Like I said, "In fact (I'm not sure about this) I believe that the NBA had a rule (written or unwritten) not to draft undergrads until probably sometime in the late 70s."
That's the part I remembered.
Just trying to help here. :twisted:
And to help Van in his time of confusion...
Either the quotes attributed to Walton are genuine, or they aren't. If they aren't, I'm sure you can find a link to where he disavows them. If not, you might just be talking out your ass.
You're welcome.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.
Dio, read the comments in that same link. The author made those statements, not Walton.
~ ~ ~
The quote from Walton is false. It is actually from terrorist sympathizer and radical journalist Jack Scott. The following is the letter I wrote to Dan Werzel of Yahoo (who originally dredged this quote up during the Final Four) on this topic.
Dear Mr. Wetzel:
As a UCLA fan, I was alarmed by your April 2 column, concerning alleged statements that Bill Walton made in a book concerning improprieties in UCLA’s basketball program during John Wooden’s tenure. In a follow-up on April 5, you wrote to a reader, “You don't think those comments by Walton were, at the very least, worthy of reprinting? When I first read them last year, I couldn't believe they weren't better known. Seriously, Bill Walton said that, if investigated, UCLA would have to give up seven NCAA titles and go on probation for 100 years. Sorry, but that's worth cribbing.”
I ordered a copy of the book, “On the Road with the Portland Trail Blazers,” used copies of which are readily available on Amazon.com. I assume you will be surprised to learn (and will immediately inform your readers) that your characterization of Walton’s comments is completely false.
First, you stated in your April 2 column that the book was written by Walton (“Those quotes come from none other than Bill Walton, maybe the greatest Bruin of them all, in his 1978 book ‘On the Road with the Portland Trailblazers’”). This is false. The book was written by Jack Scott. In the Author’s Note, Scott wrote: “Bill never asked to read even one page of the manuscript – never mind the entire manuscript – before it went to the printer. Consequently, I am solely responsible for the book’s content. You should not automatically assume that Bill agrees with all of the opinions I express throughout the book…”
Second, you quoted Walton as saying (or writing), “If the UCLA teams of the late 1960s and early 1970s were subjected to the kind of scrutiny (other schools) have been, UCLA would probably have to forfeit about eight national championships and be on probation for the next 100 years.” This, too, is false. This was the author, Scott’s, statement, not Walton’s (page 215).
Moreover, the insertion of the parenthetical statement “(other schools)” is misleading. The actual words Scott wrote (which you replaced with “(other schools)” was “Jerry Tarkanian and his players.” Scott was defending Tarkanian, with whom Scott identified for obvious reasons: Scott was a former athletic director at Oberlin College, which, he wrote in “On the Road,” the NCAA “put under intensive investigation for illegal recruiting while I was the athletic director” (page 215). A quick Google search reveals that in a 2000 obituary on the Oberlin College website, Scott is described as “a renowned critic of organized athletics [who] took every opportunity to lash out against the financial exploitation of collegiate and professional athletes, arguing that sporting events should cater to the needs of participants rather than owners, advertisers and spectators.”
Had you correctly attributed this seemingly damning quote to Scott, rather than incorrectly to Walton, you might also have thought it appropriate to inform your readers about Scott’s background, to which much of his book was devoted. Scott was a writer for the radical 1960’s magazine Ramparts, and was closely associated with the Symbionese Liberation Army. Extended portions of the book detail Scott’s refusal to cooperate with the FBI as that agency (which he accused of “crimes and killings,” see Introduction, page xvii) “harassed” him and his family for years merely because he harbored his fugitive friends, SLA members Patty Hearst and Bill and Emily Harris, for six months. Your readers might have been interested in examining the merit of Scott’s opinions of Sam Gilbert and Jerry Tarkanian in the context of his opinions of the FBI and SLA.
The only conceivably damning quote in your article that Scott actually attributes to Walton was Walton’s alleged statement to Scott that “It’s hard for me to have a proper perspective on financial matters, since I’ve always had whatever I wanted since I enrolled at UCLA” (page 212). However, Scott’s book (unlike your article) at least put this alleged quote in context – it comes immediately after Scott’s explanation that it was easy for Walton to stay at UCLA for four years and resist turning pro because “he came from a comfortable middle-class background.” Even as presented by Scott, it appears that Scott and Walton were discussing Walton’s privileged background, not largesse from Gilbert. Of course, Scott, who barely disguised his anti-Gilbert agenda throughout the book, is content to let the reader draw the more nefarious conclusion.
Perhaps due to his political viewpoint, his own anger at being under “intensive investigation” by the NCAA, and/or Walton’s firing of Gilbert as his advisor at about the time the book was written (pages 168-69), Scott used Gilbert as a whipping boy whenever Gilbert came into play. He implied, without evidence, that Gilbert had mob connections (page 213) and made unsupported but provocative statements such as “[h]is critics have questioned how someone who does so much for free could also be a self-made millionaire” (id.). This is typical of Scott’s “journalism,” in which, for example, he suggests without evidence that NBA referees are on the take (page 6 and accuses Trail Blazers coach Jack Ramsey of racism based on unsourced innuendo and despite Walton’s admiration for Ramsey (page 115). Scott also excused Kareem Abdul-Jabbar from publicly accusing Walton of marijuana use by writing that “Kareem explained that it was Sam Gilbert who told him this story about Bill” (page 211).
Yet even with his undisguised bias and politically charged point of view, Scott ultimately wrote that “Bill and I doubt John Wooden was aware of the ‘support’ his star players regularly received, and these revelations should not detract from his brilliant coaching record” (page 215).
