Coach K: A Matter of the Heart

There is no greater thing that you can tell someone [than], “I believe in you, you’re good, I’m there for you.” — Coach K, quoted in Time magazine’s selection of America’s Best 2001 There was shock and disbelief in “K-Ville,” the grassy area just outside Duke University’s Cameron Gymnasium. Late one Friday afternoon in July of 2004, hundreds of students gathered to speculate about the future of their beloved basketball coach, Mike Krzyzewski (pronounced Sha-shef- ski and widely known simply as Coach K). Normally a place of tremendous energy and optimism, Krzyzewskiville had fallen into an ominous quiet. No one could believe the rumors. How could Coach K, the 57-year-old heart and soul of college basketball, even consider leaving for the glitz and glamour of the professional game? But the rumors were true. Krzyzewski was taking the weekend to review a five-year, $40 million contract offer to leave Duke and coach the Los Angeles Lakers of the National Basketball Association. One fan gazed up at Krzyzewski’s fourth-floor office overlooking K-Ville and pondered, “It’s not like he’s a deity. But sometimes when he’s up there”—pointing to the office—“he does look like Saruman gazing down from the tower in Lord of the Rings.”1 Since his arrival in 1980, Krzyzewski had grown Duke’s basketball program into one of the most successful college sports dynasties ever. Coach K was “[n]amed ‘America’s Best Coach’ in 2001 by Time magazine and CNN, [and] earned nearly every award imaginable. He was enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2001.”2 When the father of a current Duke basketball player learned of the Lakers’ offer he said: “[I]f it happens . . . I would be sad for Duke, sad for the Duke players and sad for (our) family because of the relationship we have with Duke.”3 After almost 25 years with Coach K at the helm, it was hard to imagine Duke basketball without him. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Professors Scott A. Snook and Leslie A. Perlow and Research Associate Brian J. DeLacey prepared this case with assistance from the Global Research Group. This case was developed from published sources. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. Copyright © 2005 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School. 9-406-044 REV: DECEMBER 1, 2005 406-044 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart Learning from Coach Knight at Army What I learned from him was the incredible passion it took to be successful, the amount of preparation and an understanding of the game to a level that I had not experienced.4 Krzyzewski played college basketball for the United States Military Academy at West Point. His freshman year was also the first year for Army’s new head coach, a fiery young disciplinarian named Bob Knight. By the time Cadet Krzyzewski was a senior, he had earned the respect of both his coach and his teammates. At a school known for its leaders, Krzyzewski was named team captain. Together, Knight and Krzyzewski led an undersized Army team to the National Invitation Tournament (NIT) in 1969. (Exhibit 1 provides additional biographical information on Coach K.) — Mike Krzyzewski about his coach, Bob Knight Source: http://www.coachk.com/coachk-student.htm. Krzyzewski graduated from West Point in 1969 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army. Knight left West Point in 1971 to coach at Indiana University (IU). It was not long before their paths crossed again. In 1974, after serving five years as an Army officer, Krzyzewski was hired by Knight as a graduate assistant at IU. After only a year, Knight recommended Krzyzewski for the head coaching position at Army. Five years later, when Duke called Indiana looking for a head coach, Knight once again recommended his young protégé. According to Knight, “Tom Butters, the Duke athletic director, genuinely didn’t know Mike (Krzyzewski’s) name when he called me in 1980 to ask if I would have any interest in the Duke job. . . . I told him I wouldn’t have any interest in it, but he should talk to Mike.”5 Based largely on the strength of Knight’s recommendation, Duke hired the relatively unknown coach with a strange name. (See Exhibits 2 and 3 for a summary of Coach K’s accomplishments.) Years later, Knight reflected on some of his more enjoyable moments with Coach K: Mike and I had always had a great relationship. . . . But nothing made me happier for him than the night in September 2001 when he was inducted into the (Basketball) Hall of Fame at Springfield. . . . I was sincerely honored when he asked me to be part of the ceremonies, because no one who has played for me was ever closer to me than Mike, nor have I ever been more pleased by anyone’s success.6 After Coach K earned his 700thwin, The New York Times reported Krzyzewski’s appreciation for Knight: He [Krzyzewski] gave a nod to his former coach and mentor Bob Knight, the only one to reach 700 faster than Krzyzewski. Each started his career with a successful tenure at Army, where Krzyzewski played under Knight. “There's no greater teacher for me than Bob Knight,” said Krzyzewski, whose career record is 700-240. “There must be something about those old Army coaches.”7 2 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart 406-044 Coaching Philosophy: “We might be great tonight” Given their shared experience at the Military Academy, both Knight and Krzyzewski followed a surprisingly simple and unregimented approach to coaching. According to Knight: I had one training rule: 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.8 Following his mentor’s lead almost verbatim, Coach K greeted every new team with the following simple message: We have only one rule here: Don’t do anything that’s detrimental to yourself. Because if it’s detrimental to you, it’ll be detrimental to our program and to Duke University.9 Krzyzewski went on to explain the logic behind following such an uncluttered approach to coaching: “Too many rules get in the way of leadership. They just put you in a box. People set rules to keep from making decisions.”10 He added, “I don’t want to be a manager or a dictator. I want to be a leader—and leadership is ongoing, adjustable, flexible, and dynamic. As such, leaders have to maintain a certain amount of discretion.”11 Having few rules did not mean being undisciplined. “Discipline is doing what you are supposed to do in the best possible manner at the time you are supposed to do it,” Coach K said.12 He taught discipline by investing heavily in drills and skills with his players, practicing set plays and exhaustively analyzing practices, game films, and strategies. He also spent “a large percentage of . . . time . . . getting inside a player’s head, understanding where (the player is) coming from, helping him get to where we all need to be as a team.”13 The journey from individual player to team was not always an easy one. Coach K recalled one practice when he noticed “a little friction” between two of his top athletes, Shane Battier and Jason Williams. “Do you guys have a problem with each other?” Coach K asked. “Shane, do you not like Jason?” “I like him, Coach.” “Do you not trust Jason?” “I trust him.” “Jason, do you like Shane?” “Yeah, I like him.” “Do you trust Shane?” “Yeah, I trust him.” “Then why won’t you guys pass the ball to each other?”14 Unlike most coaches, Krzyzewski rarely used a whistle in the gym—too much distance. Instead, whenever possible, he communicated up close and personal, eye to eye: “Throughout the season, I look into my players’ eyes to gauge feelings, confidence levels, and to establish instant trust. Most of the time, they won’t quibble with me—and they certainly can’t hide their feelings from what their 3 406-044 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart eyes reveal. So I ask all members of our team to look each other in the eye when speaking to one another. It’s a principle we live by.”15 This principle cut both ways. He could read them, but they could also read him. Depending on the situation, “A leader also has to show the face his team needs to see. Because, before he ever utters a word, they see his face. They also see his eyes, even his walk.”16 According to Coach K, the impact could be huge: I’m always aware of how I enter a room. Before a game, I might walk into the locker room quickly, with a spring in my step and a smile on my face. And as I come in, I might say something like, “Hey, we’re going to be great tonight.” Whatever I say after that will not be as important as how I look to them. “Did he really mean it?”?“Yeah, look at his face. He really meant it. We might be great tonight.”17 Relationships with Players: A Family Affair People have to be given the freedom to show the heart they possess. I think it’s a leader’s responsibility to provide that type of freedom. And I believe it can be done through relationships and family. Because if a team is a real family, its members want to show their hearts.18 — Mike Krzyzewski on family When The Sporting News named him “Sportsman of the Year—the first time a college coach had ever won the honor—they said, ‘On the court and off, Krzyzewski is a family man first, a teacher second, a basketball coach third, and a winner at all three. He is what’s right about sports.’”19 Krzyzewski credited much of his coaching success and personal priorities to his upbringing: “Whenever I go back to Chicago, I find myself thinking, ‘Gee, I’m so lucky, it’s amazing.’ Not because my family was poor or that I had humble beginnings—but, rather that I had it so good. And also because of all those values my folks taught me. They were great values—and they proved to be the basis for how I would conduct myself for the rest of my life.”20 As his celebrity grew, remaining close to his players took work. He made it a point to fly with them in coach class to away games and have them over for family dinners throughout the season. Bobby Hurley, who helped lead Duke to two NCAA championships and set a record for the most assists in NCAA history, recalled the importance of family: “When I was being recruited, we went out to his house and watched football games. A big part of my decision in coming here was that everyone got along real well. I decided if I was going to go far away from home . . . I’d like to have that family environment.”21 After graduating from Duke, Hurley was selected seventh overall in the 1993 NBA Draft. Shortly after the start of his first season, he was seriously injured in a terrible car accident. Broadsided by another car traveling at night with no lights, Hurley suffered collapsed lungs, a torn trachea, broken bones, and numerous cuts and sprains. Shortly after he came out of eight hours in surgery, Krzyzewski arrived at his bedside. According to Hurley’s father, “(My son) literally sat up . . . and he took the ventilator tube out of his mouth, which he hadn’t done before, to talk to Mike. I think it just meant so much to him that Mike would come all the way across the country just to see him.”22 4 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart 406-044 Grant Hill, former Duke player and later a five-time NBA All-Star, described his relationship with Coach K this way: “It’s like a parent . . . even now . . . (it’s) like I’m 18 years old in his office talking to him. He’s still coaching, offering advice. . . . I’m just like a sponge trying to soak it all up.”23 According to Krzyzewski, “You have to work hard at staying in contact with your friends so that the relationships will continue and live on. . . . Friendships, along with love, make life worth living.”24 In the macho world of college athletics, Coach K never shied away from words like “heart” and “love” to describe his feelings for his players and the game. But there was also another side to Coach K. During a game, he was all business. Stern and unyielding, he paced the bench, actively working referees as well as his team nonstop from the opening tip to the final buzzer. Former Duke star Christian Laettner saw it this way: “What you don’t know about him [Krzyzewski] from watching him on TV is that behind closed doors he’s, you know, a little more like Bobby Knight.”25 Coach K argued, “There’s a time to get in someone’s face and there’s a time when you just put it on the line without yelling. There’s a time when you pat on the back. And there’s a time when you hug.”26 When challenged about his paternalistic approach to coaching, he responded: “[T]his isn’t all about ‘I love you,’ and ‘Let’s hold hands and skip.’ . . . Am I tough on the team? Absolutely. If they don’t show respect for the program, for the university, for one another, I’m all over them. I don’t want fear to be my primary motivator. But the team has got to know that if they are screwing up, the hammer is going to come down.”27 Whenever Coach K talked about his team or his coaching philosophy, there was a good chance that his story would begin and end with family: I always knew my mother, my father, and my brother would be there for me. I knew because they loved me. And, as a basketball coach, I have no problem telling a team, “I love you guys.” When I say that, there is absolutely nothing phony about it. I try to convey the idea to all members of our team that we are not just playing basketball. I would hope that our kids would see that we love them. I would hope that the players who played in the past would say that they loved playing at Duke; that they loved a teammate; that they loved the situation they were in. Sharing with one another and caring for one another—that’s what love is. That’s what family is all about.28 Outsiders might find all this talk about family and love a bit over the top, hard to imagine in the high-pressured masculine world of men’s college basketball. Former Duke player Jay Bilas had this to say about Coach K’s sincerity: “When he would speak about, you know, winning or what he wanted to accomplish, he would get goose bumps on his arms and legs. I’ve heard a lot of what I’ve considered to be phony speeches in my time playing. You know, you can’t fake goose bumps.”29 The Decision By the summer of 2004, Coach K had become as important to Duke University off the court as he was on it. In addition to leading the basketball program, Krzyzewski also served on the faculty of Duke’s business school. As an executive-in-residence at the Fuqua/Coach K Center of Leadership 5 406-044 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart and Ethics, Krzyzewski translated his lessons from the locker room to the board room. His annual leadership conference attracted hundreds of executives from around the world. In addition to coaching and teaching, he was also a special advisor to the university president and often served as a lead spokesman for the school. Duke President Richard Brodhead said: “[Coach K] means more to this place than the record of his victories, impressive though that is. He’s a real teacher. He teaches character as well as basketball.”30 For his work at Duke, Coach K was handsomely rewarded. According to The Washington Post, his annual compensation from the university was reported to total at least $875,000 per year over the past several years.31 In addition, in 1993 he signed a lucrative deal with Nike, reported to include a “$1 million signing bonus: $500,000 a year for, reportedly, seven years . . . [and] . . . $75,000 annually until death does him part.”32 But the Lakers were offering him $40 million. Beyond compensation, there were a number of additional factors to consider. The once invincible world champion Los Angeles Lakers were now a different team. During the previous season, franchise player Kobe Bryant—who was a strong advocate for hiring Coach K—had publicly feuded with superstar teammate Shaquille O’Neal and coach Phil Jackson. As a result, both O’Neal and Jackson were now gone.33 While it was still one of the NBA’s marquee franchises, picking up the pieces in Los Angeles at this point would be no easy task, even for a seasoned coach like Krzyzewski. Also, as the new Lakers’ coach, Krzyzewski would have big shoes to fill. Outgoing coach Jackson was thought by many to be the best NBA coach ever. Jackson held the record for the highest winning game percentage in the NBA and brought three championships to Los Angeles during his five-year term with the Lakers. In the City of Angels, Jackson would be a tough act to follow. In an open letter, one ESPN journalist advised: “Of all the coaches out there, only one is more quintessentially college than you, Mike. That’s your old mentor, Bob Knight, the last man for the pro job.”34 However, the “quintessential college game” had changed dramatically since Krzyzewski first played for Knight almost 40 years ago. Many of the best young players now skipped college altogether, going straight to the pros, and many of those who did attend left early. As one writer argued: The best players don’t want to play college basketball for nothing. They want to play NBA basketball for millions. . . . The college game will never again be filled with remarkable talent for remarkable coaches such as K to mold into a team. He has worked 23 years to craft a dynasty, but Krzyzewski has no chance to get (the best players in the future), because money trumps tradition every time.35 From his fourth-floor office, Coach K scanned the crowd now milling anxiously beneath him in K-Ville. He wondered whether it was indeed time to move on. 6 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart 406-044 Postscript Coach K took some time over the weekend to discuss the offer with his family. For someone who grew up on the streets of Chicago, $40 million was a lot of money. But then again, Duke had been his home for almost 25 years. Krzyzewski finally announced his decision. He would remain at Duke. At a press conference flanked by an overjoyed university president and athletic director, Coach K explained his decision this way: “This opportunity came at a time when I was taking inventory. . . . When I looked at this [offer] and at myself, I found that I wanted to lead. . . . And your heart has to be in whatever you lead. . . . Duke has always taken up my whole heart. And no matter how good some other option was, to lead my Duke team with all my heart could only happen at this place.”36 7 406-044 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart Exhibit 1 Coach K Biographical Summary Michael William Krzyzewski (pronounced Sha-shef-ski) was born on February 13, 1947. He grew up in a poor Polish working-class neighborhood of Chicago. His mother was a homemaker by day and cleaned office floors by night. His father worked long hours as an elevator operator in a downtown high rise, often using the disguised last name of “Kross” to hide his ethnic heritage. Nonetheless, Krzyzewski is deeply proud of his roots: “My parents were people who never had anything, but they had everything. There was a lot of love and a lot of pride in our house.”a A standout basketball player at Weber High School, Krzyzewski led his league in scoring for two years, earning all-state honors. His accomplishments on the hardcourt eventually caught the eye of Coach Bob Knight at Army. Knight needed a point guard—a smart playmaker. He offered Krzyzewski an appointment to the United States Military Academy. But West Point was a long way from Chicago. Initially, Krzyzewski declined. In his opinion, West Point was an elite school with a reputation for the rich and privileged, not the kind of place to welcome a poor Polish boy from Chicago. With no money for college, Krzyzewski’s parents desperately urged their son to reconsider. Not only would he get a solid education, but he would also get it for free. Trusting his parents implicitly, he finally agreed. After surviving the initial shock of West Point’s regimented lifestyle, Cadet Krzyzewski thrived both in the barracks and on the court. “Much of my foundation as a coach, as a leader, as a person, I learned from West Point. Before I entered the academy, I thought I knew everything. . . . But West Point took me to another level. I feel that I was very lucky to go there and get a dose of honesty, honor, and discipline.”b On the court, the lessons came from his coach: “Bob Knight had a big influence on me. He’s a brilliant man, an outstanding coach. From him, I learned many of the basic strategies of basketball that I apply every day during the season.”c As a senior, Cadet Krzyzewski was named captain of the Army team. In 1969, Krzyzewski graduated from West Point and served five years as an officer in the U.S. Army, eventually attaining the rank of captain. In 1974 he resigned his commission and was hired immediately by his old coach, Bob Knight. After serving only a year as Knight’s graduate assistant at Indiana, Krzyzewski returned to his alma mater as head coach of the Army basketball team. From 1975 to 1980, Krzyzewski led Army to a 73–59 record, including an NIT appearance in 1978. In the spring of 1980, Duke basketball was “searching for a strong leader and rebirth.”d Once again, based largely on the recommendation of his old coach and mentor Bob Knight, Krzyzewski was hired to lead the turnaround. Twenty years later, Krzyzewski earned his 500thcareer win at Duke. That night, the fabled floor of Cameron Indoor Stadium was dedicated as “Coach K Court.” Mike Krzyzewski is married to Micki. Together they have three daughters, Debbie, Jamie, and Lyndy. According to Micki, “When the third [daughter] was born and this was another girl, I remember saying to Mike in the delivery room, ‘Are you disappointed?’ And he said ‘No.’ I said, ‘But I thought you wanted a son?’ He said, referring to the players on his team, ‘I have 15 sons.’” Source: “Mike Krzyzewski Profile, Duke Men’s Basketball,” http://goduke.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/. Portions are adapted from a documentary by Fox Sports Network: “Beyond the Glory—A profile of Mike Krzyzewski, the long-time Duke hoops coach,” broadcast February 23, 2005. aMike Krzyzewski with Donald T. Phillips, Leading with the Heart (New York: Warner Books, 2000), p. 12. bIbid., p. 47.?cIbid., p. 56.?d“Meet Coach K: Leader,” http://www.coachk.com/coachk-leader.htm, accessed March 30, 2005. 