process that creates
common ground and serves to unite family members. Using key
concepts such as fantasy themes, fantasy types, symbolic cues,
and rhetorical visions, group communication researchers can
analyze the various ways in which different groups socially
construct a shared group consciousness with its implied shared
emotions, values, motives, and meanings (p. 153).

Bormann (1972) credits Robert Bales, and the book, Personality

and Interpersonal Behavior, for providing “an account of how

dramatizing communication creates social reality for groups of people

and with a way to examine messages for insights into the group’s
culture, motivation, emotional system and cohesion” (p. 396). Building

from the foundation established by Bales, Bormann hypothesized that

dramatizations which take root and spread out in small groups get

worked into public communications such as speeches, and from there

spread even further, across larger public domains through various

mass media vehicles (p. 398). At this stage, the shared dramatization

has become a fantasy chain. From that point, Bormann explains the

concept by labeling the phenomenon of composite dramas linking

large groups of people together in a common symbolic reality as a

rhetorical vision; Bormann then concludes that, “just as fantasy

themes chain out in the group to create a unique group culture, so do

fantasy dramas of a successful persuasive campaign chain out in

public audiences to form a rhetorical vision” (p. 399).

Wexler Como (2005) notes that when individuals share together

in a fantasy by responding expressively to a dramatization, they are

making a public declaration regarding the beliefs and values existent

in that fantasy. As these individuals share and build upon the fantasy,

they enter into a common symbolic reality predicated on the formation

of analogous interpretations of objects and events (p. 45). To this

effect, Bormann, Koester, and Bennett (1978) make the following

assertion:

When we share a fantasy theme we make sense out of what

prior to that time may have been a confusing state of affairs and
we do so in common with the others who share fantasy with us.
 Thus, we come to symbolic convergence on the matter and will
envision that part of our world in similar ways (p. 436).

Review of the Literature

This literature review begins with an overview, followed by

spotlighting two relevant areas of study. The first section looks at

general fantasy theme analyses to offer some perspective on the

semantics of fantasy theme examinations. Following this discussion,

the review examines studies and investigations which have focused on

effective leadership and communication styles within the context of

athletic competition. This second section includes investigations

dealing with the ramifications of various leadership styles, specific

coaches and their individual communicative tendencies, and finally,

various dynamics of the coach/athlete relationship.

Fantasy Themes

Fantasy Theme Analysis as an investigative device examines

narratives, and the messages within them, in order to determine

values inherent in actions and behavior; with the fleshing out of these

values lending to a greater understanding of shared meaning.

After presenting Fantasy Theme Analysis and recommending the

process as a useful tool in the examination of rhetoric, Bormann

applied his creation on many occasions. In one such study, Bormann

(1982) analyzed the television coverage, on January 20th 1981, of the

hostage release and the Reagan Inaugural Address.

Bormann notes how closely television journalism resembles the

dramatized messages in small groups; noting, like a rhetorical fantasy,

television news coverage often presents a structured narrative

composed of characters in dramatic scenes (p. 134). “The end result

of the television coverage is an interpretative dramatization that

provides the possibility of audience participation much like the sharing

of a fantasy in other situations” (p. 135). In the Reagan

Inaugural/Hostage Release examination, the manner in which coverage

of both news events intertwined, helped to create the rhetorical vision.

The Iran hostage crisis had gone on for more than a year at the

time of the inauguration; and in the minds of the American public,

President Jimmy Carter’s persona symbolized the hostage crisis;

Reagan, however, represented the potential for a fresh beginning.

President Reagan’s inaugural speech, laced with restorative fantasy

type, combined with the manner in which television networks covered

the two events, solidified the emergence of Reagan as the persona

who symbolized the dawning of a new era:

The identification suggested that just as the release of the

hostages returned us to the more tranquil pre-crisis times of
the status quo ante, so too the new administration would return
us to the more satisfying days of economic boom times and
American world power (p. 139).
 In addition to written or spoken word, the application of Fantasy

Theme Analysis is also commonly utilized to make sense of visual

communication. One such study was undertaken by Page & Duffy

(2009), examining both the linguistic and visual forms present in the

American political television advertisements of opponents Jim Talent

and Claire McCaskill in the 2006 Missouri senatorial.

The investigation identified five recurring fantasy types:

immorality of opponent, candidate as populist, candidate as heroic,

candidate as strategic, and candidate as victim (p. 128). Analyzing

from a strictly non-linguistic point of view, Talent’s visual narrative

excluded him, giving the impression of a distanced and controlling

patriarchal type. He relied on surrogates to represent him, as well as

choosing to avoid visual emphasis on politics and policy, focusing

instead on themes of hard work and no-nonsense leadership (pp. 129-

130). As visual rhetoric, the fact that he is largely physically absent in

the ads, undermines his message of command and authority (p. 130).

The visual rhetoric of McCaskill’s ads, however, was defined by her

involvement, her physical presence. “McCaskill’s ads are more

focused, pointed, and hard hitting. She is physically present and

performing in her ads, adding authenticity to her messages” (p. 131).

Casey and Rowe (1996) examined the rhetorical vision of the

radio minster/propagandist, Father Charles E. Coughlin, in an attempt

to identify the reasons behind his success. During the course of the
investigation, Casey and Rowe identified four major plots in Coughlin’s

sermons: 1) oppression inflicted by covetous criminals who exploited

the population; 2) those whom could be viewed as heroes were often

made victims of; 3) the logical solution to this oppression and

victimization was unification by those experiencing subjugation; finally,

4) the tyrants in charge of the oppression have already united forces,

making unification of the oppressed that much more imperative.

Taken together, the rhetorical vision put forth by Coughlin is the

exploitation of the many by a conspiracy; an exploitation which could

be curtailed by joining forces Coughlin’s political ambitions (pp. 40-41).

Coughlin shaped the daily struggle of survival for his listeners

into a basic good vs. evil scenario. Coughlin’s listeners, the masses,

needed to rise up and throw the money changers (those in power), out

of the temple (their place of authority). Coughlin simplified the

problems and hardships facing his listeners during the depression era,

while simultaneously framing himself as an essential component in the

potential solution.

In another oft cited study, Ford (1989) used Fantasy Theme

Analysis as an analytical tool for unpacking the Alcoholics Anonymous

text, The Big Book. Breaking down the underlying motivations existent

in each of the twelve steps used by AA in the quest for sobriety, Ford

determined that the rhetorical vision of AA which aides in its members’

efforts to defeat addiction, is one of fetching good out of evil (p. 5).
For the alcoholic, the battle is a personal one in which the villainous

self-will of the alcoholic, is pitted against the absolving will of God.

“The self will must abdicate the lead role, the alcoholic actor taking his

or her proper place in the play, and God’s will must take center stage”

(p. 6).

Casey & Rowe and Ford critiqued very different subjects, a

depression era radio evangelist and a text used to battle alcohol

addiction. By breaking down the rhetorical themes, underlying and

existent in both cases, however, each study appropriately presented a

good vs. evil framework of interpretation, lending to a deeper

understanding of the subject matter. Here lies the usefulness of

Fantasy Theme Analysis, two unrelated topics which can be explained

through the application of a widely understood narrative, assisting in

the comprehension of the presented information.

Leadership Styles

The word, “coach”, conveys different images depending on past

experiences, as the coaching profession offers a broad range of

philosophies. On one end of this continuum is the

nurturer/encourager; at the opposing end of the coaching philosophy

spectrum lies the taskmaster/authoritarian.

In taking a closer look at the efforts made to define those points

found along the coaching philosophy continuum, Cassidy, Jones, and

Potrac (2004) note that in the mid 1960s Muska Mosston created an
eleven point scale to identify coaching/teaching types (p. 29). This

work was expanded upon by Kirk, Nauright, Hanrahan, Macdonald and

Jobling (1996) in the form of a modified spectrum published in their

work, The Socio-Cultural Foundations of Human Movement. This new

continuum consistied of five distinct types/philosophies. These five

points were labeled direct, task, reciprocal, guided discovery, and

problem solving. In relating the previously addressed coaching

philosophies to this continuum, the nurturer would be linked with a

combination of the guided discovery and problem solving methods; the

taskmaster type allied with the direct method, etcetera.

Cassidy et al. (2004) detail the principles associated with each

method. A coach who is partial to a combination of guided discovery

and problem solving - the nurturer - would be characterized by an

inclination to incorporate practice activities requiring independent

thinking, a preference for asking comprehensive questions designed to

guide the athlete in a specific intended direction, and a recognition

that most athletes are going to have different frames of reference as

well as different learning styles. (pp. 31-32)

Conversely, a coach who incorporates a more direct based

coaching method, the taskmaster, would behave in manners that

would be considered supervisory and/or managerial, possess a desire

to have total control over the flow of information, be more inclined to

privilege the demonstration of a technique or drill. The coach would

rarely if ever make the effort to recognize the diverse needs of an

athlete, and more often than not set specific criterion based goals for

the individual athlete and the team (p. 30).

This concept does not say that a hard-nosed coach never

encounters a situation that requires a more soft handed approach, or a

supportive coach does not have to lay down the law during the course

of a season; there are always circumstances that arise which call for an

adaptation of customary coach behavior. Although, by and large, the

philosophy that a coach prefers to incorporate is going to dictate that

coach’s response to a given circumstance.

Coach Specific Studies

In an examination of specific studies relating to coach

communication, there are two main categories: studies with a more

focused scope which examine specific coaches and the way in which

they communicate with their athletes; and studies with a broader view,

examining commonalities and differences between the communicative

variables existent between coach and athlete through a wider lens.

Becker and Wrisberg (2008), over the course of the 2004/2005

college basketball season, observed practice sessions run by Pat

Summitt, head women’s basketball coach at the University of

Tennessee. The purpose was to systematically examine the practice

behaviors of coach Summit. Over the course of the season, Coach

Summitt’s verbal and non-verbal behaviors were videotaped during six

individual practices; these tapes were observed and coded into two

categories: instructional behavior and non-instructional behavior. The

highest percentage of these instructional behaviors was directive

instruction at 48.12%, followed by the non-instructional verbalization of

praise, 14.5% of all verbalized commands, the non-instructional

variations of “hustle” were the third most common verbal coaching

behavior, at 10.65% of all observed coaching behaviors (p. 202).

The same study found that 55% of Summitt’s verbalized

coaching behaviors were directed at the team, and 45% were intended

for individual players (p. 197). The majority of the team intended

instruction took place before action was taken during practice, while

most of the individual instruction given by Coach Summitt occurred

following the action (p. 205). The fact that team intended instruction

often times took place before the action, can be logically explained

given the reality that it is more efficient from a communicative

standpoint to address the entire team when explaining/introducing a

new drill or exercise. On the other hand, the one on one feedback

given by Coach Summitt in response to the action, suggests that post-

instruction promotes greater learning when it is individualized; and

that performance-relevant feedback is more effective when Coach

Summitt addresses the members of the team individually (p. 205).

In 1975, Tharp and Galimore had conducted a study similar to

the one undertaken later by Becker and Wrisberg. In this study, the
authors observed and reported discrete acts of teaching/coaching,

including the number of instructions, hustles, praises, and other

instructional directives, uttered by UCLA basketball coach, John

Wooden, during snippets of practice over the course of the 1974/1975

NCAA basketball season. All told, thirty hours of practices were

observed, with 2,326 distinct coaching acts being recorded and coded

(p. 121). In 2004, Tharp and Galimore chose to reflect and reanalyze

the original findings of this study. In an attempt to gain an even

greater understanding of Coach Wooden’s practices and philosophies,

qualitative notes taken during the course of the original study,

published sources, and subsequent interviews with Coach Wooden and

a former UCLA player were all examined or revisited (p. 119).

The original study found that of all the coaching utterances given

by Coach Wooden in the observed practices, 50.3% were instructional,

only 13.5% were praises and reproofs (6.9% praises / 6.6% reproofs),

and 12.7% were “hustle” edicts intended to increase practice intensity

(Tharp and Galimore, 1975, p. 3).

Upon reexamination, however, of more consequence to the

authors were not the raw numbers, but rather the context and

reasoning behind the numbers. Coach Wooden, in a 2002 interview,

was asked about the vast majority of verbal directives being instructive

in nature, with an apparent lack of positive and/or negative

reinforcement in the original study. Wooden’s response was to

reframe the instructional messages, as in fact being positive in nature,

positive in that the instruction was made in an effort to teach the

athlete the correct way of doing something. A former player concurs

with this perspective, asserting that had the majority of Coach

Wooden’s corrective strategies been inherently positive or negative,

that would have left the athlete with an evaluation of the act, rather

than a solution to the problem (p. 128).

Rarely were verbal instructions longer than 20 seconds (p. 121),

and this economy of Coach Wooden’s teaching was the product of

extensive, detailed, and daily planning based on continuous evaluation

of individual and team development and performance. Wooden

studied the members of his team comprehensively. He could then

anticipate what his athletes would do. Subsequently, he was primed

and ready to instantly respond with instruction (p. 124). Planning and

attention to detail were vital to Wooden’s instructional efficiency: “I

would spend almost as much time planning a practice as conducting it.

Everything was listed down to the very last detail” (p. 125).

