At Indiana Knight was ahead of the curve, especially on defense.
Then the rest of the basketball world caught up with him even though he was still on of the best teaching coaches.
His brusk personality began to cost him key Indiana recruits and cause internal conflicts and Indiana U took an opportunity to dump him with the "What's up Knight" event.
I enjoy his analysis in games much more than they sickening fawning of most of today's commentators. He is quick to compliment players for good plays and points out their boners.
He has a long history with Kentucky. If you read the "On the Brink" books, there are several references to Knight complaining about Kentucky's tactics. Kentucky has since been caught sending money to a player and Calipari has been caught getting payments to a player and being involved in test score changing.
With the Duke's, UNC's and other power teams competing for top players there is something very rank going on when Calipari, the Teflon Man and Kentucky lands so many of the top 10 recruits every year. The NCAA is interested in only the petty stuff by lesser programs so Cal will probably get away with it for years.
I don't blame Knight for not talking about Kentucky. He spoke out against Cal but the fawning media is considering him a genious so it didn't get Knight anywhere. So why should he comment further?
And by the way, as most reporters do, the reporter in question refused to answer Knight's question/response and continued to ask the same question. He could have at least stated that he couldn't reveal his sources. Hard to communicate when you don't respond to the other person's response.