8 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart 406-044 Exhibit 2 Statistics through the 2003–2004 Season NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS 10, John Wooden, UCLA, 1964-75?4, Adolph Rupp, Kentucky, 1948-58?3, Bob Knight, Indiana, 1976-87?3, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1991-2001 2, Denny Crum, Louisville, 1980-86?2, Henry Iba, Oklahoma St., 1945-46?2, Ed Jucker, Cincinnati, 1961-62?2, Branch McCracken, Indiana, 1940-53 2, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1982-93 2, Phil Woolpert, San Francisco, 1955-56 FINAL FOUR APPEARANCES 12, John Wooden, UCLA, 1962-75?11, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1967-97?9, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1986-2001?6, Denny Crum, Louisville, 1972-86?6, Adolph Rupp, Kentucky, 1942-66?5, Bob Knight, Indiana, 1973-92?5, Guy Lewis, Houston, 1967-84?5, Lute Olson, Iowa and Arizona, 1980-2001 4, Jack Gardner, Kansas St. and Utah, 1948-66 4, Henry Iba, Oklahoma St., 1945-51?4, Harold Olsen, Ohio St., 1939-46?4, Jerry Tarkanian, UNLV, 1977-91?4, Fred Taylor, Ohio St., 1960-68 CONSECUTIVE FINAL FOUR APPEARANCES?9, John Wooden, UCLA, 1967-75?5, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1988-92 3, Tom Izzo, Michigan St., 1999-2001 3, Ed Jucker, Cincinnati, 1961-63 3, Guy Lewis, Houston, 1982-84?3, Harold Olsen, Ohio St., 1944-46?3, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1967-69 3, Fred Taylor, Ohio St., 1960-62?3, Phil Woolpert, San Francisco, 1955-57 2, 19 tied FINAL FOUR WINS 21, John Wooden, UCLA, 1962-75 10, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1988-2001 9, Adolph Rupp, Kentucky, 1942-66?8, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1967-97 7, Bob Knight, Indiana, 1973-87?5, Denny Crum, Louisville, 1972-86?5, Henry Iba, Oklahoma St., 1945-51?5, Ed Jucker, Cincinnati, 1961-63?5, Fred Taylor, Ohio St., 1960-68 TOURNAMENT APPEARANCES 27, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1967-97 25, Bob Knight, Indiana and Texas Tech, 1973-2002 23, Denny Crum, Louisville, 1972-2000?22, Lute Olson, Iowa and Arizona, 1979-2002 22, Eddie Sutton, Creighton, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Oklahoma St., 1974-2002 21, Jim Boeheim, Syracuse, 1977-2001?20, John Thompson, Georgetown, 1975-97?20, Adolph Rupp, Kentucky, 1942-72?19, Lou Henson, Illinois and New Mexico St., 1967-99?18, Lou Carnesecca, St. John’s (N.Y.), 1967-92 18, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1984-2002 Source: http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/w_final_four_records_book/2003/coaches.pdf. CONSECUTIVE TOURNAMENT APPEARANCES?23, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1975-97 18, Lute Olson, Arizona, 1985-2002?15, Bob Knight, Indiana, 1986-2000?14, John Thompson, Georgetown, 1979-92 13, Roy Williams, Kansas, 1990-2002?12, John Chaney, Temple, 1990-2001?12, Eddie Sutton, Arkansas and Kentucky, 1977-88?11, Bob Huggins, Cincinnati, 1992-2002 11, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1984-94 9 406-044 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart Exhibit 3 Coach K Accomplishments?Coach K’s accomplishments in basketball place him among the coaches with the most outstanding records of all time, including: • Three national championships (1991, 1992, 2001) • 12 National Coach of the Year honors (eight seasons) • Seven National Players of the Year • Five National Defensive Players of the Year (seven honors) • 20 NCAA Tournament bids • 18 All-America selections (26 honors) • Nine Final Four appearances (third all-time) • Eight ACC championships • Nine ACC regular season championships • 292 weeks ranked among the nation’s top 25 teams • 183 weeks ranked among the nation’s top 10 teams • 74 weeks ranked number one in the country • 66 NCAA Tournament victories (first all-time) • Inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in 2001 • Selected Coach of the Decade for the 1990s by the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) • Honored as "America's Best Coach" (all sports, all levels) by Time and CNN in 2002 • Coached 12 NBA Lottery picks, 18 first-round selections, and 35 overall NBA draftees ?Sources: Compiled from “Meet Coach K: Teacher,” http://www.coachk.com/coachk-teacher.htm, accessed September 29, 2004; and “Mike Krzyzewski Profile, Duke Men’s Basketball,” http://goduke.collegesports.com/sports/m- baskbl/mtt/krzyzewski_mike00.html, accessed September 29, 2004. 10 4?http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/americasbest, accessed September 1, 2004. Coach K: A Matter of the Heart 406-044 Endnotes 1 Chris Ballard, “Kamp Krazy: To learn the method behind the madness of Krzyzewskiville, SIOC infiltrated America’s most notorious hoops village for a weekend. Here’s what our mole turned up,” SI.com, January 29, 2004, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/sioncampus/01/28/kamp_krazy0129/, accessed September 22, 2004. 2 “Meet Coach K,” The Official Website of Coach Mike Krzyzewski, http://www.coachk.com/meet- coachk.htm, accessed September 29, 2004. 3 Luciana Chavez, “Coach K, Lakers hold court,” Newsobserver.com, July 2, 2004, http://www.newsobserver. com/sports/college/duke/, accessed August 12, 2004. “Duke’s Winning Coach isn’t afraid of losing,” in “America’s Best 2001,” Time.com, 5 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, Knight: My Story (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), p. 271. 6 Ibid., p. 271. 7 “Krzyzewski Reaches Milestone as Duke Rolls,” The New York Times, December 13, 2004, www.nytimes.com, accessed December 13, 2004. 8 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, Knight: My Story (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), p. 15. 9 Mike Krzyzewski with Donald T. Phillips, Leading with the Heart (New York: Warner Books, 2000), p. 4. 10 “K Quotes,” coachk.com, December 2004, http://coachk.com/quotes.htm, accessed August 12, 2004. 11 Mike Krzyzewski with Donald T. Phillips, Leading with the Heart, p. 10. 12 “K Quotes,” coachk.com. 13 Mike Krzyzewski with Donald T. Phillips, Leading with the Heart, p. 46. 14 Ibid., p. 22. 15 Ibid., p. 11. 16 Ibid., p. 157. 17 Ibid., p. 157. 18 “K Quotes,” coachk.com. 19 “Meet Coach K: Leader,” http://www.coachk.com/coachk-leader.htm, accessed March 30, 2005. 20 Mike Krzyzewski with Donald T. Phillips, Leading with the Heart, pp. 233–234. 21 Bob Harig, “Coach K special to his players,” St. Petersburg Times, January 30, 1992, p. 1C. 22 Mark Kreidler, “Hurleys credit prayers, care, assist from Coach K,” The News & Observer, December 17, 1993, www.factiva.com, accessed December 28, 2004. 23 “Duke’s winning coach isn’t afraid of losing,” Time.com. 24 “K Quotes,” coachk.com. 25?http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Krzyzewski_Mike.html, accessed April 1, 2005. 26 Mike Krzyzewski with Donald T. Phillips, Leading with the Heart, p. 211. 27 Ibid., p. 46. Bob Carter, “SportsCentury Biography: Krzyzewskiville,” espn.co.com, March 23, 2005, 11 406-044 Coach K: A Matter of the Heart 28 Ibid., pp. 217–218. 29 Bob Carter, “SportsCentury Biography: Krzyzewskiville,” espn.com. 30 “Lakers expect to hear in a few days,” espn.com, July 1, 2004, http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/ story?id=1832934, accessed August 20, 2004. 31 Greg Sandoval and Eric Prisbell, “Lakers Talk with Duke’s Krzyzewski: Blue Devils Coach Is In ‘Serious Discussions,’” The Washington Post, July 2, 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/, accessed August 20, 2004. 32 Jerry Lindquist, “Coach K(ashes) in big in shoe wars; Webber may go pro,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 6, 1993, www.factiva.com. 33 “Kobe denies getting Jackson, Shaq ousted,” MSNBC, July 16, 2004, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 5345751/, accessed August 20, 2004. 34 Pat Forde, “Coach K Crazy to Leave Cameron,” special to espn.com, July 1, 2004, http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=1833141, accessed December 28, 2004. 35 Ray Glier, “Krzyzewski should have gone: College game has soured best coaches, who are leaving for NBA,” MSNBC, July 6, 2004, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5346133/, accessed December 28, 2004. 36 “K Quotes,” coachk.com. Coach Knight: The Will to Win [T]he greatest reward a coach can ever have is a kid coming back to see how he is doing. Absolutely nothing compares to that—a kid comes back to say hello, to play golf, to go out and eat with you, to watch practice, whatever it is—that’s the best reward there is in coaching. — Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, Knight: My Story, p. 109 In 1971, Robert Montgomery Knight, also known as “The General,” was hired to lead the Indiana University (IU) basketball program. Over the next three decades, he amassed one of the most enviable records in the history of college basketball. During his reign at Indiana, the Hoosiers won three National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball championships and grew into one of the most dominant sports franchises of the late twentieth century. (Additional biographical information is provided in Exhibit 1.) Knight’s remarkable career at Indiana earned him a spot on the top-five list of college coaches with the most wins in Division 1 basketball as well as a lucrative employee agreement reported to be worth more than $1.5 million.1 Eventually, his coaching services became so highly valued that he was given complete control over every aspect of the basketball program. Quite simply, Bob Knight was Indiana basketball. Over the years, Coach Knight became famous not only for his remarkable achievements (see Exhibits 2 and 3) but also for his passionate and demanding leadership style. From his players, he expected nothing less than their absolute best, all the time. Unfortunately, Knight’s relentless drive and passion for excellence were not always as well received as was his record of wins and losses. Eventually, his unique approach to the game not only generated an extraordinary list of accomplishments but also an equally stunning list of controversies (see Exhibit 4). In response to the many accusations leveled against him, Knight admitted, “Some of them are legitimate. I’ve certainly done my share of dumb things, some of which I’m genuinely sorry for (and some that, in my own perverse way, I still kind of enjoy).”2 And so it was that on September 10, 2000, Myles Brand, president of IU since 1994, did the unthinkable, he fired Bob Knight. Outlining “charges that the coach had manhandled” a student and displayed a “pattern of unacceptable behavior,” Brand brought an end to one of the most storied associations in the history of college basketball.3 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Professors Scott A. Snook and Leslie A. Perlow and Research Associate Brian J. DeLacey prepared this case with assistance from the Global Research Group. This case was developed from published sources. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. Copyright © 2005 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School. 