In both the original study, as well as the reexamination, the

success enjoyed by Coach Wooden was attributable to a byproduct of

comprehensive and detailed planning of practice sessions, a deep

understanding of the individual tendencies of all the athletes he

instructed, and a concerted effort to spend more time instructing and

correcting, and less time judging and evaluating.

 Another example of a quantitative examination of teaching

behaviors exhibited by a coach was undertaken by Bloom, Crumpton,

and Anderson (1999). For this study, a systematic observation analysis

was performed on Fresno State’s men’s basketball coach, Jerry

Tarkanian, utilizing the same observational and coding practices first

employed by Tharp and Gallimore.

As was the case in the studies involving Coach Summitt and

Coach Wooden, the majority of verbal directives uttered by Tarkanian

were instructive in nature. Bloom, Crumpton, and Anderson broke

down the category of instruction into 3 parts: tactical instruction,

technical instruction, and general instruction. The sum of these three

groups (29%, 14%, and 12% respectively) accounted 55% of spoken

commands. Hustle themed encouragements accounted for 16% of

vocal requests, with praise and encouragement accounting for 13.9%,

and scolding totaling just 6% (p. 166).

These figures are quite similar to what was found in both studies

previously noted. When Tarkanian is not focusing on tactical issues,

the majority of his statements are intended to rejuvenate, extol, or

correct athlete’s actions and behaviors. An interesting similarity

existent between Wooden and Tarkanian in terms of practice

philosophies, concerns their avoidance of physical punishment or

negative reinforcement, things such as push-ups, laps, or wind sprints

(p. 168).
 The three coaches referenced in these studies run the gamut in

terms of courtside persona during games. Wooden was regal and

controlled; Summitt could be alternately reserved and intense, while

Tarkanian was an impassioned presence who wore his heart on his

sleeve. Regardless of their courtside demeanor, however, the

examination of each subject’s coaching tendencies during practice

sessions revealed that an emphasis on instruction and positivity was

key to effectively communicating their intended messages, and thus

building successful programs.

Insightful coaching studies are certainly not limited to

quantitative, systematic observations of college basketball practices.

Retrospective profiles of successful coaches, across a spectrum of

different sporting fields, have highlighted information relative to

successful coaching strategies and philosophy.

One such examination, conducted by Kimiecik & Gould (1987),

profiled James Councilman, an accomplished Olympic and Collegiate

swim coach. The interview centered on various psychological

components of coaching, specifically, ways in which coaches can go

about sharing coaching related information with athletes. In a

separate interview, subjected under similar pretenses, Wrisberg (1990)

sat down with University of Tennessee women’s basketball coach, Pat

Summitt. Their dialogue focused on coaching style: specifically, game

preparation instruction for athletes, practice structures, and one on

one player communication events.

Another qualitative examination related to coaching expertise

was conducted by Cote, Salmela, Trudel, Baria, & Russell (1995). Cote

et al. interviewed seventeen high level gymnastics coaches, using an

expert systems approach to conceptualize findings, in an effort to

establish a model from which to analyze coaching effectiveness.

Grounded theory techniques were used to inductively analyze data.

What resulted from this examination was the development of a

coaching model with six components: competition, organization,

training, coach’s personal characteristics, athlete’s personal

characteristics and level of development, and contextual factors (p.

10). This model has been used as an important foundational basis for

formalizing and understanding coaching knowledge.

Becker (2009) took a different approach in terms of studying the

components of effective coaching, choosing to examine the question

from the perspective of the athlete. Becker conducted interviews with

eighteen, nine male and nine female, elite level athletes. Analyses of

the transcripts revealed six major dimensions that characterized the

athlete’s experiences with great coaching: coach attributes, the

environment, the system, relationships, coaching actions, and

influences; below four of these dimensions exists one or more sub

categories (p. 98).

 Coach attributes included six general themes: more than just a

coach, personality characteristics, abilities, knowledge, experience and

imperfections (p. 100). In terms of the environment, according to the

survey, great coaches worked at establishing three types of healthy

environments; the general team environment, the one on one

communication environment, and the practice environment (p. 102).

The relationships that athletes experienced consisted of professional,

as well as personal components (p. 104). Finally, coaching actions

consisted of seven general themes: teaching, communicating,

motivating, responding, preparing, performing, and avoiding irrelevant

distractions (p. 107).

De Marco & McCullick (1997) analyzed the coaching philosophies

of John Wooden, Pat Summit, and Vince Lombardi, in an effort to

identify common factors for success. The study found that these three

individuals not only possessed extensive specialized knowledge, but

they organized this knowledge hierarchically. This skill allowed them

to contrast idealized performance standards against the performance

of their present teams/individuals, lending to more efficient planning

and strategizing during practice and in games (p. 38)

In addition to the ability to accumulate and organize extensive

specialized knowledge, the investigation affirmed that expert coaches

have more fluid, cohesive, and efficient instructional approaches,

thanks in large part to automaticity during analysis and instruction (p.

39). Additionally, expert coaches have developed self-monitoring

skills; they tend to be more aware, evaluative, analytical and

corrective of their own coaching performance (p. 39).

Coach Athlete Communication Dynamics

Transitioning, the next few studies deal more specifically with

athlete preferences in relation to compatibility and satisfaction with

and for their coach. It is important to note that high levels of

satisfaction within the coach-athlete communicative dynamic does not

invariably translate to success on the field of play; it does, however,

give a good indication of a coaches ability to communicate effectively.

In an early research endeavor related to team success as a result

of cohesiveness and leadership, Bird (1977) examined collegiate

volleyball teams in an effort to determine whether successful teams

would be coached by leaders perceived to be more task or more socio-

emotional in orientation. It was found that, regardless of team

success, coaches perceived their own leadership style in a much

different light than did their players. Coaches considered their own

leadership style as being task-oriented, focusing on the duties at hand;

however, players viewed their coaches to be much more socio-

emotional, offering more in terms of caring and emotional support (p.

222). Most significant perhaps, findings of the study suggested that

the most effective coaching style(s) often require modification

according to the level of competition or ability (p. 222).

 Continuing these insights, Hui-Tzu, Lin, & Esposito (2007) came

to a similar conclusion when studying successful leadership behaviors

of collegiate coaches. Their findings suggested that in order to

improve athletic performance, a coach must be able to efficiently

engage in an array of coaching and leadership behaviors to which all

athletes may respond (p. 1). Utilizing proper coaching behavior in the

context of training instruction is an important leadership factor for a

coach to consider. The coach must make a concerted effort to address

the athletes on an individual level while at the same time maintaining

a high level of team cohesion (p. 2).

When examining coach behaviors and athlete satisfaction, Baker,

Yardley, and Cote (2003) chose to go in a comparative direction,

contrasting the effect that an athlete’s sport type, individual vs. team,

has on predicting coach satisfaction in relation to seven coaching

behaviors: mental preparation, technical skills, goal setting, physical

training, competition strategies, personal rapport and negative

personal rapport. In all instances, team sport athletes preferred a

greater emphasis on positive coaching behaviors, as compared to the

desires of individual sport athletes:

Because of the unique requirements of team sports, athletes

prefer a greater emphasis on coach control and tasks require
greater coach control than in individual sports. When these
preferences are not met, coaching satisfaction is decreased (p.
236).
 Beam, Serwatka and Wilson (2004) examined the differences of

student-athlete’s preferred leadership behavior for their coaches based

on gender, competition level, task dependence, and task variability.

The study indicated a significantly higher preference for autocratic

leadership behavior among male student-athletes (p. 11). However,

male students also had a significantly higher preference for social

support leadership behavior from their coaches (p. 12). This suggests

that while men respond more positively to a demanding task master

type, they also have stronger desire for that task master to show

concern for needs outside the scope of competition.

This tendency for athletes to desire a significant emotional bond

with their coaches was also exemplified by Kenow and Williams (1999).

In examining coach-athlete compatibility among collegiate basketball

players, the study found that athletes who felt more compatible with

their coaches experienced fewer negative emotional and physical

effects from their coach’s in game behaviors. Additionally, athletes

who felt more compatible, also felt more supported by their coaches,

and evaluated their abilities to effectively convey appropriate

information more favorably (p. 255).

The results of this study suggest that incompatibility will affect…

athletes’ perception, recall, and evaluation of the coach’s
behaviors. From a practical standpoint, it would be wise for
coaches to make conscious efforts to improve their interpersonal
relationships with their players, as well as learn how to identify
signals of high cognitive anxiety in their athletes. Creating
positive coach-athlete relations and learning how to employ
 simple relaxation/confidence-building techniques should be the
first steps in creating more receptive and positive coach-athlete
interactions (p. 256).

Shifting from a satisfaction themed focus, to a motivational one,

Mageau and Vallerand (2003) endeavored to propose a motivational

model of the coach-athlete relationship, in an attempt to better explain

how coaches can influence athletes’ motivations. At the heart of their

efforts is an examination of the autonomy-supportive behaviors which

have been shown to impact athlete motivation, as well as an

inspection of the psychological processes through which these

behaviors filter in order to influence athlete motivation.

The motivational model which resulted from this study consists

of a motivational sequence where coaches’ actions and behaviors

influence athletes’ intrinsic and self –determined extrinsic motivation

by means of their impact on athletes’ perceptions of autonomy,

competence, and relatedness. Evidence suggested that coaches who

support their athletes’ autonomy, provide structure, and make a

concerted effort to be highly involved in their athletes lives when

appropriate, create an optimal environment for the satisfaction of their

athletes’ emotional needs.

In terms of determinants of coaches’ autonomy-supportive

behaviors, Mageau and Vallerand identified three as being of primary

importance: the coaches personal orientation, the coaching context,

and athletes’ behavior and motivation.

 As such, the present model underscores the role of coaches in
providing autonomy support, structure and involvement to
athletes. An autonomy-supportive style implies that coaches
provide opportunities for choices, emphasize task relevance,
explain reasons underlying rules and limits, acknowledge
athletes’ feelings and perspective, give athletes opportunities to
take initiatives, provide non-controlling competence feedback,
avoid using controlling motivational strategies, and prevent ego
involvement in their athletes (p. 898).

Ultimately, the examination revealed that autonomy-supportive

behaviors have constructive consequences on athletes’ intrinsic and

self-determined extrinsic motivations, which are important

determinants of performance and persistence (p. 899).

As evidenced by the preceding paragraphs, coaching

effectiveness has been studied from a variety of angles. Whether

these approaches are systematic observations, retrospective

investigations, or qualitative interviews, communication phenomenon

is a principle player in all of them.

An Introduction to the topic has been offered. An explanation of

its relevance to the field of communication has been postulated.

Relevant works have been reviewed, and methodology has been

explained. However, in advance of the actual textual examination, the

section that follows looks biographically at the early lives of Coach

Knight and Coach Wooden.

In an effort to make sense of the type of man/coach they would

become, a biographical peek into the pre-coaching lives of Bob Knight

and John Wooden is presented. The upcoming chapter takes note of

the foundational influences: the people, places, and occurrences which

helped mold and shape each man’s attitude toward coaching, and

coaching philosophy.
Chapter III – Biographical Information

The successes enjoyed by Bob Knight, John Wooden, and the

teams they have led on the basketball floor are well chronicled. What

is less well known are the early life experiences which helped to mold

these men into the triumphant coaches they became.

Bobby Knight

Robert Montgomery Knight was born October 25, 1940, in Orville,

Ohio, the first and only child of Pat and Hazel Knight. Knight’s father

worked for the railroad in Oklahoma until his occupation eventually led

him to Orville, a crossroads of the railroads in post World War I

America. Here he met Hazel Henthorne, a schoolteacher, who taught

in Orville but lived in Akron (Feinstein, p. 222).

Although, Knight had tremendous respect for the example his

father set in life, “the most honest man I have known, and the most

disciplined man I ever met,” (Delsohn and Heisler, pp. 9-10), they did

not enjoy an intimate father son relationship, due in part to Pat’s

significant occupational related hearing loss. Bobby had to raise his

voice to a yell even in simple conversations with his father, thus life

was less complicated if verbal communications was kept to a minimum

(p. 10).

Knight shared a slightly closer bond with his mother. Described

as typically Midwestern, whip smart, and old school, though not

particularly warm, (Delsohn and Heisler, p. 10) Hazel played a

significant role in shaping Knight. Knight himself revealed as much

when he noted, “As a kid growing up, I was undoubtedly influenced

more by my mother than by anybody else… She was a very bright

person, well read; she followed current events around the country and

the world with great interest” (Knight and Hammel, p. 41).

While Knight acknowledges his mother as his greatest influence,

his grandmother actually played a more active role in his everyday life.

Sarah Henthorne moved in with the Knights three years before Bobby

arrived on the scene; and from an early age, his grandmother was his

best friend (Feinstein, p. 222). Kathy Harmon, a high school

acquaintance who dated Knight briefly in high school, noted that in her

experience she could tell that he certainly loved his mother and father,

but, “… I think his grandmother pretty much raised him” (Delsohn and

Heisler, p. 11). Knight himself summed up the relationship shared with

his grandmother:

I was as close to my grandmother as any kid ever got to a

grandmother… having my grandmother around all those years,
in addition to my parents, was a great advantage for me growing
up. I’m sure it wouldn’t work that way for all families and all
kids, but it did for a kid in Orville, a very lucky kid (Knight and
Hammel, pp. 63-64).