The bottom line is that Jack Scott – a radical sportswriter and rogue athletic director, closely associated with the murderous SLA – is the person who provided the “money quote” on which your article was based, not Bill Walton. I think you would be doing your readers (as well as journalism) a disservice if you fail to correct the falsehoods on which your article was based.
~ ~ ~
So, hmmm. On the one hand we've got a single book, which contradicts everything Bill Walton has ever said lo these past thirty some years about his beloved mentor. On the other hand we've got Walton himself, who's been in the public spotlight forever, yet there are no other public comments from him to corroborate those stupid things which clearly he never said.
There has also been no NCAA investigation of the things he supposedly said.
Yep, tough call, trying to figure out which side of that story to believe...
Van wrote:Dio, read the comments in that same link. The author made those statements, not Walton.
~ ~ ~
Long-assed anonymous post from"the Canadian".
~ ~ ~
So, hmmm. On the one hand we've got a single book, which contradicts everything Bill Walton has ever said lo these past thirty some years about his beloved mentor. On the other hand we've got Walton himself, who's been in the public spotlight forever, yet there are no other public comments from him to corroborate those stupid things which clearly he never said.
There has also been no NCAA investigation of the things he supposedly said.
On the one hand, we have a rambling personal attack on the author (who was apparently also a personal friend of Walton's).
On the other we have Walton's numerous denials of said statement.
As soon as you hunt down those links, that is.
And the fact that the NCAA has declined to investigate themselves after the fact is quite underwhelming. But since you like anonymous comments...
Anonymous wrote:
I don't understand how attacking the author of a 30 year old book denies or affirms Sam Gilbert's involvement with UCLA's basketball program. I would assume the complete absence of any "real" quotes from Walton himself denying the authenticity of the book would put the Canadian in the unenviable position of writing for Walton just as he claims Scott has.
Imagine a coach who could not win a national title in 15 years but magically finds the formula to win 88 in a row and ten national titles. That's the point, and it does not take a genius to see what happened here. Drag Scott through the dirt as if it even matters.
Still waiting for those links...
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.
I'm still waiting for any link where Walton corroborates and confirms those statements, since the book doesn't directly attribute them to Walton. They're simply presented in a book about Walton. That's not the same thing as Walton saying them himself, and the author's own foreward states that Walton didn't read the thing and wouldn't necessarily agree with what was said.
The silence over thirty years is deafening, Dio. If Walton had actually said those things he would've had to answer for them in the media over and over and over, yet it's never even been an issue.
Van wrote:If Walton had actually said those things he would've had to answer for them in the media over and over and over, yet it's never even been an issue.
So because he neither confirms or denies them they must be fabricated?
Sound Bruinfan 'logic'.
Message brought to you by Diogenes.
The Last American Liberal.
The Seer wrote:Indybleedingvagina cries a lot because his daddy the chair thrower doesn't get the pub regardless of how often Vitale and the cocksmokers want to not only worship cheats but horrid role models.
Indybleedingvagina should send all his "proof" and maybe the NCAA will strip away all those titles....
Indybleedingvagina cannot accept the fact that Wooden's record will never be touched...and that he has done more good for more people in his life than his whiny cunt chair throwing moronic hero...
So, as a board was once so named....
'bode.
Not sure where you are getting your info from, but I've long stated I can't stand Knight. I'm no IU fan, douchenuts. I went to A&M. Try again or get fucked.
Dio, if I write a book about you, and I attribute quotes to you which you never said, and nobody thinks enough of the book or the comments to even follow up on any of it with you, does that mean you said the comments?
Hell, the author doesn't even say Walton made the comments. The author just makes the comments, and over time those comments came to be attributed to Walton, since they were in a book about him.
You don't think someone in the media would've hounded Walton about those comments, if there were any merit to them? You don't find it odd that in thirty years Walton hasn't even had to answer for them?
That doesn't tell you something? Or, in your case, that tells you it's true, and for some strange reason nobody ever decided to follow up on such huge news?
What the hell kind of logic is that?? Where is the hue and cry about his comments? How has such a public figure escaped even the most cursory questioning about them?
Well, since Seer finally poked his head in this thread. Answer this honestly.
Do you think UCLA program was clean back in the 10 out of 12 national championship seasons? The previous 15 before Sambo showed up, they won nothing nationally. He shows up with his money and flashes it on the kids, bringing in the top recruits and they win 10 of 12. UCLA won because they had the top talent with a good coach. Sambo attracted the talent. Wooden drove them to the promiseland.
A&M footbll thrived in the 80s becauce Jackie Sherrill cheated, or at least he looked the other way I should say (same thing). I can at least admit it. Can you?
Dio, who says the book I'd write about you would have to be even the least bit factual? I could just do something like m2 does, and lie my ass off about eveything, then attribute it all to you.
IndyFrisco wrote:Seer. He's usually a stand-up dude. I would expect him to come in and say "Yeah, UCLA boosters cheated, but oh well, we got away with it."
Friggin Dodgers....
Okay.
If your point is that UCLA is the only program that had a well-to-do booster that contributed to their school, then your naivete is alarming and should be 911 type serious.
If your point is that Wooden should've won all those championships without the same benefits other programs were receiving, you can argue that.
If your point is that Wooden's achievements are ordinary and anyone could've won 10 out of 12, 88 straight, etc...., again - white coats are available.
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you with Shine the Knight worshipper....
“It is usually futile to try to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.”