9-406-043 REV: DECEMBER 1, 2005 406-043 Coach Knight: The Will to Win The Will to Win What Bob is more than anything, is intense. He is intense about everything he does.. . . He loves to compete. He loves to win. But it’s never that simple with him because nothing is simple with Bob. — Al McGuire, A Season on the Brink, p. xiii Even more than a passion for winning, Knight had an obsession for the hard work and preparation it took to win consistently: “Among all the things I believe . . . one tops the list: the importance of preparation. We talk in coaching about “winners”—kids . . . who just will not allow themselves or their team to lose. Coaches call that a will to win. I don’t. I think that puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Everybody has a will to win. What’s far more important is having the will to prepare to win.”4 As a young boy growing up in the small town of Orrville, Ohio, Knight learned the value of discipline, a lesson that would become his trademark as well as a lightning rod for his critics. Knight recalled: “My father was the most disciplined man I ever saw. Most people, they hear the word discipline, and right away they think about a whip and a chair. I’ve worked up my own definition. And this took a long time. Discipline: doing what you have to do, and doing it as well as you possibly can, and doing it that way all the time.”5 As a coach, Knight demanded discipline on the court every day. He did not play favorites. If a blue-chip recruit or player in his starting lineup performed poorly, that person quickly found himself sitting on the bench or demoted to the second team. In a 1988 interview with Esquire magazine, Knight had this to say about his star guard, Keith Smart (Smart had just been named the Most Outstanding Player of the 1987 NCAA Final Four): “If there are any problems with Keith Smart, you are going to see his ass on the bench. That’s the way we handle ego at Indiana. You see the bench gives your ass a message, then your ass gives your brain a message, and then your brain will probably get Keith Smart to play a helluva lot better.”6 On occasion, Knight was also known to throw players out of practice for not working hard enough. If the pattern persisted, he would threaten to take away scholarships or drop them from the team entirely. Bob Knight viewed it as his personal duty to display “an unyielding, untiring passion for teaching kids to understand the game of basketball and carry this understanding and sense of commitment into all walks of life.”7 In addition to running the basketball program, Bob Knight taught a course called “Methods of Coaching” at Indiana University: I taught it for twenty-nine years. I can’t even begin to tell you the number of notes I got from kids or ran into people that had been in that class over the years that said it was far and away the best class they ever took in college. I’d be willing to bet that 99 percent of the faculty members at Indiana never got a letter from any kid saying this was the most important class or the best class for the future that I ever had to take. And I heard that constantly.8 Filled with meticulously planned and flawlessly executed drills, a typical Coach Knight practice taught his game of basketball. His motivational toolkit included push-ups, wind sprints, and insulting verbal barbs. Some observers felt he pushed his players too hard, beyond reasonable physical and psychological limits. Biographer John Feinstein saw it this way: Knight believed—and his record seemed to back him up—that the system he had devised over the years was the best way there was to play basketball. He always told his players that. “Follow our rules, do exactly what we tell you and you will not lose,” he would say. “But boys, 2 Coach Knight: The Will to Win 406-043 you have to listen to me.” The boys listened. Always, they listened. But they didn’t always assimilate, and sometimes, even when they did, they could not execute what they had been told.9 When it came to basketball, Knight was a perfectionist. In his own words: Kids have to understand that you—you, the coach—aren’t going to be satisfied with just winning.. . . Kids will be satisfied with what you tolerate. If a coach tolerates mistakes, kids will be satisfied with mistakes. Steve Risley, who played for us at Indiana from 1978 to ’81, once said of me in an interview, “He’s after the perfect game. Maybe he’ll coach forever and not get it.” I thought, that’s probably true. There have been times I was more upset after we won than when we lost.10 One way Knight attempted to instill the “will to win” is illustrated by a winner-take-all drill he invented while coaching at West Point. Forever memorialized as “Bobby Ball,” one former Army player described the experience this way: The drill was simple enough. The players formed two lines. Knight would roll the ball on the floor. [A player from each line] would dive for the ball and the battle was on [to see who could get the ball and score a basket]. It was like a football fumble without pads, helmets, and the dampening effect of grass. Most of us volunteered for Vietnam to get away from [that] drill.11 [I]t was a drill made in the very image of Bob Knight the player. Bob Knight the man. High intensity. High contact. A drill that required more will than skill, the ball going to the man who wanted it the most, the guy who played the hardest. And in the Bob Knight pantheon of values, “playing the hardest” is the ultimate accolade.12 Relationships with Players 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. — Isiah Thomas, quoted in A Season on the Brink, p. 8 One of the most public relationships Knight had was with star player Steve Alford, who went on to play in the NBA and then coach college basketball himself. Alford reflected: I knew I was in the hands of a truly great basketball coach. I was less certain, however, of what kind of person he was. I couldn’t understand his need to intimidate people. Everybody around him—players, assistant coaches, faculty, sportswriters seemed uncomfortable in his presence. The worst part of it, for me, was the profanity.. . . I had never [heard those words] in such abundance and with so much fury behind them. The trick, according to [one] upperclassman, was to understand that Coach used profanity to teach, as strange as that sounds.13 Dan Dakich offered this advice for dealing with his former coach’s colorful language: “When he’s calling you an asshole, don’t listen. But when he starts telling you why you’re an asshole, listen. That way you’ll get better.”14 3 406-043 Coach Knight: The Will to Win Knight’s youngest son, Patrick, played for him at Indiana. Commenting on Patrick’s decision to join his father’s team, Knight offered the following prediction: “We are going to redshirt Patrick next year so he’ll have me as a coach for 5 years. When Patrick is done, having me as a father and a coach, Patrick Knight will undoubtedly have the most blistered ass in the history of basketball.”15 In a highly publicized incident, Coach Knight was accused of kicking his son during a game. Knight later said that he went to kick a chair and Patrick had simply gotten in the way. Eventually, his son became an assistant coach himself, as well as a staunch defender of his father’s programs and unique approach to the game. A surprising number of Knight’s former players have gone on to coach in college (such as Mike Krzyzewski of Duke University) and the NBA (including Isiah Thomas and Mike Woodson, as well as others). Knight was “extremely proud of his coaching protégés. He followed their fortunes closely and often called after big wins or big losses.. . . The Knight ‘family’—his former assistants and his coaching mentors . . . —were renowned throughout the college basketball world.”16 The Many Faces of Coach Knight What people don’t see, what they don’t understand about Bob is that he’s a warm, sensitive, and funny guy. Yes funny.. . . Bob always tries to act so tough—all the screaming and yelling. He’s really not tough, not at all.. . . All the critical things he says about his players—try and criticize one of them and see what kind of response you get. Be ready to duck, too. — Al McGuire, quoted in A Season on the Brink, p. xii–xiii In his own words, “A coach has to be a tyrant, a benign benefactor, a parent. There’s a lot about coaching that’s like an actor. You’ve got to make yourself into different things at different times. Sometimes what you see is not really what you are.”17 According to one biographer, “Knight’s most fervent supporters ... viewed (him) as a throwback—as [an] old-fashioned disciplinarian whose tough love built character.”18 In response to critics who consider such an approach old-fashioned, Knight had this to say: “My wife thinks I’m outdated sometimes. What the hell am I going to say to her? I just nod my head and keep right on.”19 His wife, on the other hand, saw it this way: “People have often referred to him as having a temper. And I just see every day what I call a huge passion for living. He has a passion for every thing he does. Everything.” 20 In response to critics who charged that his “passion” often crossed the line, that he had an “anger control problem,” Knight admitted, “Yes, of course I do have a temper, but many times what people read as anger was my being extremely passionate toward helping kids become the best they can be at whatever they’re going to do.”21 Knight played on a championship college basketball team himself at Ohio State. One of his former teammates, Mel Nowell, praised Knight as the best coach he knew, but still, “I would not send my son to play for him.”22 Other parents would disagree. In one tragic case, a player from Knight’s 1981 NCAA championship team was in a car accident that left him paralyzed for life: “Knight devoted most of his waking hours during the next few months to what became the Landon Turner Fund. Before he was through, more than $400,000 had been raised [in support of the player and his family].. . . When [Turner] was ready to return to school, his scholarship was waiting; Knight named him captain of the 1982 team he would never play for.”23 4 Coach Knight: The Will to Win 406-043 One of Knight’s four “cornerstones for player and team development” he credited to a conversation he had with one of his earliest and most important mentors, the legendary New York City coach Joe Lapchick. According to Knight, Coach Lapchick once asked him: “How important is it to you that people like you?” I hadn’t thought about that. I did for just a minute or so and said, “I’d like to be respected as a coach, but I’m not concerned about being liked.” He said, “Good. If you worry about whether people like you or not, you can never make tough decisions correctly.”24 Link to Infamy Bob Knight’s complex persona was a magnet for controversy. During a 1985 game against Purdue, Coach Knight was outraged over what he believed to be a bad call made by the officials. Frustrated to the point of action, he plucked a plastic chair from behind him and hurled it across the floor, safely away from people but in clear view for all to see. As one writer poignantly recalled: He’s the guy who threw the chair: the foul-mouthed, foul-tempered, petty tyrant: the “classic bully” who steamrolls anybody who gets in his way—player, fan, ref, athletic director, secretary, even his own son. He’s an out-of-touch, out-of-control, testosterone-infused beast, a speed-popping John Wayne with a saddle burr, storming around as a quavering staff, family, and wife wait for him to explode at the first provocation. People who don’t know Bob Knight are sure they have him all figured out, while people who have been friends for decades say they don’t know him at all.25 Knight reflected, “All these years later, I still can’t understand the notoriety that brought. Also, the longevity of it. Rarely am I mentioned on national TV when a tape of The Chair Toss isn’t played.”26 The Beginning of the End—A Policy of Zero Tolerance In 2000, Sports Illustrated launched an investigative report into why a number of talented players had left the IU basketball program. On March 14, 2000, “CNN/Sports Illustrated aired its findings in a report that focused on the conduct of head coach Bob Knight. For the first time, some of Knight’s former players spoke openly about verbal and physical abuse.”27 During the investigation, a videotape surfaced (provided by a disgruntled staff member who had been fired by Knight) of a 1997 IU basketball practice. Through grainy, blurred, long-distance video, Coach Knight was seen grabbing player Neil Reed by the neck. Reed alleged that he had been choked, though Knight disputed this, arguing, “There was no choke.”28 In response to this incident, Knight said, “Hey, I probably have grabbed every player that has ever played for me at one time or another. I mean, I grab guys, I put ‘em in a position, I put them down, I set them here.. . . I have coached that way for 36 years.”29 Knight saw this as nothing unusual and said anything he’d done with one player he’d have done with a lot of players. 