Beginning as an adolescent, Knight had a tendency to establish

friendships with older individuals. “Bob had a lot of adult friends,”

states high school acquaintance, Norman Douglas. “Most of us didn’t

have that. We all knew each other’s parents and their friends, but our
friends were each other. Bob had this set of adult friends that he spent

a lot of time with” (Delsohn and Heisler, p. 12). Two of these adult

friends were Dave Knight – no relation – and Don “Doc” Boop. Dave

was a World War II Veteran who came to live, coach, and teach in

Orville while Bobby was in Junior High. Bobby regularly baby-sat for

Dave’s kids, while Dave acted as a sort of surrogate father, offering up

advice on life while playing pickup basketball all weekend long.

(Knight and Hammel, p.45). Doc Boop moved next door to the Knights

when Bobby was a sophomore. Boop was a World War II vet as well,

who had actually been wounded twice in World War II; he was eighteen

years Bobby’s senior. As a huge sports fan, Doc found in Bobby

someone to share these sporting passions (Feinstein, p. 225).

Commenting on the relationship they shared, Doc Boop noted that “…

Bobby’s grandmother and I came close to raising him” (Delsohn and

Heisler, p. 13).

In addition to seeking out male role models in the community,

Bobby became close with coaches influential in his athletic career. “He

was always asking questions,” his high school football coach, Bill

Shunkwiler, noted. “You gave him an answer, it produced another

question. He’s always been that way. He can never know enough

about a subject” (Feinstein, p. 224).

Bobby played the part of star quite well on a pair of fronts in high

school: the class and the basketball floor. Knight’s duplicitous nature,
however, which would come to define him later in life, was exemplified

in the classroom. He was an outstanding student who never received

lower than a B during his academic career in High School; however, he

was not a member of the National Honor Society during his sophomore

year because none of his teachers would nominate him due to his

behavior, specifically his temper (Feinstein, p. 224). In two years time,

he had either succeeded in wearing his teachers down or he had begun

to show them some respect; by his senior year, Knight was elected

president of the National Honor Society (Delsohn and Heisler, p. 14).

As far as his on court exploits were concerned, as a sophomore,

Knight averaged nearly twenty points a game for the varsity. The team

however, finished with a middling record of 8-11. The following year

saw more individual success for Knight, increasing his scoring average

to 25 points a game, though he was forced to miss a number of games

because of a broken foot (Delsohn and Heisler, p. 14). The team limped

through a 5-13 campaign.

Knight worked hard during the summer before his senior year,

excited for an injury free final season at Orville. In an early season

contest, Knight exploded for forty points, but after the game, Head

Coach Bob Gobin told the team that a ‘selfish’ performance like that

would not happen again (Delsohn and Heisler, p. 15). This was Gobin’s

first year as head coach at Orville, and he had no previous experience

coaching varsity athletics; his primary goal was simply to have all the

boys participate.

Later in the campaign, one of Knight’s teammates was injured,

but the coach did not request a time out; Knight then called the time

out, which did not sit well with Gobin. During the course of this

disagreement, Knight made clear to coach Gobin that he knew more

about basketball than Gobin did. Knight was subsequently removed

from the team (Feinstein, p. 226).

Ultimately, peacemaking efforts by Doc Boop, acting as a

mediator in a sit-down between player and coach, resulted in Bobby’s

removal being reduced to a one game suspension, as well as Coach

Gobin making a more concerted effort to win games. In recalling the

episode, Knight notes: “Being right and being quiet never has been a

combination I was very good at” (Knight and Hammel, p. 53). Bobby

ended his senior season averaging just over twenty points a game for

the Red Riders of Orville, with the team finishing 11-9 and qualifying

for the state playoffs or the first time in Bobby’s career (Delsohn and

Heisler, p. 16). Knight graduated from Orville that spring, and enrolled

in nearby Ohio State the following autumn, intending to play for their

well respected coach, Fred Taylor.

The incoming freshman class of basketball players at Ohio State

University in the fall of 1958 was an embarrassment of riches. Of the

six players included in the group, four went on to enjoy productive

years in the NBA; two of which, John Havlicek and Jerry Lucas, became

members of the Pro Basketball Hall of Fame. Knight was surrounded

by talent from the moment he arrived on campus, and the next four

years became an exercise in patience and frustration.

Knight entered the fall of 1961 as a starting forward, however, by

the third game of the season Coach Taylor had given Knight’s starting

spot to a taller more athletic junior by the name of Doug McDonald.

Bobby was devastated. “It was terrible for him, really,” recalls Knight’s

wife, Nancy, “he wanted to play more than anyone can imagine”

(Delsohn and Heisler, p. 24). During his three varsity seasons at Ohio

State, the Buckeyes enjoyed incredible success, going 78-6 with a

National Championship and two other appearances in the title game.

Knight however, felt unfulfilled when his playing days were done; going

so far as to voice his displeasure during the normally festive end of

season banquet when graduating seniors were given the opportunity to

address their coaches, teammates, and fans (Delsohn and Heisler, p.

25).

Despite the fact that Knight did not agree with the way in which

Coach Taylor had utilized him during his playing career, Bobby did

glean important coaching practices from Taylor. Knight took note of

Taylor’s strong emphasis on defense and defensive positioning, his

thoroughly detailed practice organization, and the philosophy of

placing players in roles where their strengths would be enhanced and

their weaknesses diminished.

Knight also took note of one area where Coach Taylor lacked in

efficiency; interpersonal communication. “Fred was somewhat distant

when it came to communicating with us,” noted Knight’s teammate

Gary Gearhart. “He was never good at talking with us one-on-one. I

think that was one of the things Bobby picked up from him, (that it was

important) to be more direct and communicative with players”

(Delsohn and Heisler, p. 26). Direct and communicative, two words –

among many - which would come to define Bobby Knight during his

reign at the helm of Indiana University Basketball.

John Wooden

In Hall, Indiana, on October 14, 1910, Joshua “Hugh” and Roxie

Wooden welcomed the second of their four boys, John Robert Wooden

(Wooden and Jamison, p. 3). In the early years of John’s life, his father

worked as a tenant farmer rural mail carrier (Wooden and Tobin, p.

30). Farming became difficult in central Indiana in the mid 1920s, and

as a result Hugh, as he was commonly referred to, moved his family to

Martinsville; he had taken a job at Homelawn Sanitarium where he

worked in the bath house and gave massages (Bisheff, p 33).

Bobby Knight’s formative years were arguably impacted most

significantly by his grandmother and by elders in the community; but

the lessons John’s parents presented him, through both instruction and
example, played an influential role in shaping Wooden’s perspective on

life.

Upon graduation from grade school, Hugh presented his son with

a piece of paper containing seven creeds to live by:

be true to yourself, make each day your masterpiece, help

others, drink deeply from good books (especially the bible),
make friendship a fine art, build a shelter against a rainy day,
pray for guidance, and count and give thanks for your blessings
every day (Wooden and Tobin, p. 25).

Wooden took these guidelines and applied them to his attitude

regarding both life and coaching, carrying the original note in his wallet

until it was worn out; at which time, he had copies made. Wooden

summarized the impact and influence of his father: “Dad was the best

man I ever knew, the one who set the course that guided me through

life – what I believe, what I do, and how I do it. In so many ways he

made everything happen, and he did it by teaching us in word and

deed that the simplest virtues and values were the most important

ones” (Wooden, p. 5).

In describing his mother, Wooden is no less reverential: “I

learned from my mother what hard work really means and that it’s part

of life… Mother provided a model for how to do my job regardless of

the particular circumstances” (Wooden and Jamison, p.5). This work

ethic was exemplified in the many ways Wooden worked to help the

family makes ends meet while in school. Wooden’s occupational

undertakings while in high school included server and bus boy at the
local Elks Club, stock boy at both the A and P and Kroger grocery

stores, produce packer at the Martinsville canning plant, high tension

power line post installer, and assistant road graveler for the county

(Wooden and Tobin, p. 40). During the summer between his junior and

senior years of high school, Wooden could not find consistent work; so

he hitchhiked through the Midwest in order to assist in the wheat

harvesting (Wooden and Tobin, p. 41). A workday usually entailed

fourteen hours of labor; the pay was good, however, and Wooden,

thanks in large part to the example set by his mother, was not averse

to hard work.

As far as Wooden’s playing career is concerned, there have been

few men before or since that can match the accolades afforded John

Robert Wooden on the hardwood. While Bobby Knight enjoyed

moderate individual success in his high school playing career, he was

never able to carry his team to greatness. Then once he got to

college, his team achieved great things, but Knight was not really a

contributor on the court. John Wooden, on the other hand, enjoyed the

best of all worlds during his playing days. His teams enjoyed great

success both in high school and college, and Wooden was the catalyst

for much of this success.

John was skilled in all phases of the game; he was an outstanding

dribbler and outside shooter, and he knew how to facilitate his

teammates. Wooden played a tough, hard-nosed style and was not

averse to risking life and limb for loose balls.

Wooden was as popular in his time as a Wilt Chamberlain or

Michael Jordan would come to be generations later. He was the
player everybody talked about, the one all the Indiana kids
growing up with hoops in their driveway tired to emulate
(Bisheff, p. 43).

Wooden led the Martinsville Artesians to the Indiana State High School

Basketball Championship game three consecutive years, winning a

state title in his junior season.

Wooden chose to attend Purdue University in West Lafayette,

Indiana, and he enjoyed the same great successes at Purdue as he did

in high school. In Wooden’s three varsity eligible seasons, the

Boilermakers of Purdue University won three Big 10 Conference

Championships. Wooden himself, was selected as an NCAA All-

American in each of those three seasons. To cap off his career,

Wooden led the 1932 Purdue squad to a National Championship, and

Wooden himself led the conference in scoring (Wooden and Jamison, p.

47). Wooden became the first person voted into the College Basketball

Hall of Fame as both a player and a coach (Bisheff, p. 41).

The role that his parents played in shaping John as a leader and

man in his early years has been well documented. In addition to his

mother and father, two other people had significant impact on

Wooden’s life as he matured into a young adult: Nellie Riley and Piggie
Lambert. The former would go on to become Mrs. John Wooden, and

the latter was his college basketball coach at Purdue.

John met Nellie while enjoying a traveling carnival that stopped

in Martinsville in the summer of his freshman year of high school. Ms.

Riley’s outgoing personality, described by Wooden as pert, vivacious,

and captivating (Bisheff, p. 55), was in stark contrast to Wooden’s

introverted tendencies. They were married for fifty three years, until

Nellie’s death, March 21, 1985. Sidney Wicks, a star player for UCLA in

the late 60’s, commented on John and Nell’s relationship, “They were

two different people, but it was like they were one person… it was

good for us, as players to see. It helped us realize this is the way

marriage is supposed to be” (Bisheff, p. 59).

Where Nellie spent more than five decades as a day to day part

of John’s life, another individual was a direct part of John’s life for only

four years; the impact in those four years would last a lifetime. That

man was Ward Lambert, John’s college coach.

Ward “Piggie” Lambert was a mentor to John Wooden both on

and off the court. From 1916-1946 Lambert was the head basketball

coach of Purdue University, and during those years he coached the

Purdue Boilermakers to 11 conference titles and one National

Championship. An energetic man with a passion for his craft, Lambert

was known as a cerebral coach whose team was always in peak

physical condition. He was famous for his attention to detail, and every
practice was meticulously thought out. He had an affection for big

men who could handle the ball, and for quick aggressive perimeter

players who could apply continuous pressure on defense.

Not surprisingly, Wooden’s UCLA teams would become known for

their athletic big men, their pressuring guards, and their superior

physical conditioning. Wooden notes, “I based my coaching career

mainly on Lambert’s theories on conditioning” (Bisheff, p. 37). “From a

technician’s viewpoint, Coach Piggie Lambert had the greatest

influence on my career both from the viewpoint of playing as well as

coaching” (Wooden and Tobin, p. 50).

Lambert also played an influential role in John’s life off the court.

In Wooden’s words, Lambert was, “as highly principled a man as you

could ever find” (Bisheff, p. 35). Athletic scholarships were far less

prevalent in Wooden’s playing days, and Lambert was a firm believer

in having his players work for their tuition money; he felt that allowed

for the players to truly appreciate their education. Prior to Wooden’s

sophmore season at Purdue, a local doctor approached Lambert and

expressed a desire to pay for Wooden’s tuition. Lambert passed along

the offer, but also questioned John how he planned on paying the

doctor back. A little bit confused, John reiterated that the gentleman

had offered to pay for his schooling with no obligation on John’s part to

pay the doctor back. “That is right, John, he does,” Lambert

responded. Remember, though, that I told you when you came to

Purdue, you would work hard but would get through and wouldn’t owe

me or anyone else a cent. You will have earned your way” (Wooden

and Tobin, p. 46). Lambert continued, “I figured you were the kind of

person who would want to pay him back” (Bisheff, p. 35). Wooden

respectfully declined the offer. In attempting to encapsulate Coach

Lambert’s influence in his own life, Wooden remarks:

My respect for Coach Lambert has grown even stronger over the
years as I’ve come to recognize the authentic ability to transform
individuals in a positive way, both for their own good and for that
of the team. He genuinely cared about those under his
supervision. For me, he is the model of what a great coach can
be (Wooden and Jamison p. 39).

