Great feature on Bob Knight by Jeremy Schaap

He's got a long ay to go to be as good as his dad!

 

And then after Knight said that and walked away, Schaap patted him on the shoulder.

 

At least I'm not a troll like you! </chuck>

 

Hey... go to hell, you Kobe fan-boy apologist!

 

I'd just like to say that the more I think about how good his dad was, the angrier I get. I'm a young guy, not near 30, and Dick Schaap is one of the biggest reasons I got into this business.

But a lot of Dick Schaap's stories were about Dick Schaap, too. I just liked them a whole lot more.

 

How do you know I'm a Kobe fan-boy apologist?

 

Jeremy should've ended the interview after the comment about his father.

The pat on Knight's shoulder was bullshit.

 

Let me add a few things to BYH's spot-on observation. What I got out of it was that Jeremy must have been thinking about what made Knight the guy he is. Not that it matters to most, but I was interested to see it. I thought he was going to ask shrinks to dissect Knight, but I was disappointed. Look, we've said it once, and we'll say it again: RMK is the most polarizing individual in sports history. Period. We don't need more than 3 pages to say that. We've done it many times before with him. Let's stick with the topic of Jeremy on this thread.

I think that Jeremy wanted to get the Knight interview out of his system once and for all by doing that piece. He wanted to know for himself what made Knight the guy he is, because he would never let it go unless he done it, which is kind of the same knock on Feinstein. I like Feinstein, but as Songbird pointed out, the Knight shit coming from Jeremy and Feinstein is played out. If there is one thing I got out of it was that Knight is the person he is because his old man was a straight shooter and shooting from the hip can be good or, in most cases with him, a bad thing.

Like father, like son, of course Jeremy is going to be part of the story. The major difference is that Dick could name drop and everyone would still be interested in the story, not who he met or saw. Jeremy is a decent reporter. He's either a hit (cracking the Bears over Tank Johnson) or a miss (yesterday's piece). Hammer, I'm a year older than you and I feel the same way. But I agree with Songbird, there wasn't much new stuff that was uncovered other than his family life, more about his college days riding the pine for Fred Taylor, and his start at Army with Tates Locke.

Let me ask the journalists on the board this question and let you fire away: is there a right way to do a story or not? What could Jeremy have done better in the piece, or was it better that he didn't do it?

 

Cause I'm a Kobe fan-boy apologist and you're never at any of the meetings

 

Wasn't it Schaap who jumped out of the bushes to try to interview Jim Harrick in 2003?

 

Of course