5 406-043 Coach Knight: The Will to Win In response to the Sports Illustrated report, the IU Board of Trustees opened an internal investigation of its own. Sifting through 20 years of Knight’s colorful past, critics came out of the woodwork, but so did a host of staunch supporters. In the end, Knight was suspended for three games and levied a fine of $30,000 for displaying what the school called a “protracted and often troubling pattern in which Coach Knight has a problem controlling his anger and confronting individuals.” In addition to the suspension and fine, on Monday, May 15, 2000, a “zero-tolerance” policy went into effect. “Any new incident of inappropriate behavior would result in immediate termination.”30 The Final Straw Zero tolerance would last less than four months. In September 2000, while exiting the fieldhouse, Coach Knight had a confrontation with a student: Kent Harvey, the 19-year-old stepson of a former radio talk show host who (was) a vocal critic of Knight, claim(ed) the coach grabbed his arm and cursed him after Harvey addressed the coach in a manner many adults would find disrespectful.. . . While saying he never raised his voice “over a conversational tone,” Knight acknowledged grabbing Harvey by the arm and lecturing him on the proper way to address an adult.31 Within days, Knight was fired. Commenting on the circumstances surrounding his dismissal, Knight had this to say: “I tried . . . to keep my firing from happening. I accepted a no-win form of probation that every friend I had told me to reject and leave. I felt I could get by just by focusing on coaching and working with our basketball team.. . . That’s what I kept telling myself, so I can’t blame anything but my own stubbornness for my being there to be fired in September 2000.”32 ***** Based on unprecedented access to Coach Knight during Indiana’s 1985–1986 basketball season, sportswriter John Feinstein chose the following story to end his best-selling and controversial book, A Season on the Brink: A Year with Bob Knight and the Indiana Hoosiers: I am reminded of an incident that took place in January. After the Indiana-Illinois game during which Bob kicked and slammed a chair, and kicked a cheerleader’s megaphone. Dave Kindred, the superb columnist for The Atlanta Constitution, wrote that he was disappointed to see Knight acting this way again. Kindred, a longtime friend of Knight’s, ended the column by writing, “Once again I find myself wondering when it comes to Bob Knight if the end justifies the means.” A few days later, Knight called Kindred. “You needed one more line for that damn column,” Knight said. “You should have finished by saying, ‘And one more time, I realize that it does.’” Kindred thought for a moment and then said, “Bob, you’re right.” I agree.33 6 Coach Knight: The Will to Win 406-043 Postscript In the fall of 2000, Bob Knight had no team to coach. For the first time since taking the reins at Army in 1965, when at the age of 24 he became the “youngest varsity coach in major collegiate history,”34 a basketball season was about to start without him. In March of 2001, Texas Tech offered Bob Knight a chance to return to college basketball. While “about fifty professors signed a petition”35 protesting the school’s decision, Knight was welcomed by a frenzied rally of supportive fans. His five-year deal as head coach included a $250,000 base salary, $150,000 in deferred income, and at least $500,000 a year in guaranteed outside income. No provisions were included concerning personal conduct or behavior. The basketball team he inherited had not recorded a winning season in four years. Knight quickly turned things around. In his first year, his Red Raiders posted an impressive 23 and 9 record. This was followed by three more consecutive winning seasons, all accomplished with players he had not personally recruited. Coach Knight was back. On February 5, 2003, Bob Knight earned his 800thcareer victory—only three coaches have ever won more games in Division 1 basketball. Duke University coach Mike Krzyzewski underscored the significance of the accomplishment: “Eight-hundred means you’ve sustained excellence for a long, long time. I hope he gets a lot more.”36 As long as he kept coaching, Bob Knight had a good chance of becoming the winningest coach of all time. But had he changed? His time at Texas Tech has not been without controversy. In December 2003, he exploded in profanity during an on-air interview with an ESPN broadcaster. In February 2004 there were accusations that Knight had a verbal confrontation with university chancellor David Smith, for which Knight was reprimanded by the school. In June 2004, however, Knight was offered—and agreed to—an extension to his existing contract that would keep him in Lubbock through 2009. At the start of his fourth season with Texas Tech, he told a local reporter, “I look forward to doing this a long time. This is the best possible situation for me as long as I coach.” At the same time, the president of Texas Tech praised Knight: “I’m pleased with the direction of our program. He’s done a great job turning everything around. I think the future really looks good for us.”37 Concerning the “change question,” Knight himself had this to say: “Frequently in interviews since coming to Tech, the interviewer has asked if I have changed. Yes, I have. Every experience anyone has changes that person to some degree. But basic change? No.”38 ***** When my time on earth is gone,?And my activities here are past,?I want that they should bury me upside down, So my critics can kiss my ass. —Bob Knight addressing crowd during Senior Day ceremonies at IU in 199439 7 406-043 Coach Knight: The Will to Win Exhibit 1 Coach Knight Biographical Summary Robert Montgomery Knight was born on October 25, 1940 in Orrville, Ohio. He was the only child of “a no-nonsense schoolteacher” and a father who worked the railways. His dad was conscientious to the point of perfectionism and “as unyielding as a locomotive.” As a youngster, Knight always wanted to win—if he did not win, he would throw a fit. With two working parents, he spent much of his childhood with his grandmother. Early on, she learned a strategy for handling the passions of her competitive grandson: Whenever they would play a game, she would simply let him win. Not only a talented athlete, Knight also excelled in academics. A voracious reader, he is rumored to have set the record in his hometown library for most books checked out. An all-state basketball star and president of his honor society at Orrville High School, Knight graduated in 1958 to attend Ohio State University. At 6’5”, Bob Knight the player learned college basketball from Hall of Fame coach Fred Taylor. In addition to playing on the Ohio State Buckeyes’ 1960 NCAA championship team, he earned degrees in history and government. While a student at Ohio State, Knight admired the Buckeyes’ colorful and controversial football coach, Woody Hayes—widely recognized not only for his accomplishments on the field but also for his volatile temper. Hayes was passionate, committed, honest, direct, contentious—words that could also apply to Knight. In the end, Coach Hayes was fired for striking an opposing player during the 1978 Gator Bowl. He simply hated to lose.a After graduating from Ohio State in 1962, Knight landed his first job, as an assistant high school basketball coach in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The next year he joined the Army to coach at West Point. During his six seasons as Army’s head coach (1965–1971), he earned a record of 102-50. The highly structured and disciplined culture of the academy suited Knight, but he had always dreamed of coaching in the Big 10. In 1971, he moved to Indiana, calling his decision to leave West Point "the toughest in my life." His remarkable 29-year career at Indiana University made him into a living legend in college basketball. After a 31-1 record in 1975, his 1976 team won every game they played. This remains the last NCAA championship team to have had a perfect season. One of his all-time great players, Quinn Buckner, saw firsthand what motivated Knight: “[That year] embodied everything [Knight] ever wanted in a team—it was a team of guys willing to sacrifice whatever skills they had in order for the team to be better. . . . I think he’s constantly searching . . . for the perfect game and he honestly believes that it’s out there. That’s what moves him.”b Bob Knight has two sons, Patrick and Tim. Patrick played for his father at Indiana from 1991 to 1995 and now assists him as the associate head coach at Texas Tech. Tim is a 1986 graduate of Stanford University and serves as an assistant athletic director/special projects at Texas Tech. Bob and his wife Karen, a Hall of Fame basketball coach herself, were married in 1988. Source: Portions are from http://www.hoophall.com/, copyright Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, with permission. All quotes and some descriptive details are adapted from an ESPN Classic Sports Century documentary on Bob Knight, broadcast February 23, 2005. aSee interview with Alan Natali, author of “Woody’s Boys,” at http://www.duncanentertainment.com/interview_natali.php. bBuckner played for Indiana University from 1972 to 1976 and later went on to a successful professional NBA career. 8 Coach Knight: The Will to Win 406-043 Exhibit 2 Statistics through the 2003–2004 Season NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS 10, John Wooden, UCLA, 1964-75?4, Adolph Rupp, Kentucky, 1948-58?3, Bob Knight, Indiana, 1976-87?3, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1991-2001?2, Denny Crum, Louisville, 1980-86?2, Henry Iba, Oklahoma St., 1945-46?2, Ed Jucker, Cincinnati, 1961-62?2, Branch McCracken, Indiana, 1940-53 2, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1982-93 2, Phil Woolpert, San Francisco, 1955-56 FINAL FOUR APPEARANCES 12, John Wooden, UCLA, 1962-75?11, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1967-97?9, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1986-2001?6, Denny Crum, Louisville, 1972-86?6, Adolph Rupp, Kentucky, 1942-66?5, Bob Knight, Indiana, 1973-92?5, Guy Lewis, Houston, 1967-84?5, Lute Olson, Iowa and Arizona, 1980-2001 4, Jack Gardner, Kansas St. and Utah, 1948-66 4, Henry Iba, Oklahoma St., 1945-51?4, Harold Olsen, Ohio St., 1939-46?4, Jerry Tarkanian, UNLV, 1977-91?4, Fred Taylor, Ohio St., 1960-68 CONSECUTIVE FINAL FOUR APPEARANCES?9, John Wooden, UCLA, 1967-75?5, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1988-92?3, Tom Izzo, Michigan St., 1999-2001 3, Ed Jucker, Cincinnati, 1961-63 3, Guy Lewis, Houston, 1982-84?3, Harold Olsen, Ohio St., 1944-46?3, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1967-69 3, Fred Taylor, Ohio St., 1960-62?3, Phil Woolpert, San Francisco, 1955-57 2, 19 tied FINAL FOUR WINS 21, John Wooden, UCLA, 1962-75 10, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1988-2001 9, Adolph Rupp, Kentucky, 1942-66?8, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1967-97 7, Bob Knight, Indiana, 1973-87?5, Denny Crum, Louisville, 1972-86?5, Henry Iba, Oklahoma St., 1945-51?5, Ed Jucker, Cincinnati, 1961-63?5, Fred Taylor, Ohio St., 1960-68 TOURNAMENT APPEARANCES 27, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1967-97 Source: http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/w_final_four_records_book/2003/coaches.pdf. 25, Bob Knight, Indiana and Texas Tech, 1973-2002 23, Denny Crum, Louisville, 1972-2000?22, Lute Olson, Iowa and Arizona, 1979-2002?22, Eddie Sutton, Creighton, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Oklahoma St., 1974-2002?21, Jim Boeheim, Syracuse, 1977-2001?20, John Thompson, Georgetown, 1975-97?20, Adolph Rupp, Kentucky, 1942-72?19, Lou Henson, Illinois