In an effort to offer some perspective into the type of men and

coaches they would become, the preceding chapter looked at the early

lives of Bob Knight and John Wooden. In Chapter IV, each man’s

instructional philosophy and instructional style is examined, followed

by a fantasy theme analysis of the thoughts and ideas which took root

and chained out in the consciousness of each man’s teams within the

context of each coach’s instructional communications. Chapter V then

provides conclusions, possible areas of improvement, and

recommendation for further research.

Chapter IV – Comparative Differentiation and Fantasy

Theme Analysis

Chapter IV begins with a comparison of each coach’s

instructional philosophies, examining first hand statements made by

both men when describing their coaching tenets. Pursuant to this

section, pedagogical style/methods of each subject are studied,

incorporating both direct and anecdotal evidence in examination.

Subsequently, fantasy themes which arise within the constructs and

culture of each man’s teams are investigated, with the aim of

identifying whether these fantasy themes are more commonly

associated with coaching philosophy or coaching style.

Martens (2004) asserts that when an individual chooses to

pursue a career in coaching, the instructional philosophy, as much as

the knowledge of the sport determines the amount of success that

individual will enjoy. If a person dedicates at least as much time to the

development of a concise coaching philosophy, as to enhancing

technical knowledge of the sport, this individual will become a better

coach. Having a germane philosophy removes uncertainty about

training rules, style of play, discipline, short and long term goals and

objectives, behavioral expectations, and competitive intentionality (p.

5).
 A coaching philosophy consists primarily of two things: major

objectives, which are made up of values and desired achievements,

and the beliefs and/or principles that will help in achieving those

objectives. With this in mind, the following pages are going to look

specifically at the coaching philosophies of Coach Wooden and Coach

Knight.

Comparative Differentiation

To begin, each man’s views on the importance of team continuity,

discipline, and the sovereignty of the coach and the coach’s
decision, a broad view which steps in the direction of summarizing
each man’s overall coaching philosophy in his own words, is
presented.

Wooden

For maximum team accomplishment each individual must

prepare himself to the best of his ability and then put his talents
to work for the team. This must be done unselfishly without
thought of personal glory. When no one worries about who will
receive the credit, far more can be accomplished in any group
activity. You must discipline yourself to do what is expected of
you for the welfare of the team. The coach has many decisions
to make and you will not agree with all of them, but you must
respect and accept them. Without supervision and leadership
and a disciplined effort by all, much of our united strength will be
dissipated pulling against ourselves. Let us not be victimized by
a breakdown from within (Wooden and Tobin, p. 237).

Knight

If you do anything in any way, whenever or wherever, that I think

is detrimental to the good of this basketball team, to the school,
 or to you yourself, I’ll handle it as I see fit… The second
cornerstone came from one of the game’s first truly great
coaches, Clair Bee. It was the critically important role of
teaching in basketball, teaching the game’s fundamentals and
philosophies, including all things involved in a team approach
and a determination throughout that team not just to play well,
but to win (Knight and Hammel, p. 15). My third cornerstone was
a appreciation of basketball as something never to be mastered,
but always, every day of every year, to be studied with an
unflagging zeal for answers, and a duty to pass them on (p. 18).

Both men make it clear that the goals and ambitions of the team

are of primary importance; being concerned with personal glory, or

creating distractions with detrimental behaviors will not be tolerated.

In addition, both men establish that there will be one voice guiding the

direction that each team will take; that voice will be his own, and that

voice must be respected

The next selection of quotes sheds light on how each man valued the
importance of fundamentals, preparation, and attention to detail, as
well touching on what exactly a coach’s ‘primary job’ is.

Wooden

There is no replacement for sound fundamentals and discipline

within an organization. They reinforce you in the toughest
circumstances. The importance of little things cannot be
overemphasized… The perfection of those little things – making a
habit of doing them right – usually determines if a job is done
well or done poorly (Wooden and Jamison, pp. 71-72).

Over the years I have become convinced that every detail is

important and that success usually accompanies attention to
little details… It’s the little details that are vital. Little things
make big things happen, and that’s what I tried to get across to
my players (Wooden and Tobin, pp. 105-106).
 No system is any good if the players are not well grounded in
fundamentals. Team play comes from integrating individuals
who have mastered the fundamentals into a smooth working
unit. Confidence comes from being prepared (Wooden and
Tobin, p. 95).

I think the coach’s job is to prepare players to play and then let
them do it. Failure to prepare is preparing to fail. And the
preparation process has to take place before the game, with any
needed adjustments made during time-outs and at halftime
(Wooden and Jamison, p. 218).

Knight

There are fundamentals that have to be adhered to and

mastered in any business. Some people grasp those
fundamentals, and teach them or learn them and others don’t.
And those who don’t are never as successful as those who do. In
coaching, it’s a matter of having a sound fundamental base, both
offensively and defensively… The intriguing part of coaching is
that those fundamentals – those basic mechanics of basketball –
are there for everybody. They apply to both teams, and they can
be utilized by one team as well as the other. Here, concentration
is the key, not athletic ability (Knight and Hammel, pp. 25-26).

Everybody has a will to win. What’s far more important is the

will to prepare to win (Knight and Hammel p. 20).

I’ve always felt that preparation is much more important than

anything else you do. If you have prepared correctly, your team
plays well, but you can’t make adjustments once the game is
played that cover up lack of preparation… you have to be able to
go into a game with a very good idea of what you have to do to
win this game, what you have to do to stop them, what you have
to do to score against them (Knight and Hammel, p. 27).

It is clear how strongly both men believe that preparation,

attention to detail, and the stressing of fundamentals, are foundational

imperatives when striving for success. Effective preparation is touted

as being the chief concern whilst leading a team, while attention to

detail and the stressing of fundamentals are two of the chief concerns

within this framework of preparation.

The importance, in each man’s mind, of maintaining proper

perspective when determining success, and not always being
consumed with the final score, is the subject of the next collection of
comparative passages

Wooden

Regardless of the statistics, percentages, or record – 30-0 or 0-30

– my goal was to step up the quality of our effort and
preparation, and execution and to strive to get closer and closer
to full competency without worrying about the score (Wooden
and Jamison, p. 85).

Knight

Winning is the last of all criteria that I think you should use to
determine how well you’re playing… You’re trying to get players
to understand that how they play is a hell of a lot more important
than whether or not they win (Knight and Hammel, p. 29).

Both men feel as though the final score, while obviously

significant, is secondary in importance to the overall performance of

the team. There will be times when effort and execution in all facets of

the game will be near perfect, yet the team will not emerge victorious.

Likewise, there will be times when execution is lacking, yet the team

will prevail. Given these two options, while winning is the preferable

result, each man will find more satisfaction in the team that
exemplifies competency and understanding in their execution and

effort.

Having said that, while Coach Knight declares winning is less

important than having his players understand that execution is more

important than the end result, his behavior/demeanor following losses

suggests otherwise. Knight is devastated by losses; they leave him,

“angry frustrated, and unable - or at least unwilling to deal with the

world on civil terms for hours, perhaps days, sometimes weeks,

depending on the dimensions of the defeat” (Feinstein, p. 161).

The importance of having the ability to think intelligently and react

instinctively when making decisions on the basketball floor, was also
an attribute held in high esteem by both leaders.

Wooden

Skill, as it pertains to basketball, is the knowledge and the ability

to quickly and properly execute the fundamentals. Being able to
do them is not enough. They must be done quickly. And being
able to do them quickly isn’t enough either. They must be done
quickly and precisely at the right time. You must learn to react
properly, almost instinctively (Wooden and Tobin, p. 87).

Knight

To me, concentration is basketball in a nutshell. Concentration

leads to anticipation, which leads to recognition, which leads to
reaction, which leads to execution… The concentration I’m
talking about involves four key words. The first two are look and
see. Everybody who plays basketball looks, but very few players
see… Hear and listen are the next two words. Most people only
hear. The key is listening to what you’re being told, what’s being
said, what is expected of you in your role as part of any team
(Knight and Hammel, p. 23).
 Basketball is fast paced competition, and being able to react

efficiently to hurried changes in circumstance is paramount to

successful execution. The ability of a player to think and react in rapid

succession is an asset that both men value highly. An instinctual

reaction is preferred, though only if this instinct has been informed by

a cognitive understanding of the situation at hand. Thinking is just as

important as reacting; Wooden sums this phenomenon up nicely when

he says he wants players to “be quick but don’t hurry.”

Both coaches acknowledged, whether through their words or their

actions, the advantages inherent in eschewing complicated strategic
philosophy, in favor of a simple plan augmented by skillful
execution.

Wooden

I constantly cautioned our teams, play your game, just play your
game. Eventually , if you play your game, stick to your style,
class will tell in the end. This does not mean that we will always
outscore our opponents, but does insure that we will not beat
ourselves… That’s why scouts had little difficulty writing a report
on UCLA while I was coach. We seldom changed our attack – we
seldom introduced new patterns – but we tried never to lock
ourselves into doing the same thing in the same situation. We
were not too concerned about opponents knowing what we were
going to do as long as they didn’t know when (Wooden and
Tobin, p. 110).

Knight – (Wooden, commenting on Knight philosophies)

I think that something is lost when the style of coaching and

playing fails to be simple. The sheer beauty and grace of the
game fades behind complex maneuvering and showmanship. A
 present-day example of a coach who insists on an uncomplicated
approach to basketball is Bobby Knight of Indiana… He holds to a
simple game plan. You always know the style of offense and
defense that will be used by his teams – his plays are simple to
read. But they will be executed beautifully, and although you
may know what, you won’t know when. Bobby Knight keeps the
game simple, and yet he is an outstanding success (Wooden and
Tobin, p. 217).

The ability to adapt is important; but if these attempts at

adaptation alter team identity and/or the ability to execute effectively,

the attempted adjustments may end up causing more harm than good.

The accentuation of a simple execution is shared by both men. Each

man appreciates the importance of identifying what the team does

best, and highlighting these strengths.

The following quotations help to illuminate what each man viewed as

his job/responsibility as coach; as well as what the ultimate desired
consequence(s) were of their coaching and mentoring efforts.

Wooden

In my profession, I must be deeply concerned with God’s belief in

me and be truly interested in the welfare of my fellow man… The
coach who is committed to the Christ-like life will be helping
youngsters under his supervision to develop wholesome
disciplines of body, mind and spirit that will build character
worthy of his Master’s calling. He must set the proper example
by work and by deed (Wooden and Tobin p. 94).

Knight

My job is to get us to play as well as we can as often as we can.

More than anything else, that’s what I have to do, and it will have
a direct carry-over to whatever each kid winds up doing in life
(Knight and Hamel, p. 30).
 I’ve never felt my job was to win basketball games – rather, that
the essence of my job as a coach was to do everything I could to
give my players the background necessary to succeed in life. I
want them later in life to feel that no course they took at Indiana
University – or at the Military Academy, or now at Texas Tech –
was more valuable to whatever success they had than what they
absorbed from playing basketball for me (Knight and Hamel, p.
373)

Coach Knight and Coach Wooden both comprehend that the

worth of the overall instruction which they offer, will be far more

valuable to the men they instruct, as each player moves on from his

collegiate playing career. Instilling in their players, whether by word or

deed, values/virtues that will serve their players well as life continues

beyond basketball, is viewed by both men as their ultimate aim in

coaching.

The preceding paragraphs took note of how these two men very

similar in multiple facets of their coaching philosophies. They both

made clear their status as the leader in all facets of their programs,

while accentuating the importance of a willingness to buy into a

unifying team concept. They both place a high degree of importance

on the stressing of fundamentals, preparation, and attention to detail;

while at the same time expressing to their players that winning is far

from the most important determining factor when ascertaining what

constitutes success. In addition, both men place a great deal of

emphasis on concentration and intelligent/instinctive decision making;

and both believe in a simple yet precise approach, when executing

offensively and defensively.

Similarities in philosophy have been identified, and the analysis

continues with a contrasting of coaching/communication styles. Many

of the coaching principles held by these two men may be quite

comparable; however, the manner/means in which the instructional

information is delivered - the communication style – is dissimilar. The

following section takes a closer look at these existent variances,

utilizing both primary and secondary sources.

The foundational communicative styles, from an

instructional/motivational perspective, of Coach Wooden and Coach
Knight are quite dissimilar, as exemplified by the following
statements.

Wooden

An effective leader looks for the positive perspective and can

teach others to do the same. There are usually two sides to
every story, an upside and a downside. When appropriate, I
wanted our focus to be directed to the upside (Wooden and
Jamison, p. 81).

Those I taught, all of them, will tell you that our practices were
both businesslike and grueling. I believe they would also say
that I was able to utilize a gentle tough when appropriate and to
crack the whip when necessary. There is great strength in
gentleness – perhaps the greatest strength of all. Without it,
your leadership begins to resemble the approach of a prison
guard standing watch over a chain gang. Turn your back, and
they’re gone (Wooden and Jamison, p. 11).

