Pat Forde and the New Math

Over at ESPN, Pat Forde makes the irredeemably silly argument that Bob Knight could be aiming for his 1000th win at Indiana rather than his record 880th at Texas Tech tonight if only he had been unable to control his anger. Forde thus deems Knight's record as "Pyrrhic."

Let's leave aside Forde judging what by any measure is a spectacular accomplishment as "Pyrrhic." Let's instead look at Forde's math. I would like to have anyone explain to me where, exactly, Knight, who has won 20 games a season at Texas Tech, was going to win 120 more games than he has won in his time since his ignominious departure from Indiana. The math is impossible. Knight has coached for six seasons at Texas Tech. By my arithmetic, to be at 1000 instead of 880, in each of those seasons he would have to have won 20 extra games, an impossibility given that to do so would have required a 40+ game season. Basically Forde is arguing that had he stayed at Indiana, Knight would have had a run of six undefeated seasons (which would have had to have included six undefeated national championship runs -- given that Knight coached the last undefeated team in college basketball in 1976, the idea that he would have done so at an Indiana program that was foundering somewhat in his last few years stretches credulity) AND the NCAA would have otherwise inexplicably expanded the schedule.

It is fine to lament what we can perceive as Knight's career sabotage. It is fine to wonder what might have been. But in my mind, Forde's absurd assertion simply undermine's Forde's own credibility as a pundit. It does not add much to the Bobby Knight discussion. The reality is that whether at Indiana or at Texas Tech, Knight was likely to break Dean Smith's record during the 2006-2007 season. Some might argue that it is a shame that he left Indiana. There is no need to augment that case with implausible arguments that defy simple arithmetic.