and New Mexico St., 1967-99?18, Lou Carnesecca, St. John’s (N.Y.), 1967-92 18, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1984-2002 CONSECUTIVE TOURNAMENT APPEARANCES?23, Dean Smith, North Carolina, 1975-97 18, Lute Olson, Arizona, 1985-2002?15, Bob Knight, Indiana, 1986-2000?14, John Thompson, Georgetown, 1979-92 13, Roy Williams, Kansas, 1990-2002?12, John Chaney, Temple, 1990-2001?12, Eddie Sutton, Arkansas and Kentucky, 1977-88?11, Bob Huggins, Cincinnati, 1992-2002 11, Mike Krzyzewski, Duke, 1984-94 9 406-043 Coach Knight: The Will to Win Exhibit 3 Coach Knight Accomplishments • Became Army head coach at 24, earning the distinction of becoming the youngest varsity ?coach in major college history • His Army teams finished 102-50. • His Army teams led nation in team defense for three consecutive years. • Army participated in four NIT tournaments in five seasons (1966, 1968–1970). • His Indiana teams won 11 Big Ten Conference titles (1973–1976, 1980–1981, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1993) and participated in five Final Fours (1973, 1976, 1981, 1987, 1992). • Had a 32-0 undefeated season (1976) • NCAA Championship (1976, 1981,1987) • NIT Championship (1979) • National Coach of the Year (1975, 1976, 1987, 1989) • Big Ten Coach of the Year (1973, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1981) • Coached Pan American team to gold medal (1979) • In 1984, he became one of only three coaches to win the "Triple Crown" of coaching, winning NCAA and NIT titles and an Olympic gold medal (Hank Iba and Dean Smith are the others). • One of only two coaches to both play on and coach national championship teams (the other is Dean Smith). • Youngest coach to reach 200, 300, and 400 wins. Earned his 800th victory on February 5, 2003 with Texas Tech. • At the time of his 800th victory, Knight had compiled an 800-303 record. • Knight was hired on March 23, 2001 by Texas Tech. In his first season (2001–2002) as coach at Texas Tech, Knight had a 23-9 record; the second season was 22-13, the third season 23-11, and the fourth season 22-11. • Led Texas Tech to the Final Four of the 2003 NIT • Led Texas Tech to the Sweet 16 in 2005 for the first time since 1996 and to the regional ?semifinal for the first time since 1994 • Sixteen of his former assistant coaches have become head coaches at the collegiate level. ?Source: “Hall of Famers: Bob Knight,” Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, http://www.hoophall.com/ halloffamers, accessed September 29, 2004. ?10 Coach Knight: The Will to Win 406-043 Exhibit 4 Timeline: Bob Knight Career Controversies September 10, 1979: Knight is sentenced in absentia to six months in jail for hitting a Puerto Rican police officer before a July practice at the Pan American Games. The U.S. team wins the gold medal five days after the incident. The government of Puerto Rico decides in 1987 to drop efforts to extradite Knight. March 28, 1981: After IU defeats LSU 67-49 at the Final Four in Philadelphia, Knight gets into an altercation with an LSU fan, allegedly shoving him into a garbage can. Knight claims that the fan used obscenities to provoke the incident. No charges are filed. January 16, 1982: Ohio State guard Troy Taylor claims Knight cursed at him, “calling me everything in the book,” after he thought Taylor flagrantly fouled Jim Thomas. Knight and four Indiana players deny the charge and send films to the Big Ten and Ohio State. Ohio State later supports Knight. February 16, 1983: Critical of Big Ten officiating, Knight stands at midcourt cursing at Big Ten commissioner Wayne Duke, who was sitting in the press box. Three days later, Knight publicly blasts officials for the “worst officiating I have seen in 12 years” and is publicly reprimanded. February 23, 1985: Knight tosses a chair onto the Assembly Hall floor while Purdue’s Steve Reid attempts to shoot technical free throws. Knight is ejected from the game and later suspended for one game. Knight issues a formal apology. March 22, 1987: After being assessed a technical foul, Knight bangs his fist on the scorer’s table during Indiana’s NCAA game against LSU. The university is fined $10,000 by the NCAA, and Knight receives a reprimand. Hoosiers go on to win the game 77-76 en route to their 1987 NCAA title. November 22, 1987: With 15:05 remaining and Indiana down 66-43, Knight refuses to let his team finish an exhibition game against the Soviet Union after he is ejected for arguing with referee Jim Burr. He apologizes and is later reprimanded by the university. March 10, 1991: In a growing spat, Knight leaves the court without shaking hands with Illinois coach Lou Henson, who calls Knight a “classic bully” who thrives on intimidation. May 1991: Knight asks not to be renominated but is elected to the Hall of Fame, joining Larry O’Brien, Tiny Archibald, Dave Cowens, Harry Gallatin, Larry Fleisher, and FIBA’s Boris Stankovic. December 3, 1991: Following a game against Notre Dame, Knight bans female AP sportswriter Beth Harris from the locker room, saying it is inappropriate for her to be there and also against university policy. All reporters are subsequently barred from the locker room. May 25, 1992: During practice for the NCAA tournament, Knight draws protest from the local NAACP and other black leaders when he pretends to bullwhip black player CalbertCheaney. Cheaney later says it was a joke and says the whip was a present from the players. December 7, 1993: Knight pulls son Pat, a junior guard, from a game and appears to kick him in the leg. 11 406-043 Coach Knight: The Will to Win March 17, 1995: The NCAA reprimands Knight and fines Indiana $30,000 for his outburst toward an NCAA tournament media liaison at a postgame news conference. March 14, 2000: CNN/Sports Illustrated airs its findings in a report that focuses on Knight’s conduct. For the first time, some of Knight’s former players speak openly about verbal and physical abuse they say they endured from Coach Knight.a May 14, 2000: The university investigates Knight after former player Neil Reed claims the coach choked him during a 1997 practice. A videotape appearing to support Reed’s claim appears in April. Other reports that follow: Knight attacks a former Indiana sports information director and attacks former assistant coach Ron Felling shortly before Felling’s 1999 termination. May 15, 2000: Indiana president Myles Brand suspends Knight for the first three games of the 2000– 2001 season, fines him $30,000, and announces a “zero-tolerance” policy regarding any future incident by Knight deemed to be inappropriate. September 7, 2000: Knight confronts 19-year-old freshman Kent Harvey, allegedly grabbing his arm and lecturing him after the student addresses the coach only as “Knight.” September 10, 2000: Indiana president Myles Brand announces that Knight will no longer serve as the school’s basketball coach following a pattern of “unacceptable behavior.” Texas Tech Era January 2003: Two timing errors are discovered after Oklahoma defeats Tech, 69-64, in overtime in Norman. Knight says that OU coach Kelvin Sampson's refusal to forfeit the win bothers him more than anything else has in coaching.b February 2003: Players Andre Emmett and Nick Valdez are suspended for a game against Texas for oversleeping. Joe Valdez, Nick's father, claims the two were set up. Emmett runs 1,500 wind sprints to rejoin the team; Valdez quits.b December 22, 2003: Knight goes on a profanity-filled tirade during an interview with ESPN’s Fran Fraschilla about his relationship with Steve Alford, who is also involved in the interview. February 2, 2004: Knight gets into a verbal confrontation with Texas Tech chancellor David Smith at a Lubbock grocery store. Source: Casewriter adaptation for all items (except the March 14, 2000 information) from “Sports Illustrated’s Timeline: Bob Knight Career Controversies,” Sportsillustrated.cnn.com, February 3, 2004, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/ basketball/ncaa/02/03/knight.timeline/, accessed April 1, 2005. Note: In his autobiography, Knight acknowledges the frequent distribution of this “AP laundry list” of stories and dedicates about 15 pages to refuting and explaining many of these incidents. a“The Knight Tape: Video captures encounter between IU coach, ex-player,” Sportsillustrated.cnn.com, September 9, 2000, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/thenetwork/news/2000/04/11/knight_cnnsi/, accessed April 1, 2005. b“Is he a kinder, gentler Knight?” March 23, 2005, http://www.quickdfw.com/sports/stories/quick032305spo-- knight.cae97.html, accessed April 1, 2005. 12 Coach Knight: The Will to Win 406-043 Endnotes 1 Knight was entitled to $140,000 in 2000 and $170,000 in 2001 and 2002. Knight was to receive $1.3 million as long as he did not coach for schools in Indiana or Kentucky or take a job at another school in the same basketball conference as Indiana. 2 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, Knight: My Story (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), p. 190.?3 Jack Isenhour, Same Knight Different Channel: Basketball Legend Bob Knight at West Point and Today (Dulles, VA: Brassey’s Inc., 2003), p. 221. 4 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 20. 5 Phil Berger, Knight Fall: Bobby Knight, The Truth Behind America’s Most Controversial Coach (New York: Pinnacle Books, 2000), p. 51. 6 “Favorite Coach Knight Quotes,” Ezboard.com, December 26, 2001, as quoted from a March 1988 Esquire magazine article, http://p200.ezboard.com/faseasononthebrinkfrm2.showMessageRange?topicID=7.topic& start=1&stop=20, accessed March 14, 2005. 7 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 19. 8 Isenhour, p. 313. 9 John Feinstein, A Season on the Brink: A Year with Bob Knight and the Indiana Hoosiers (New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1989), p. 3. 10 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 28. 11 Isenhour, p. 132. 12 Ibid., p. 134. 13 Steve Alford with John Garrity, Playing for Knight: My Six Seasons with Coach Knight (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), pp. 33–34. 14 Feinstein, p. 4. 15 “Favorite Coach Knight Quotes,” EZboard.com. As quoted from a May 1991 Bloomington Herald Times newspaper article. 16 Feinstein, p. 250. 17 WTHR Indianapolis News Report, based on transcripts from their gathering of videotaped depositions given by Knight under oath, http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=1248088&nav=9Tai9aW8, accessed September 2, 2004. 18 Berger, p. 11.?19 “Favorite Coach Knight Quotes,” EZboard.com. 20 Isenhour, p. 315.?21 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 374.?22 Isenhour, p. 165.?23 Feinstein, p. 27.?24 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 15.?25 Isenhour, p. 7. 13 406-043 Coach Knight: The Will to Win 26 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 240. 27 “The Knight Tape: Video captures encounters between IU coach, ex-player,” SI.com, September 9, 2000, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/thenetwork/news/2000/04/11/knight_cnnsi/, accessed August 24, 2004. 28 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 312. 29 “The Knight Tape: Video captures encounters between IU coach, ex-player.” 30?http://www.indystar.comlibrary/factfiles/people/k/knight_bob/knight.html, accessed March 23, 2005. “Bob Knight: Former Indiana Basketball Coach,” Indystar.com, February 5, 2003, 31 Dewayne Wickham, “Indiana’s timing lousy in Knight firing,” The Tennessean, September 12, 2000, http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/09/12/timing12.shtml, accessed December 28, 2004. 