Knight
 Beyond all the talk about his complexity, his fundamental
approach to motivation has never changed: fear is his number
one weapon. He believes that if the players are afraid of getting
screamed at or of landing in the doghouse, they will play better.
And, if they fear him more than the opponent, they are likely to
play better (Feinstein, p. 86).

Wooden recognized and stressed the importance of tenderness

and tact when communicating with his players. This statement isn’t to

say that he never raised his voice or had a harsh word to say; but his

first inclination in terms of instruction or correction was usually to take

the more disarming path. Knight, on the other hand, preferred to lead

with a more confrontational approach, and follow this with a dash of

encouragement when he deemed appropriate.

Suffice to say that “night and day”, as a comparative reference, is

not a stark enough contrast to exemplify the difference in the
vocabulary practices employed by Coach Wooden and Coach Knight.

Wooden

During my three years on staff with the Coach I never heard him
use profanity, but everyone in practice knew he was at the end
of his rope when he said, “Goodness, gracious sakes alive!”
That’s as mad as he got. He controlled his mouth and expected
everyone else to do the same (Wooden and Carty, p. 67).

Knight

Much had been made over the years of Knight’s use of profanity

with the players. It is no exaggeration. Knight uses profanity when he

is angry, when he is happy, and whenever he feels like it. He once

taped an outtake for a TV show explaining why he used the word f--- so

much.

“I just think,” he said, “that f--- is the most expressive word in

the English language. It can be used to express surprise as in
‘Well I’ll be f---ed’ Or, it can be used to express anger, as in ‘F---
you!’ Or it can express dismay as in, ‘Oh, F---!’ (Feinstein, pp. 40-
41).

This comparison is straight up black and white. One coach felt it

necessary and effective to employ powerful language while making

points to his players. The other coach chose to lead by example,

holding to the opinion that a vulgar mouth was evidence of a loss of

control, expecting his players to exemplify that same level of self

control.

Coach Wooden and Coach Knight are in agreement that criticism is

an important utensil in a coach’s instructional toolbox, however,
they had differing opinions on how to best present said criticism.

Wooden

Nobody likes criticism, but criticism is necessary. It is also

necessary to offer criticism in a productive manner that creates
improvement. One technique I used was to offer a positive
statement – a compliment – before the criticism. Not false
praise, not a phony compliment, but something that was
sincere... First the commendation; then the criticism; then
improvement… However, I would occasionally criticize first.
Then I’d offer a “pat on the back” to take the sting out of the
criticism. I’d offer verbal support or a nod to let the player know
I had confidence in him and his ability to do it the right way
(Wooden and Carty, p. 93).
 Instilling confidence is usually achieved through many small
affirmations and acts of inclusion over time. Look for those
opportunities to show your team they have your confidence
(Wooden and Carty, p. 95).

And approval is a great motivator. I tried to follow any criticism,

whenever possible, with a pat on the back, realizing that I could
not antagonize and influence favorably at the same time
(Wooden and Tobin, p. 95).

Knight

When Knight makes life difficult for his players, which is often, it

is not always because he is unhappy with them. He believes that the

tougher he makes things for his team in practice, the tougher they will

be in games.

I want them to start the season having faced their toughest

times… I feel like if they can handle me, they can probably
handle any crowd on the road or any kind of adversity that may
come up in a game (Feinstein, p. 74).

This comparison is similar to the contrast of the two men’s

preferred instructional/motivational perspectives which was touched

on earlier. When critiquing or offering opinions, Wooden was much

more apt to lead with something positive before coming back with a

constructive criticism. In Wooden’s mind, positive affirmations were

effective in reinforcing confidence in and for his players. Knight on the

other hand, preferred to view himself as a force in which the team

needed to galvanize itself against. If his team could overcome the

hardships and difficulties Knight presented, they would then be much

more likely to succeed when the chips were down in a game.

The comparative analysis section concludes with an examination of a

few anecdotal illustrations of each man’s interpersonal
communication style.

Knight

It was common practice for Knight, the card-carrying iconoclast,

to shock his religious players, as when he would tell Alford, “You

couldn’t lead a whore to bed.” (Delsohn and Heisler, p. 197).

“Daryl’s name wasn’t Daryl”, noted freshman forward Rick

Calloway, “his name was
Pussy… Knight put tampons in his locker. He’d put in Juicy Fruit
bubble gum and tell him he was a fruit.” (Delsohn and Heisler, p.
193).

An excerpt from a film session after practice:

“Daryl, You know you are a f------ joke,” Knight said, “I have no
more confidence in your ability to go out and play hard than I did
when you were a freshman. I don’t know how you’ve f---ed up
your head in the last two weeks but you’re as f---ed up now as
you’ve ever been. I wouldn’t turn you loose in a game if you
were the last guy I had because of your f---ing head. This is BS…
Daryl, look at that, you don’t even run down the floor hard.
That’s all I need to know about you Daryl… You never push
yourself. You know what you are, Daryl? You’re the worst f------
pussy I’ve ever seen play basketball at this school. The absolute
worst pussy ever” (Feinstein, pp. 6-7).

Wooden

You get very close to the boys who play for you. Despite all
efforts to the contrary a coach becomes attached to them – at
 times, thinking about a player as if he were his own son. And
you become very concerned about their feelings and
disappointments (Wooden and Tobin, p. 12).

A further example gives Wooden’s feelings following his first

championship, when one of his seniors had not played particularly well:

Fred was a totally unselfish player with great team devotion, and
was frequently asked to do things for which a player receives
little public attention… But in this final game for the
championship with Duke he had gotten off to a bad start. As the
game moved along, it got worse instead of better. Finally, a
change had to be made, so I pulled Fred and put in Doug
McIntosh… Pushing open the dressing room door (following the
game), I ran into Fred. ‘Coach’ he said, ‘before someone gets
the wrong impression, I want you to know that I understand. You
had to leave Doug in there because he played so well, and I
didn’t. You know, there are a lot of peaks and valleys in every
coach’s life. But his was the peak - the ultimate. We had won
our first NCAA title by whipping Duke and closed out the 1964
season with a perfect 30-0 record. But my concern for Fred had
damaged all of that until this moment. Now I felt really
great!”(Wooden and Tobin, pp. 11-12).

The above anecdotes give illustrations of the way in which each

coach’s attitude towards interpersonal communication helped shape

their actions in various coaching situations. When a player failed to

perform to expectations in the National Championship game, Coach

Wooden was sincerely concerned with the emotional well being of that

player. Conversely, when a player made mistakes in a preseason

practice, Coach Knight was less concerned with that player’s emotional

state, than with expressing his frustration and disappointment. This

example is not to say that all situations would be handled similarly by

both men, in fact, Coach Knight would go on to address the player in

question one on one, to make sure that that player understood his

tirade was not meant primarily as a personal attack. However, the

example does give an accurate representation of each man’s default

mode when it comes to identifying communication strategies each

man prefers.

Communication involves both style and substance, and while the

instructional substance offered up by both men was often similar, that

content was flavored with contrasting styles. Where one man was

prone to verbal accosting in order to both toughen his charges as well

as motivate them through fear, the other was more likely to utilize a

gentle touch and incorporate a positive perspective when motivating.

Where one man made repeated use of a very “utilitarian” yet often

offensive word, the other man avoided profane language entirely.

Finally, where one man exaggerated failure and shortcomings, and

would often verbally (and sometimes physically) harass in an

extremely negative tone with little regard, nor immediate concern for,

the emotional consequences for that player, the other man made an

effort to balance criticisms with encouragement, as well as expressing

a deeper concern for the emotional state of his team members.

Similarities in coaching philosophy and differences in

communication style have now been identified. Bormann (1982) notes

that fantasies are shared in all communication contexts, and there

exists a connection between rhetorical visions and community

consciousness. In addition, sharing fantasies is closely associated with

motivation and is an important means for people to create their social

realities (p. 289). The remainder of Chapter IV identifies fantasy

themes originating from each man’s unique marriage of coaching

philosophy and style, taking special note of the relationship to

motivation.

Fantasy Theme Analysis

In the minds of many, Bobby Knight is to chair throwing as John

Wooden is to the pyramid of success, the General vs. the Wizard of

Westwood; with that said, single snapshots in time, and generically

accepted self help propaganda, do not themselves a legacy make.

Bormann (1972) makes plain that the explanatory power of fantasy

theme analysis is inherent in its ability to quantify the growth,

evolution, and demise of dramas that take hold within groups of people

and modify actions and behavior. A small group of people with similar

individual psychodynamics meet to discuss a common concern. A

member dramatizes a theme that latches on to the collective

consciousness of the group, which causes this theme to chain out as a

result of hitting a common motivational thread (p. 399).

In Bormann’s above description, for the purposes of this

investigation, the small group of people with similar goals/problems

equates to each man’s basketball squad. The member dramatizing a

theme is the coach, and the themes themselves, while yet to be

identified, are the messages (and the tone of those messages) used by

each coach to motivate his team.

Knight

In any walk of life, the best-prepared person creates advantages

that help him or her be the most successful. In all of sports and
pretty much in all of life, the mental is to the physical as four is
to one. And one thing more almost supersedes everything else.
ENTHUSIASM!
In coaching, I want to be enthusiastically critical (Feinstein, p.
27).

This quotation shows aspects of perhaps two of the most

indispensable weapons in Bobby Knight’s coaching/motivational

arsenal: mental preparation and enthusiasm. The element of criticism

plays an important role in the rhetorical vision built by Bob Knight for

his players.

In Knight’s mind, the schematics of his style of play were simply

the best system ever devised to play the game of basketball: “this is

the best way to play basketball – ever…” (Feinstein, p. 269). However,

what was his preferred method of implanting this system into the

malleable minds of his charges? Criticism, enthusiastic criticism.

When, Coach Knight would go off on one of his patented tirades,

following one mishap or another, his players had a name for outbursts:

War Stories. Every Indiana basketball player could tell several on

himself (Alford and Garrity, p. 14). This battleground mentality, the

one which took hold in the psyches of many of his players, provides an

effective vehicle from which to examine Coach Knight’s rhetorical

vision.

From a basketball perspective, Knight was the ruler of all which

he surveyed: the General. Indiana University was his sovereign state,

and the players on his teams were his armed forces. Conference and

National Championships were sacred battles undertaken and won, and

the players (soldiers) who took part in those skirmishes were often

remembered with reverence.

With this description in mind, a closer examination of a sample of

Knight’s criticisms will be presented. The following pages offer various

quotations; each of these quotations is followed by an interpretation,

presented in the language of the environment Coach Knight created

within his program.

When Wittman was here, he wouldn’t have put up with Harris for
five minutes. He would have told Harris to go to class or he
couldn’t play for his team. He would have been out there
shooting last night with Calloway. I never once had to tell Randy
Wittman anything except to shoot the ball more. He was what
Indiana basketball is about. None of you are (Feinstein, p. 241).

I’d like to know when somebody in here is going to go up and

grab somebody and punch them when they watch this bulls---.
Buckner would have hit somebody by now. Do you know that?
He just would have gone up and hit one of you f------ (Feinstein,
p. 6).
 One of Coach Knight’s favorite means of criticism was to

compare a current player to an individual who had previously played

for Knight at Indiana, or to a recruit who was expected to arrive in the

near future. Invariably, these comparisons were never flattering.

In the above communications, various members of the present

force have been derelict in their duties. The General, in a thinly veiled

attempt at motivation, is reflecting back on the exploits of a senior

officer from a previous command. Inferring frustration with the lack of

accountability exemplified by the present leadership, the General

makes claims that Retired Lieutenants, Wittman and Buckner, would

not have dreamed of letting these lapses in discipline occur without

repercussions. The General states that this lack of headship makes

plain the fact that the current administration has yet to fully grasp

what fighting Knight’s Army is truly about.

Steve, not once did you go up and grab Daryl by the jersey and
say, “get in the f------ game, Daryl, quit playing like a pussy?”
You know how many times Buckner did that to Benson? Do you
know? You want to be a leader, Steve, you got to do that
(Feinstein, p. 286).

In this instance, the shortcomings of the present commanding

officer have occurred in the heat of battle; Lieutenant Alford has failed

in his attempts (or lack thereof) to inspire and light a fire in the belly of

an underperforming soldier, an action that Retired Lieutenant Buckner

never hesitated to take. Here again, the General is drawing on the

virtues and achievements of previous leaders in his infantry. This act

is done for the purpose of communicating to his present Lieutenant

that leadership must be assumed; and if roadblocks to victory are to be

overcome, he has responsibility to seize this leadership.

You people just don’t understand that you have to sweat blood
out here to play. We haven’t had anyone here since Wittman,
Kitchel and those kids played who was willing to do that (p. 134).

This brief critical rant, directed towards his soldiers, sees the

General advocating the importance of extreme effort and sacrifice in

order to emerge victorious. However, not content to simply stress the

need for improved effort and greater sacrifice, the General again

conjures up the ghosts of soldiers past to make his point; claiming that

he has not had under his command, fighters willing to give supreme,

and necessary effort since the days of Lieutenants Wittman and

Kitchel.

I can remember Scott May coming in here on Sundays, his one

day off, and working for two hours on not walking with the
basketball. He ended up a two-time all American and player of
the year as a senior. And I’ll tell you something, he didn’t have
any more athletic ability than a lot of you do. But he wanted to
compete so much, he made himself better (Feinstein, p. 173).

In this communication event, the General is recalling a

Lieutenant from a regime ten years previous. He uses that

combatant’s laudable effort to improve himself as a warrior, thus

improving the Army’s chances at victory, as a comparative

motivational tool. Knight notes that this soldier received the

equivalent of a Medal of Honor at the conclusion of his final tour of

duty. The General notes that this particular Lieutenant was far from

the most naturally gifted soldier; but through determination, effort, and

heart, he became one of the most decorated infantrymen in the history

of the General’s administration.

When Delray Brooks gets here next year, you’ll never play. Your
ass will be so far down the bench, no one will ever hear from you
again – directed at Steve Alford (Feinstein, p. 49).

Isiah, next year we’re bringing in Dan Dakich. He can do so many

things on a basketball court that you can’t do, it isn’t even funny
– directed at Isiah Thomas (Feinstein, p 50).

In the General’s world, the sword of comparison could cut both

ways. Not only were his current competitors held up to the nearly

impossible standards of conquering heroes from the days of yore, but

they had to deal with the prospect of being replaced by the latest and

greatest: recruits waiting in the wings; men who could reputedly

render the assets of present combatants obsolete. The fact that the

validity of these comparisons is impossible to measure matters little,

so long as the receiver of the message believes that the sender of the

message is sincere (and it was never a wise move to question the

sincerity and/or authority of the General) the comparisons were

destined to have the desired effect.

 When Knight’s former players gather, they all tell war stories.
One night during the fall, Steve Green, who had been part of
Knight’s first recruiting class at Indiana and a captain on the 31-
1 1975 team, told about a game in which he made a huge
mistake. “I came out of the game for a rest and I sat down next
to Coach,” he said. “Very bad move. The next thing I know, the
guys playing screw up a couple times and he starts yelling at me
– Green, how can you let those sonsofbitches play like that?
What the hell kind of example are you setting? What kind of
leader are you anyway?” Hearing Green tell the story, Dakich
began to laugh. “Last year when I was the captain,” Dakich
noted, “whenever we started playing badly he would turn to me
and say – Goddammit Dakich, what kind of leader are you? Do
you think Steve Green would ever allow his team to play that
way?” (Feinstein, p. 35).

Ted Kitchel offers this pointed explanation of Bobby Knight’s

opinion/perspective

of each of Coach Knight’s basketball teams at Indiana.

I played on the four worst f------ teams in the history of Indiana

basketball. The worst. We won three Big Ten championships
and the national championship in 1981. But believe me, we
were, “the worst” (Feinstein, pp. 35-36).

Ultimately, as Feinstein notes, players eventually resign

themselves to the fact that for the four years they play basketball at

Indiana University, they will be terrible basketball players most of the

time (Feinstein p. 35). The leaders/captains of the squads will be

particularly terrible; and most of the time, the measuring stick for the

relative level of this “terribleness” is going to be comparative.

It’s important to note that these same players who, as time

progressed, would go on to become the standard of all that was right

about Indiana basketball, were most often the chosen recipients of

Coach Knight’s motivational vitriol in their playing days.

Knight picks out targets on each team. Usually, it is a player he

knows can handle the abuse, and it is almost always a very good
player. Kitchel had been a major target, with Randy Wittman not
far behind. During 1985-86, Alford would be Public Enemy
Number 1… and, when Knight wanted to tell Alford what a
terrible leader he was, he used Kitchel and Wittman as examples
of the kind of leader he wanted (Feinstein, p. 36)

Coach didn’t cuss out everybody, he had a pecking order.

Freshman he usually treated relatively gently. If I made a bad
pass, say, or if Daryl broke the wrong way in a drill, Coach
usually said nothing. We were new, he didn’t expect us to know
it all… Coach directed most of his anger, instead, at the
upperclassmen who played the most, the team leaders… It was
astonishing the way coach got on Dan (Dakich)… Dan was
Coaches favorite target not because he disliked him but because
Dan responded to the yelling the way Coach wanted (Alford and
Garrity, p.35).

A good General is going to have an understanding of the basic

psychological make-up of his men; he will have an excellent idea how

each man is going to react in pressure situations. He will know whose

buttons to press and exactly when to press them. This understanding

is vital in terms of maintaining effectiveness from a mental perspective

in the General’s efforts to lead his men. The men he knows are willing

to stand up and risk failure, the men who are not only the most skilled

in battle, but also willing to take responsibility for actions taken and

the potential consequences which will then result; these are the men
who can be made an example of, the men Knight knows can take his

abuse in order to illustrate his design for winning.

You know there were times, when if I had had a gun, I think I
would have shot him. And there were other times when I wanted
to put my arms around him, hug him, and tell him that I loved
him” (Feinstein, pp. 8-9).
Former player Isiah Thomas, when asked to share his true feelings
about Coach Knight

Anytime you deal with Bobby Knight, it’s like riding a roller
coaster. It’s just up and down. And they had their, and I’m not
trying to be politically correct, but they had their times when
Quinn didn’t care for him very much (Delsohn and Heisler, p. 90).
Former player Quinn Buckner’s brother on the relationship dynamics
of Coach Knight and Quinn

So, He comes up in the living room and he just goes off. I mean,
he’s going nuts. Telling me, ‘You’re not worth a s---,’… He’s
going on and on. And, ‘How can you do this to the program?’
This sort of thing. Well, what was amazing is, I’m talking to him
for about a half hour and within 40 minutes, he’s got me pumped
up so high about playing… And, I mean it was unbelievable….
But he just has that knack, you know (Delsohn and Heisler, p.
83).
Former player Dave Shepherd, reflecting on a “conversation” which
began as an attempt by Shepherd to share his frustrations with
Coach Knight

Alford is a believer in Coach Knight and his methods, even as he

admits there were times he hated Knight, feared Knight, and
blamed Knight for taking the fun out of basketball (Alford and
Garrity, p. 14).

As with any relationship(s) characterized by frequent

confrontation and conflict, aggravation and frustration are going to

occur from time to time. Even if the soldier realizes that the harsh
words are a means to worthwhile end, the personal attacks can be

irksome and opinions of the General can range from contempt to

adulation. This tide of opinion, depending on the situation, could flow

rapidly from one end of the spectrum to the other.

For all the grief he gives his players during their four years with
him, Knight honestly believes he owes them something in return
once they graduate. The day an Indiana player finishes his
career, his relationship with Knight changes forever. Knight is
still the dominant figure, still intimidating, still forceful. But now
he is also your friend – not a friend you call to go have a beer,
but a friend you call when you need help. Knight expects his ex-
players to do that – wants them to do it, in fact. Loyalty is a
huge word in his vocabulary. He expects it, and he returns it –
no qualifiers. If you mess up, in all likelihood you are through.
But if you don’t mess up, you have a friend who will do just
about anything you ask (Feinstein, p. 64).

This type of leadership demands a high degree of trust and

loyalty, trust that power will not be abused and loyalty in the face of

challenging circumstances. As a result, when the General’s men make

their way through their tour of duty, so long as they have shown

unwavering loyalty to the General and to their fellow soldiers, the

General feels an obligation to reciprocate these allegiances. Should his

men, when they return to civilian lives, ever need a friend, a favor, or a

listening ear, those men can count on General Knight to be there for

them, whatever the situation demands.

I’ve never expected anyone, including my players, to agree with

all that I do. But to the absolute best of my ability, I’ve tried to
provide them with a good work ethic, and ability to excel at
 crucial times, and a determination to be as good as they could
be at whatever they do. Not every kid over the years has liked
my approach, and with some kids certainly I have made
mistakes, just as some selfish kids made their own mistake in
coming to a program where it just didn’t work for a player to be
more concerned about himself than his team… I’ve never been
afraid to make a mistake, or to put myself out on a limb in trying
to help a kid. I’ve sometimes known what I was doing would not
be acceptable to a lot of people, or would seem harsh. But even
in my mistakes, I’ve never done anything I didn’t honestly feel
was in the best interest of the team or the player involved
(Knight and Hammel, p. 373).

As someone in a position of authority, the General of an armed

force must always keep not only the immediate/primary goals (those

goals being triumph in the battle at hand as well as in the overall war)

of his charges in mind, but he must also possess an anticipatory

understanding of what the residual effects of the decisions made, in an

effort to achieve these goals, might be.

Given this perspective, the General knows that some of the

more complicated decisions that are made, and controversial actions

that are taken, are going to be questioned, disagreed with, and

misunderstood. In fact, some of these decisions/actions will be

reflected upon, and it will be determined that perhaps the General

made a poor choice; no one, after all, is infallible. Missteps are taken

by even the most ardently prepared and decorated of military leaders;

however, the impetus for making these decisions was always made

with appropriate motives. What these deeds of leadership may have

lacked in discretion, they made up for in sincerity. While all may not
have been correct, they were all done with correct intent. No decision

the General ever undertook was ever made or taken without first

determining if this course of action was in the best interest of his army,

and the individual soldier(s) it may affect.

Looking more closely at the core drama central to Coach Knight’s

rhetorical vision, there are times where Knight seems to be

undertaking the role of the villain. However, in doing so, he is

attempting to put his players in a protagonist position, where, if they

overcome the hardships presented by himself, they will have little

trouble defeating more pertinent difficulties that present themselves

on the path to victory.

Wooden

If Knight was the heavy handed head of state, the General of his

forces, Wooden was a wizardly craftsman, a man who could direct his

squad, both physically and emotionally, with dexterity and skill. John

Wooden was the oracle of the UCLA basketball program. The words of

instruction and correction Wooden offered may have been of a more

temperate ilk, when compared to his more brazenly confrontational

counterpart, but they were chosen with care and thoughtfulness; and

the messages those words conveyed were as potent as any fire

breathing rant Knight ever delivered.

John Wooden was nothing, if not a man of maxims; a number of

his sayings, both borrowed and original, have been quoted many times
over in books dedicated to an array of subjects, including leadership,

service, and coaching; these axioms from They Call Me Coach:

You cannot live a perfect day without doing something for

someone who will never be able to repay you (p 62).

Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do (p
56).

It is amazing how much can be accomplished if no one cares who

gets the credit (p 104).

A man may make mistakes, but he isn’t a failure until he starts

blaming someone else (p 120).

It is what you learn after you know it all that counts (p 125).

A gentleman is one who considers the rights of others before his

own feelings, and the feelings of others before his own rights (p
146).

Ability may get you to the top, but it takes character to keep you
there (p 152).
The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team (p 165).

Talent is God-given; be humble. Fame is man-given; be thankful.

Conceit is self-given; be careful (p 185).

Taken individually, every adage referenced above could be

fleshed out and analyzed, but to a certain degree, a common truth is

central to each. They all speak in some form or another to Coach

Wooden’s formula for success, both on and away from the basketball

floor. This narrative, a characterization and pursuit of success in every

facet of one’s life and is central too much of what Coach Wooden

attempted to impart to his players.

Defining Success

It is my belief that in one way or another we are all seeking

success. And success is a piece of mind which is a direct result
of self-satisfaction in knowing you did your best to become the
best you are capable of becoming… I tried to convince my
players that they could never be truly successful or attain peace
of mind unless they had the self-satisfaction of knowing they had
done their best. Although I wanted them to work to win, I tried to
convince them they had always won when they had done their
best” (Wooden and Tobin, pp. 94-95).

Wooden’s representation of success helped to conjure up

meaning and emotion in the minds of his players, motivating them to

make every effort to succeed. “I wanted those under my supervision

to understand the highest goal and greatest reward exist in the effort

they make to achieve their potential” (Wooden & Jamison, p. 87). Each

year, before the season began, Coach Wooden would draft a letter to

that year’s players. The content would vary slightly from year to year,

but one constant was his keys to team success.

You must discipline yourself to do what is expected of you for the

welfare of the team. The coach has many decisions to make,
and you will not agree with all of them, but you must respect and
accept them. Without supervision and leadership and a
disciplined effort by all, much of our united strength will be
dissipated by pulling against ourselves. Let us not be victimized
by a breakdown from within.

- From letter to the 1965/66 UCLA

Basketball Team

If each of you makes every effort to develop to the best of your

ability, follow the proper rules of conduct and activity most
conducive to good physical condition, subordinate individual
 acclaim, for the welfare of the team, and permit no personality
clashes or differences of opinion with teammates or coaches to
interfere with your or your teammates efforts, it will be a very
rewarding year (Wooden and Jamison, p. 5)

- From letter to the 1971/72 UCLA

Basketball Team

For maximum team accomplishment each individual must

prepare himself to the best of his ability and then put his talents
to work for the team. This must be done unselfishly without
thought of personal glory. When no one worries about who will
receive the credit far more can be accomplished in any group
activity. You must discipline yourself to do what is expected of
you for the welfare of the team (Wooden and Tobin, p. 239).