32 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 310. 33 Feinstein, pp. 336–337. 34 “Red Raider Coach, Bob Knight Profile,” Texastecch.collegesports.com, http://texastech.collegesports.com/ sports/m-baskbl/mtt/knight_bob00.html, accessed March 23, 2005. 35 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 371. 36 “Eve of a milestone? Knight looks to join 800-win club on Saturday vs. A&M,” SI.com, January 31, 2003, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/news/2003/01/30/knight_800_ap/, accessed September 3, 2004. 37 “Knight agrees to contract extension,” DETnews.com, June 10, 2004, http://www.detnews.com/ 2004/college/0406/18/college-179435.htm, accessed December 28, 2004. 38 Bob Knight with Bob Hammel, p. 374.?39 “Favorite Coach Knight Quotes,” EZboard.com. “Coach Knight” and “Coach K” Case Studies Instructions After reading the case studies (make sure you read both!), you will write a two-page double-spaced minimum (12-point font, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins) paper. Please include the following in your case study summary. 1. Briefly summarize the cases (approximately half a page). 2. Answer the following questions in the remainder of your paper: a. Compare and contrast Coach K and Coach Knight. How are they different? How are they similar? - Describe Coach K’s leadership style. What are his basic assumptions about motivation and leading? - Describe Coach Knight’s leadership style. What are his basic assumptions about motivation and leading? b. Who is more effective? Why? IRAC #1 (TEST): RFRA AND THE MILITARY ISSUE: Whether the Army’s refusal to accommodate Inkoor Singh’s religious exercise is a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, also known as “RFRA”. RULE: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress in 1993, dictates that any governmental entity that imposes a substantial burden upon any individual’s ability to practice the tenants of their religion must further a compelling governmental interest and do so in the least restrictive means available for furthering that interest. ANALYSIS: Inkoor Singh, a young man of the Sikh faith, is seeking a reconsideration of his denial for religious accommodations with regards to entering the Reserve Officer Training Corps at Hofstra University. In accordance with his sincerely held beliefs of the Sikh faith, Singh maintains the religious tenets of not cutting his hair, not shaving his beard, and wearing a Dastar to cover his head. Singh was denied entrance into the ROTC program because he could not initially comply with Army Regulation 670-1, which governs among other things grooming standards for soldiers. However, once in compliance with AR 670-1, Singh could apply for religious accommodations and wear the articles of his faith without issue. This essentially creates a ‘Catch-22’ in which Singh would have to violate the articles of his faith in order to gain the accommodations he seeks. Singh stated that he simply wants “to compete on equal footing with [his] peers for a contracted spot in ROTC…and that the Army would be under no obligation to grant him a commission if his performance should he could not serve or lead.” Therefore, the Army must show that, in this case in particular, its decision to deny Singh religious accommodations does not violate RFRA by standing up to strict scrutiny. That is to say that its denial furthers a governmental compelling interest and does so in the least restrictive means possible. Many would claim that the Army, and many other branches of the military, are not subject to RFRA and would fall under a separate set of rules and regulations and that a civilian judge should give deference to a military authority. However, Congress specifically specified that the term ‘government’ includes a branch, department, agency, or official of the U.S. and the Department of Defense Instruction 1300.17 (Accommodation of Religious Practices within the Military Services) incorporates RFRA by stating that requests for religious accommodations from service members may only be denied if they pass strict scrutiny and are assessed on a case-by-case basis. It would also fall into a civilian court’s jurisdiction by virtue of House Report No. 103-111 which states, “Pursuant to RFRA, courts must review the claims of military personnel under the compelling governmental interest test. Seemingly reasonable regulations based upon speculation, exaggerated fears, or thoughtless policies cannot stand.” This gives overwhelming evidence that the civilian court most certainly has the right to consider this particular case dealing with Singh’s plea that the Army’s refusal to accommodate his religious beliefs in order to enter the ROTC program is a violation of RFRA. In order to withstand strict scrutiny, the Army must prove that denying Singh entrance into the ROTC program furthers its compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive means possible. In a letter to Singh, an Army Major General denied his request stating that granting religious accommodations would have an “adverse impact on readiness, unit cohesion, health, safety, and discipline.” By denying Singh’s request, the Army put him in the position of deciding between receiving a government benefit and following the tenets of his religion. The case of Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service established that a substantial burden is placed on an individual if they must choose between exercising that religion or receiving a government benefit. Furthermore, it is quite easy to dismantle the Army’s argument that granting this accommodation for Singh does anything listed in the M.G.’s report, furthers governmental interest, or does so in the least restrictive means possible. A large portion of the Army’s argument against granting religious accommodations to Singh is grounded in its grooming standards. From the protective gas mask to uniformity, the Army’s denial cites the need for Singh to remain unshaven as an issue. The denial of allowing Singh into the ROTC program based upon his inability to don a protective gas mask effectively due to his beard is, in actuality, a moot point. ROTC members are not eligible for deployments into combat areas and will most likely never be issued a protective gas mask. For arguments sake, let’s hypothetically consider that Singh must be able to demonstrate proficiency with the gas mask over his beard. To this date, the Army has issued over 49,000 permanent shaving profiles (right to not shave) and over 57,000 temporary shaving profiles. Service members who have been issued these shaving profiles have also been deployed in an operational environment with no reported negative impact. According to TB MED 287, Army Commanding Officers can only require soldiers to shave when they may need to wear the protective mask in a real, tactical operation and not just in training. Since the inception of TB MED 287, there has not been one single case of a commander requiring someone with a beard to clean shave said beard. Even if Singh’s beard does require special attention with regards to the gas mask, the Army has a “Hard-to-Fit” program that has fitted nearly 1,200 soldiers who have beards, non-conforming size heads, and females with longer hair in a ‘twist’. All of these sound arguments would nullify the General’s concern for the health and safety of Singh with respect to his ability to wear the protective gas mask. Another reason cited for denying Singh’s religious accommodation request was possible issues with his Dastar, also known as a turban. Army Regulation 600-20 allows for the wear of religious headgear with certain stipulations, the most important one being the ability to still wear the Army Combat Helmet (ACH). The Dastar itself is within compliance and allows Singh to tuck his hair under the garment and comply with AR 670-1’s regulation that his hair stay off his shoulders and ears. However, the Major General’s report cited concerns with the ACH or Kevlar fitting over the turban itself. Captain Tajdeep Rattan, a current Sikh officer, was told there were two challenges for Sikhs in the military: the combat helmet and the protective gas mask. However, Captain Rattan claims that he “easily wears both” and that those concerns were born out of a lack of understanding. Again, this concern from the General which lead to the denial of Singh’s request does not hold up to strict scrutiny. Aside from these examples of how the Army could accommodate Singh’s articles of faith while still maintaining the health, safety, and discipline of the force, there are already several Sikhs who have faithfully served our nation successfully. In 2010, the Army granted the same request sought by Singh to Captain Rattan. Rattan, who served as a medical officer, was allowed to keep his beard, his turban, and his unshorn hair through all of his training and time spent within the Army’s ranks. The only stipulation was that his beard, hair, and religious headgear be neat and well maintained at all times. Another piece of damning evidence against Lieutenant General James McConville’s denial letter is a case study done by M.Gleen Cobb and Thomas Graves that analyzed the impact of religious accommodations on initial military training. Their findings concluded that the religious accommodations the Army had granted up to that point, including accommodations for Sikhs, did not have a significant impact on unit morale, cohesion, good order, and discipline, thus refuting McConville’s assertions that granting Singh the religious accommodations he seeks would subvert unit morale, cohesion, etc. All of these analyses, from the issue with beards to the headgear and questions of discipline and unit cohesion, prove that denying Singh entrance into the ROTC program while maintaining his articles of faith do not stand up to strict scrutiny and do not further the governmental compelling interest. Lastly, in order to further prove that the Army’s denial of accommodation to Singh was a violation of RFRA, the Army must prove it is furthering its interest in the least restrictive means possible. According to LTG McConville’s denial letter, the Army cannot assume another means because another means is unproven and unknown. However, according to U.S. v. Playboy Entm’t Group, the ‘government’ cannot assume that a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective. But the Army does not to search for a suitable, less restrictive means in this case as there is already a blueprint available. The Army saw fit several years ago to grant a temporary accommodation for Corporal Lamba, a young Sikh who requested concessions dealing with the same articles of faith as Singh. The only stipulation was that CPL Lamba keep his beard neat and orderly in appearance, which is the same regulation for the nearly 100,000 who also grow beards. Therefore, the Army is not only failing to further its compelling interest, it is failing to do so in the least restrictive means possible. In conclusion, the Army decision to deny Singh religious accommodations has failed to stand up to strict scrutiny (three-prong balance test) and has failed to do so in the least restrictive means possible. CONCLUSION: The Army’s decision to deny Singh religious accommodations to enter Hofstra’s ROTC created a substantial burden that failed to pass strict scrutiny and consequently violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. IRAC #2 (TEST): AB InBev/SAB Miller Merger Issue: Whether or not AB InBev’s possible merger with SAB Miller is an attempt to monopolize a part of trade or commerce and consequently violates Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act