- From letter to the 1972/73 UCLA

Basketball Team

The underlying drama of the rhetorical vision expressed by

Coach Wooden in these writings is one of a struggle against pride and

personal acclaim. Desires to attain individual fame and personal glory

must be overcome with the knowledge that putting personal

achievements ahead of team goals is not conducive to success. The

antagonist persona in this dramatic representation consists of a

tendency towards prideful, self-serving efforts; whereas the

protagonist persona, is represented by the desirable qualities of,

preparedness, discipline, sacrifice, and humility.

In taking a look at Coach Wooden’s “Normal Expectations”, a list

of ten do’s and don’ts Wooden set out for his players, a similar

narrative reveals itself:

 Our chances of having a successful team may be in direct
proportion to the ability of each player to live up to the following
sets of suggestions.

1. Be a gentleman at all times

2. Be a team player always
3. Be on time whenever time is involved
4. Be a good student in all subjects – not just basketball
5. Be enthusiastic, industrious, dependable, loyal and
cooperative
6. Be in the best possible condition – physically, mentally,
and morally
7. Earn the right to be proud and confident.
8. Keep emotions under control without losing fight or
aggressiveness
9. Work constantly to improve without becoming satisfied
10. Acquire peace of mind by becoming the best that
you are capable of becoming
* * * *

1. Never criticize, nag or razz a teammate

2. Never miss or be late for any class or appointment
3. Never be selfish, jealous, envious, or egotistical
4. Never expect favors
5. Never waste time
6. Never alibi or make excuses
7. Never require repeated criticism for the same mistakes
8. Never lose faith or patience
9. Never grandstand, loaf, sulk, or boast
10. Never have a reason to be sorry afterwards

(Wooden and Jamison,

p. 258)

Once again, the primary conflict existent in the rhetorical vision

exemplified by the above list, is an effort to be disciplined, prepared,

humble, and possess a willingness to sacrifice personal acclamation in

order to more effectively combat the consequences of selfish and

prideful behavior. When this is accomplished, success will be attained.

 If a player is disciplined, he will not waste time; he will not sulk or

boast; he will not be late, but he will work incessantly to improve. He

will be able to harness his emotions effectively, and he will be in ideal

physical and mental condition. If a player is prepared, he will never

have to make excuses or alibis; he will not make the same mistake(s)

over and over again; he will not rely on or expect favors, but he will be

organized in the classroom, and he will be punctual. If a player is

humble, and willing to sacrifice, he will not harass or pass judgment on

a teammate; he will not lose patience; he will not grandstand or boast;

he will not be envious or egotistical, but he will be a gentleman, he will

be a good teammate, and he will attempt to become the best that he

is capable of becoming; which in Wooden’s eyes, equates to success.

Balance and Control

Espousing the value of humility and sacrifice, to better combat

pride and selfishness, in order to allow the team to fulfill its ultimate

performance potential is one of the primary narratives of Coach

Wooden’s recipe for success. A second prominent narrative involves

Wooden’s desire for all of his players to strive for balance and control.

Some might think that work or concentration or enthusiasm or

persistence are more important than balance, but I don’t agree.
Balance is the most important single word for an athlete or coach
to keep in mind – even as it is vital for a productive and
satisfying life. Physical balance is controlled by the extremities
of the body – the head, feet, and hands… But balance for a
basketball player involves more than just the physical. It means
 keeping everything in proper perspective: maintaining self-
control, never getting emotionally too high or too low, not
permitting things over which you have not control to affect
attitudes and actions, remaining calm in stressful situation. It
also includes the proper handling of academic and social
responsibilities (Wooden and Tobin, p. 219).

It was essential to Coach Wooden that his players have

emotional, physical, and mental balance. In addition, as a coach,

Wooden worked as an agent of change to blend each individual’s style

of play into a team first mentality, assisting in each player’s quest to

achieve the balance that is required to accomplish this. “As coach I

had to teach players individual balance, and then the balance of losing

themselves in the group for the greater good of the team” (Wooden

and Jamison, p 103).

For coach Wooden, balance means maintaining a proper

perspective in both basketball, and everything outside of basketball.

Balance means not allowing preparation for the task at hand to be

interfered with because emotions are not being properly held in check.

Balance means making sure performance, on both an individual and

team level, is not adversely affected by extreme fervor and

excitement, or, on the other end of the emotional continuum,

discouragement and malaise.

Balance is crucial in everything we do. Along with love it’s

among the most important things in life. I strove for balance in
my leadership and coaching and taught that balance was
necessary for competitive greatness: The body has to be in
balance; the mind has to be in balance; emotions must be in
 balance. Balance is important everywhere and in everything we
do (Wooden and Jamison, p xv).

This theme of balance chained out in and through many of his

players long after they had graduated from UCLA; among them, are

NBA Hall of Famers Gail Goodrich and television executive, Andrew Hill:

He always talked about balance: body balance, scoring balance,

team balance, and most of all mental and emotional balance.
Your feet have to be in balance. Your body has to be in balance
over your feet. Your head needs to be in balance with your body
and your arms. He said if you’re not in balance, you’ll eventually
fall over, and he meant it in more ways than one. I came to see
balance as one of the keys to success not only in basketball, but
in life. When things get out of balance, it’s generally not good.
Everything needs balance. That one word he kept drilling at us –
balance – has stuck with me, became important in how I try to do
things (Wooden and Jamison, p. 134).
- Gail Goodrich on the impact balance has
had on his life

John Wooden did not just talk about the need for balance;
everything in his life suggested that he lived those values as
well. It was clear to us that there were actually things in life
more important than the score of a basketball game, and that
keeping perspective was crucial to maintaining consistency (Hill
and Wooden, pp 91-92).

…the strength and calm you project when you’re truly balanced
make you far more powerful than when you come across as
about to come unglued. Being in balance also gives you the
ability to react and adjust to changes in the market place without
a lot of wasted motion. When you’re out of balance and
overcommitted to a particular path, bad things can happen (Hill
and Wooden, p. 95).
- Andrew Hill on applying balance to his post
playing career

Preparedness and Effort above Winning

 He never talks about winning and losing but rather about the
effort to win. He rarely talks about basketball but generally
about life. He never talks about strategy, statistics, or plays but
rather about people and character. And he never tires of telling
us that once you become a good person, then you have a chance
of becoming a good basketball player or whatever else you may
want to do (Wooden and Tobin, p. 6).
- Bill Walton

The above subheading is not to suggest that coach Wooden did

not have a burning desire to win. “I wanted to win – that is, outscore

the opponent – every single game I was ever involved in. Of course I

did. But my deep belief is that the score is a byproduct of something

much more important: effort” (Wooden and Jamison, p 123).

Coach Wooden devoted his program to following three basic principles:

conditioning, fundamentals, and team spirit (Wooden and Jamison, p.

113). Wooden believed that being in supreme physical, mental and

moral condition was foremost. In his experience, level of performance

dropped off precipitously when his players were lacking in any of the

three facets of conditioning. As to fundamentals, it was important to

Wooden for his players to be able to execute the rudimentary phases

of the game instantaneously, without requiring pause to process

information. Finally, the third essential cog in his coaching philosophy

was team spirit. Each one of his players was expected to be willing

and eager to sacrifice personal glory for the greater prize of team

success (Wooden and Jamison, p. 114).

 These three fundamentals are not that unique or surprising; in

fact, many coaches in many sports adhere to these same basic tenets.

However, the distinction between Wooden’s philosophy and that of

other coaches is in his insistence on only worrying about his team’s

half of the competitive equation. “I never talked about winning or

beating an opponent. In fact, I rarely mentioned the opponent’s name.

‘Let them worry about us,’ was my philosophy. My job, and the team’s

job was to get us as close to being as good as we could get. The final

score would be a byproduct of that effort” (Wooden and Jamison, p.

115).

The fact that Coach Wooden never specifically addressed or

stressed the importance of the final score was not lost on his players.

The significance of focusing on the things that were in their control,

preparation and effort, and not concerning themselves with winning

chained out in the psyches of many of his former players.

You don’t realize it until later, until after you’ve been away from
UCLA for a few years, but it was not just basketball he was
teaching you. He was teaching a philosophy you could apply to
everyday life. Anytime I was faced with a crisis, like, say,
something in raising your kids, I’d think, This is how Wooden
would handle this. It really does apply to other things. You
know, it s interesting, but he really forces you to think (Wooden
and Jamison, p. 139).
Gail Goodrich

He taught us about life, as well as sports… What he did was

challenge us. And he did it without taking away our spirit. What
he did has helped me in so many ways, especially in being a
 parent. He taught me how to instill confidence in others. He
made me understand that everything is a learning game. It’s all
learning about yourself and learning how to be successful
(Wooden and Jamison, p. 151).

Winning was never mentioned by him. For Coach Wooden it was,

“Fellas, we’ve got to play at our best. Let’s do that.” That’s a lot
different from saying, “fellas, we’ve got to win.” A lot different…
He wanted our best effort. If that wasn’t good enough, he
accepted the results (Wooden and Jamison, p. 78).
Kareem Abdul
Jabaar

Coach Wooden didn’t talk about winning. His message was to

give the game the best you’ve got. “That’s the goal,” he would
tell us. “do that and you should be happy. If enough of you do
it, our team will be a success.” He teaches this, he believes it,
and he taught me to believe it. Winning was not mentioned,
ever – only effort, the preparation; doing what it takes to bring
out our best in practice and games. Let winning take care of
itself (Wooden and Jamison, p. 216).
Dave Myers

Caoch Wooden never talked about the winning or the losing. It

was never part of the conversation like you would think is
normal. His philosophy was to do what was necessary to make
UCLA a better team. Teach it; practice it. The details and the
preparation were his main concern (Wooden and Jamison, p.
106).
Denny Crum

Three aspects regarding Coach Wooden’s rhetorical vision have

been discussed, defining success, balance and control, and

preparedness and effort above winning; and in every case, the lessons

that were taught went far beyond basketball. The overall effect that

Coach Wooden’s teaching/coaching practices and philosophies had on

his players may be summed up best by former player, and gifted

lyricist, Swen Nater, and his poem, “Beyond the Basketball”

Beyond the grand Pavilion,

Where Bruin banners span
Beyond the accolades, I learned
To be a champion man
Far beyond material,
Or book on any shelf,
Beyond the break, the pass or play,
I learned about myself
Beyond the fundamentals
Or how to work the task,
Beyond the “how,” I learned the “why”
And learned to think and ask.
Beyond the Bruin uniform,
Beyond the Blue and Gold
I gained a pride in who I am,
That lasts until I’m old.

And far beyond instruction

Beyond the hardest class
Beyond the game and all the test,
Beyond the Fail or pass

The Teacher loved me, so he coached

Beyond the gymnasium wall.
I thank my God, the Teacher taught
Beyond the basketball.
Chapter V: Conclusions, Limitations, and
Future Research

Conclusions

The basic objective for both coaches and teachers is much the

same: the instructor wishes for his or her pupil(s) to cognitively

understand information. Put simply, acquisition of knowledge is hoped

for in both cases. The central differentiation between teacher/student

and coach/athlete communication occurs when examining appropriate

ways in which to comprehensively apply/use the previously noted

understanding.

Teachers are charged with imparting information, in order that

their students might apply this knowledge. This act of application,

however, rarely requires instantaneous action. Acquired academic

knowledge is generally intended to be used sometime in the future,

and should this knowledge be improperly applied, there is generally

little consequence or ramification for the teacher. Comprehension of

the information at hand is important, but there is rarely a sense of

urgency. This observation may be why Algebra teachers are not seen

tipping over desks when a student states the square root of forty-nine

is six, or why few AP English teachers fill a student’s ear with blush-

worthy words at close range for the inappropriate use of an adverb.

Coaches, similarly, must transmit information, but with the

added ambition of immediate and appropriate application of this

knowledge. A coach may be the greatest teacher in the history of the

world; but if he cannot effectively motivate his players to suitably

apply this knowledge in high pressure situations, his job is going to be

on the line. This added responsibility acts as a catalyst in the creation

of the many different communication styles exemplified by coaches.

With that said, this chapter looks at suppositions and conclusion to be

drawn from the examination undertaken over the previous pages, as

well as examining potential avenues for future research.

Upon examining the rhetorical visions of Knight’s and Wooden’s

coaching philosophies, as well as at the execution and tone of

execution associated with the transmittal of those philosophies, it

becomes apparent that the primary coaching narratives of both men is

foundationally similar. Both Coach Knight and Coach Wooden attempt

to convey the importance of overcoming the villains of sloppy

execution and selfish tendencies by championing the heroic virtues of

preparedness, execution, and team play. The manner in which each

man goes about expressing this message is what makes recognition of

these similarities a difficult thing.

When an ill-advised pass in practice ruins the offensive tempo of

his team, Coach Knight will more than likely respond with a few

histrionics; cussing up a storm, while berating the guilty party with

stories of how so and so, a revered Indiana University player from the

days of yore, never made a bad pass in his entire collegiate career.
Conversely, Coach Wooden would be more apt to react to such a

situation by calmly but uncompromisingly calling attention to the gaffe,

then following up any appropriate criticism with an encouraging word.

In the grand scheme of instruction however, the same message is

being conveyed by both men, mistakes will not be tolerated.

In examining the various relevant texts, the key to the

discrepancies existent within each coaches’ communicative styles, is in

their attitudes towards the prospect of losing, and consequently, the

potential immediate costs associated with losing. While Knight pays lip

service to the acceptability of losing, so long as team execution meets

his expectations, noting “sometimes you play awfully well and you still

lose. My evaluation of what is good play and good effort in a losing

game maybe isn’t quite so lenient as the average person’s, but it

happens” (Feinstein, p. 31). In reality, losing almost always was

incredibly hard to stomach for the man. “Knight cannot stand to lose.

Not in the way that most competitors cannot stand to lose; it goes far

beyond that. It tears him apart emotionally, largely because he

somehow equates losing a basketball game with his self- worth”

(Feinstein, p. 161). If his team loses, somewhere along the way he

failed; and that fact eats at him. “Defeat somehow takes a giant chip

out of his self-esteem. It makes him miserable, and in turn all those

around him miserable” (Feinstein, p. 161). This disdain for losing is at

the heart of Knight’s communicative style, his tendency to use

negative comparisons and aggressive language.

Wooden, on the other hand, while also of the opinion that

success is a result of execution and fundamentals, is more apt to

accept a loss when he knows his players have executed and given

maximum effort: “a coach is a teacher, and one of the most important

lessons to be taught is that players are successful when they do their

best – even when the final score goes against them… the final score

can never make you a loser when you’ve done your best” (Wooden

and Jamison, p. 123).

This perspective is reflected in Wooden’s emotion and approach

towards communication with his players. No one familiar with the man

would say that Coach Wooden lacks in passion or intensity, as former

assistant coach, Gary Cunningham, attests too, “Coach Wooden was an

intense competitor who loved to win. But, win or lose, it was on an

even keel… He kept it simple – but intense; not emotional, just very

intense” (Wooden and Jamison pp. 208-209). This ability to keep his

emotions in check while coaching is because the end result for Coach

Wooden was of far less consequence than the means to that end.

Although the texts analyzed in this study provided for efficient

analysis/contrast of the coach stylings of Bobby Knight and John

Wooden, a more congruent comparison and contrast would have been

possible, were Wooden to have had an available artifact, equivalent to

the Knight related book, A Season on the Brink. Feinstein’s work

allowed for a firsthand look at Coach Knight over the course of an

entire season, offering insights into every facet of Knight’s

communication and interaction along the way, as well as allowing for

examination of numerous communication events between Knight and

his players. The primary sources used for examination of Coach

Wooden lacked similar communicative immediacy, as most were

Wooden’s own recollections or those of his former players and

assistant coaches.

Another limitation was the relative lack of available viewpoints

on each man’s coaching style and personal impact. The number of

team members who were referenced in this study, in relation to the

total number of players who had been given the opportunity to play for

each man, was quite low. The more perspectives which could have

been gathered with respect to each man’s coaching/communication

style, the clearer the shared rhetorical vision would have been.

In the course of the examination, a number of the artifacts

referenced coaching instruction being intended for application not just

in the present context of athletic competition but also in the greater

arena of life outside of each man’s playing career. As a follow up to

this specific study, researchers could sit down with former players of

both coaches, conducting qualitative interviews with the intention of

illuminating the ways in which both men impacted their lives after

basketball.

Another potential area for future research might be to examine

how more contemporary players respond to volatile and/or abrasive

coaches, as the bulk of the coach/player interactions examined in this

study took place between twenty five and fifty years ago. High level

college recruits in the present day, have often already been exposed to

different coaching methods with summer leagues, AAU ball, and Elite

Invite Camps, increasing the likelihood that these players have already

been exposed to a brash personality as a coach, perhaps limiting the

effectiveness of such an approach at the collegiate level.

Finally, in relation to recommendations for future research, it

would be interesting to do a follow up study along the lines of the

coach specific teaching behavior examinations referenced earlier in

the literature review of Wooden, Tarkanian, and Summit, as the

landscape of men’s college basketball has changed dramatically even

since the mid 1990’s when the Tarkanian study took place. Elite level

programs must now, consistently deal with the departure of star

players following only one or two seasons on campus. Conversely,

mid-major institutions build competitive programs by focusing on kids

who will stay in school and develop over a four year period. In the

interest of contrasting these two dynamics, John Calipari at Kentucky,

and Ben Jacobson at Northern Iowa, would be two quality potential

study subjects. The focal point of the study would be to determine if

the communication dynamic regarding verbal instructional directives

would break down differently as a result of the divergence in program

investment expectations.

At the beginning of this research endeavor, the utopian end

would have resulted in the illumination of a magic formula in terms of

coach/athlete communication, and the construct of how these

interactions could lead to consistent successes. However, in relation to

this study at least, the magic formula seems to have remained as yet

undiscovered. It is worth noting however; that the key to each man’s

successes as a coach seemed to lie in his ability to effectively express

to his players the need, the motivation, and the means, to overcome

whatever obstacle may be in the way of success. It sounds very

elementary, but the fact that Knight and Wooden went about this effort

by employing two very different communicative/motivational

approaches, perhaps should be viewed as an encouraging

contradiction.
 Bibliography

Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive

coaching and
self-determined motivation in high school and college athletes:
A test of
self-determination theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8,
654–670.

Baker, J., Yardley, J., & Cote, J. (2003) Coach behaviors and athlete
satisfaction in team
and individual sports. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 34, 226-239

Beam, J. W., Serwatka, T. S., & Wilson, W. J. (2004). Preferred

leadership of NCAA
division I and II intercollegiates student-athletes. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 27 (1), 3-15.

Becker, A. J. (2009). It’s not what they do, it how they do it: Athlete
experiences of
great coaching. International Journal of Sports Science &
Coaching, 4(1), 93-
119.

Becker, A. J., & Wrisberg, C, A. (2008) Effective coaching in action:

Observations of
legendary collegieate basketball coach Pat Summitt. The Sport
Psychologist,
22, 197-211.

Bird, A. M. (1977). Team structure and success as related to

cohesiveness and
leadership. The Journal of Social Psychology, 103 (2), 217-222.

Bisheff, J. (2004). John Wooden: An american treasure. Nashville, TN:

Cumberland
House.

Bloom, G. A., Crumpton, R., & Anderson, J. E. (1999). A systematic

observation study
of the teaching behaviors of an expert basketball coach. The
Sport
 Psychologist, 11, 157-170.

Bormann, E. G., (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical

criticism of social
reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(4), 396-407.

Bormann, E. G., Koester, J., and Bennett, J. (1978). Political cartoons

and salient
rhetorical fantasies: An Empirical analysis of the ’76
presidential campaign.
Communication Monographs, 45(4), 317-330.

Bormann, E. G. (1982). A fantasy theme analysis of the television

coverage of the
hostage release and the reagan inaugural, Quarterly Journal of
Speech, 68, 133-145

Bormann, E. G. (1982). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: Ten years

later. Quarterly
Journal of Speech, 68 (3), 288-305.

Bormann, E. G., (1982). The symbolic convergence theory of

communication:
Applications and implications for teachers and consultants.
Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 10(1), 50-61.

Bormann, E. G., Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (2003). Defending

symbolic
convergence theory from an imaginary gunn. Quarterly Journal
of Speech,
89(4), 366-372

Braithwaite, D. O., Schrodt, P., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2006). Symbolic

convergence
theory: Communication, dramatizing messages, and rhetorical
visions in
families. In D. O. Braithwaite, & L. A. Baxter (Eds.) Engaging
theories in family
communication (pp. 146-161). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Casey, M., & Rowe, A. (1996). Driving out the money changers: Radio
priest Charles
E. Coughlin’s rhetorical vision. Journal of Communication and
Religion, 19 (1), 37-47.
Cassidy, T., Jones, R.L., & Potrac, P. (2004). Understanding Sports
Coaching; The Social,
Cultural and Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice .
London :
Routledge.

Cote, J., Salmela, J., Trudel, P., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1995). A
coaching model: A
grounded assessment of expert gymnastic coaches knowledge.
Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 17, 1-17.

De Marco, G. M. Jr., & McCullick, B. A. (1997) Developing expertise in

coaching:
Learning from the legends. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 68 (3), 37-41.

Delsohn, S., & Heisler, M. (2006). Bob Knight: The Unauthorized

Biography. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Feinstein, J. (1986). A Season on the brink: A year with Bob Knight

and the Indiana
Hoosiers. New York: Macmillan Publishing.

Ford, L. A. (1989). Fetching good out of evil in AA: A bormannean

fantasy theme
analysis of The Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Communication Quartely,
37 (1), 1-15.

Fuoss, D.E. & Troppmann, R.J. (1981). Effective coaching: A

psychological
approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (2004). What a coach can teach a teacher,
1975-2004:
Reflections and reanalysis of John Wooden’s teaching
practices. The Sport
Psychologist, 18, 119-137.

Hill, A., & Wooden, J. (2001). Be quick – but don’t hurry!. New York:
Simon and
Schuster.

Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T.

S. Horn (Ed.),
 Advances in sport psychology (pp. 309–354). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.

Hui-Tzu, H,, Lin, Z. P., & Esposito, R. (2007) Successful leadership

behavior of
collegiate coaches and athletic performance. The Sport Digest,
15 (4), 1-3

Jowett, S. & Cockerill, I.M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of

the athlete–
coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313–
331.

Kassing, J. W., & Infante, D. A. (1999). Aggressive communication in

the coach-athlete
relationship. Communication Research Reports, 16(2), 110-
120.

Kassing, J. W., & Pappas, M. E. (2007). Champions are built in the off
season: An
exploration of high school coaches’ memorable messages.
Human
Communication, 10(4), 537-546.

Kenow, L., & Williams, J. M. (1999). Coach-athlete compatibility and

athlete’s
perception of coaching behaviors. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22
(2), 251-259

Kimiecik, J., & Gould, D. (1987). Coaching psychology: The case of

James”Doc”
Counsilman. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 350-358.

Kirk, D., Nauright, J.,Hanrahan, S., Macdonald, D., & Jobling, I.

(1996).
The socio-cultural foundations of human movement. South
Melbourne:
Macmillan.

Knight, B. & Hammel, B. (2002). Knight: My Story. New York: Thomas

Dunn Books /
St Martin Press.

LaVoi, N. (2007). Interpersonal communication and conflict in the

coach athlete
relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Ed.), Social
Psychology in Sport (pp
29-40). Champagne, IL: Human Kinetics Inc.
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete
relationship: a
motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, (21), 883-904.

Mulholland, E. (2006). What sport can do. True Sport, retrieved April
15th, 2009 from
http://www.truesportpur.ca/files/tsreport/TS_report_EN_webdownload.p
df.

No Author Given (2008, March). The Value-Added Benefits of Team

Sport Retrieved
April 15, 2009 from
http://lifegetinit.greenmaplewellness.net/new/articles/
article.html?artid=1024.

Page, J. T., & Duffy, M. E. (2009). A battle of visions: Dueling images

of morality in
U.S. political campaign tv ads Communication, Culture &
Critique., 2, 110-135

Reinard, J. (2008). Introduction to communication research.

Dubuque, IA: McGraw
Hill.

Reinboth, M., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of

coaching behavior
need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare
of young athletes. Motivation and Emotion, 28(3), 297-313.

Rocca, K., Toale, M., & Martin, M. (1998). Players’ perceptions of

their coaches
immediacy assertiveness and responsiveness. Communication
Research
Reports, 15(4), 445-450.

Shelley, G. A., & Sherman, C. P. (1997). Communication in coaching

and athletics:
Guidelines to promote successful interactions. Applied
Research in Coaching
and Athletics Annual, 12, 109-129.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). What a coach can teach a

teacher. Psychology
Today, 9, 75-78.
Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2004). New avenues for instructional
communication
 research: Relationships among coaches’ leadership behaviors
and athletes’
affective learning. Communication Research Reports, 21(2),
130-143.

Turman, P. D. (2008). Coaches' immediacy behaviors as predictors

of athletes'
perceptions of satisfaction and team cohesion. Western
Journal of
Communication, 72(2), 162-179.

Warren, W. (1983). Coaching and motivation: A practical guide to

maximum athletic
performance. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Wexler Como, L. (2005). Fetching good out of evil, an american

theme continued: A
fantasy theme analysis of three depression memoirs. St Paul,
MN: Bethel
University.

Wooden, J., & Jamsion, S. (1997). Wooden: A lifetime of observations

and reflections
on and off the court. Lincolnwood, IL: Contemporary Books.

Wooden, J., & Jamsion, S. (2004). My personal best: Life lessons from
an All-American
journey. Chicago: McGraw Hill.

Wooden, J., & Jamsion, S. (2005) Wooden on Leadership. Chicago:

McGraw Hill

Wooden, J., & Tobin, J. (2004). They call me coach. Chicago: McGraw
Hill.

Wrisberg, C. A. (1990). An interview with Pat Head Summitt. The

Sport Psychologist,
4, 180-191.

Yust, Fredyne. (2008). Communication Strategies of successful

coaches: A content
analysis of books by coaches about coaching. RIT Scholars.
Retrieved March
10, 2010 from https://ritdml.rit.edu/handle/1850/8697.