as well as Section 7 of the Clayton Act. Rule: Section 2 of the Sherman Act stipulates that any person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, any portion of a trade or commerce shall be found guilty of felony and punished accordingly. Section 7 of the Clayton Act declares that “no person engaged in commerce shall acquire the whole or any part of the stock or the assets of another person engaged also in commerce where the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” Analysis: The merger of InBev and SAB Miller, loquaciously known as ‘MegaBrew’, would result in a company with an estimated worth of roughly $275 billion with ownership of 9 of the top 20 brews worldwide. Although domestic sales of traditional, big name beers have waned slightly, both InBev and SAB Miller still own huge portions of the market and have been combating the rise in popularity of microbreweries by acquiring small craft beer makers. Using a relatively straightforward analysis, it is evident that the InBev, SAB Miller merger will lead to anticompetitive situations, pricing issues, and conduct unfair to the consumer all resulting from the formation of a monopoly. The first task in analyzing the possible merger is to define and identify the relevant product market. Beer is an alcoholic beverage that is substantially different than other alcoholic beverages by price, quality, taste, etc. The price of spirits and wine do not significantly influence or constrain the price of beer and that a change in price of an InBev Miller product would also result in a change of price in a SAB Miller product. Because of this concomitant change in prices, the beer from both companies lie within the same product market and are currently competitors. The second simple task is to define the geographic market of the products. Although the number of beer distributers in the U.S. is on the decline (and a major issue based on intent that will be analyzed subsequently), the basic geographic market for both companies is very similar as both products are usually readily available coast to coast. The third, and a more quantitative task, is to identify the potential market share the two companies would hold after the merger. According to The Harvard Law Review, some approximate boundaries define a market share above 70% as enough to infer monopolistic power, market share below 50% as rarely constituting a monopoly, and 50-70% market share as an area of uncertainty in need of further analysis. Although market share alone does not determine monopoly power, it is still a fundamental element. Currently, AB InBev holds roughly 43% of the market share while SAB Miller controls 26%, making them number one and two in domestic market share. Together, the merger between the two companies would account for 7 out of every 10 beers told within the United States, control over two-thirds of the domestic market, and effectively turn a duopoly into a full-fledged monopoly. The Department of Justice also uses the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index to assess market concentrations and the possibility of monopolistic formations. The DOJ considered markets in which the HHI is above 2,500 points to be highly concentrated and that transactions increasing the HHI by more than 200 points in a high concentrated market are likely to enhance market power, per the Horizontal Merger Guidelines. The merger of InBev and SAB Miller would result in a combined HHI of approximately 2,525 points of the possible 2,556 points in the beer industry. With that being said, the merger in the highly concentrated market would further consolidate the industry and lead to antitrust issues and deemed illegal under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines. T Again, market share alone is not enough to prove illegal behavior or bring about antitrust litigation. The fourth task would be to prove the intent to monopolize, something than InBev has been scrutinized for in the past. In 2013, the DOJ effectively blocked InBev’s take over off Grupo Modelo, a company that only held about 6% market share and would have barely put the merged companies over 50% total market share. If a merger resulting in a smaller total market was a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act a few years ago, wouldn’t it stand to reason that a merger resulting in a much higher market share would still be a violation of those same two acts? If that is not enough, there is still the issue of some of the unscrupulous behavior that InBev has been accused of when dealing with domestic suppliers and distributers as well as pricing models. Since 1990, the number of distributers has decreased from 2,975 to only 950 with those distributors theoretically have independent power to sell beer within a geographic area via the three tier supply system. However, with huge market share already, and even more if the merger goes forward, AB InBev has been able to create the illusion of competition without any real competition. InBev has been historically accused of bullying suppliers and distributors, especially when those distributors deal with a craft beer competitor. In Ohio, for example, a distributor agreed to help Yuengling expand into new market territory. The response from InBev was that the distributor was ‘disloyal’ and violated several distribution agreements. Effectively, InBev is so large by itself and accounts for such a large majority of the supply chain that it can control a distributor’s well-being and revenue by threatening shipments, allotments of top selling products, or timely deliveries. This in itself is a threat to competition and is a huge barrier of entry for smaller craft beers that rely on distributors to get their brands out and recognized on the market. If this was not proof enough of past anticompetitive behavior and monopolistic intentions on behalf of InBev, then a quick analysis of its 2011 “Wholesaler Family Consolidation Guide” clearly illustrates its monopolistic objectives. The Guide declared its goal to further reduce the total number of distributors through voluntary mergers, create “anchor distributors”, and gave suggested wholesale and retail prices for its products. Those who followed the pricing guidelines would be awarded with price reductions for certain products and extra marketing money to sell InBev brews. The “anchor distributors” would be required to align with InBev’s pricing models and strategies, refuse to carry competing brands, and support InBev’s future decisions that may have legal ramifications. Again, this is all an attempt to monopolize the industry by manipulating the supply chain, fixing prices down that chain, and squeezing out smaller, emerging craft beers. And finally comes the issue of InBev’s conduct when it comes to pricing its products. In 2008, Carlos Brito (CEO of AB InBev) made it clear that he believed consolidation would increase competitiveness and end the price wars. However, the DOJ characterized Brito’s “Conduct Plan” a “how-to manual for successful price coordination.” Each summer, InBev would announce its intention to increase prices in the autumn and then wait to see what its competitors did. And, as expected, SAB Miller would announce a similar price increase, leading to huge profit increases for both companies. A study done by Jon. P Nelson from Pennsylvania State University determines that beer has a price elasticity of -0.2, meaning that these small price increases by both firms would not adversely affect the demand for beer and consumers of both products will continue to pay those increased prices. Essentially, these two major brew companies exert a ton of market power and, if merged, could control prices in way that would be harmful and detrimental to beer consumers. In fact, in 2008, the American Antitrust Institute found that even in the face of economic downturn and a decrease in the total volume of beer sold, the duopolists increased prices, operating profits, and share prices. In conclusion, the merger of InBev and SAB Miller, as it stands would create a domestic monopoly, impede competition, and create barriers of entry to the market. The only way the merger would be possible is if the FTC demands that one company divest a large portion of its domestic assets and enter into supply agreements that are not riddled with loopholes like the ones proposed during the InBev-Grupo Modelo debacle. As it stands, the merger violates several antitrust laws and is potential harm to American consumers. Conclusion: The merger of InBev and SAB Miller is an attempt to monopolize, thus violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The merger would also substantially lessen competition and lead to inefficacies in the market and violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act. IRAC #3 (TEST): NY DA Gun Ban Issue: Whether or not Nassau County District Attorney’s new policy, which bans its prosecutors from possessing a handgun without special exception, even at their home, is a violation of those prosecutors’ 2nd Amendment Rights and possible a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Rule: The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual American’s fundamental right to bear arms while the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment forbid the government from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Analysis: The policy put forth by the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office prohibits DAs and ADAs from possessing hand guns, even at home, and calls for termination for any employee that violates the policy. The compelling interest of the DA’s policy is that of its employee’s health and safety and the policy was established to avoid the dangers posed by armed DAs and ADAs working in high stress environments. Within recent years, Nassau County and the neighboring jurisdictions have witnessed a string of friendly fire tragedies resulting in loss of life. This policy, which was to take effect immediately, sought to mitigate those risks and tragedies by furthering the government’s compelling interest in the health and safety of its employees. Although the DA does have a compelling interest in this case, it does not seem to be furthering that interest in the least restrictive means possible. It has been firmly established that employers can dictate certain off duty activities. For example, the University was found justified in firing Crystal Dixon for her off-work hours actions. Citing freedom of speech, Dixon felt that her comments regarding homosexuals and civil rights occurred outside of her capacity as a university employee. However, the Sixth Court of Appeals ruled against Dixon, reasoning that the university’s interest in maintaining “efficient, effective operations” outweighed her right to Freedom of Speech and place a strain on employer-employee relations. In fact, it seems to be a trend that if the conduct occurs in a more public setting, and could be construed that the employee is representing their employer in some capacity, that the employee’s rights must be subordinated to the right of the employer. Therefore, there is some precedents that an employer, such as the Nassau County DA, could dictate and regulate an employee’s off-duty conduct. But the issue here with the policy is slightly different than any examples brought to trial. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that it is an individual’s constitutional right to keep loaded arms in their domiciles. The District Attorney’s office is forcing the employee to choose between a fundamental right and keeping their job. Therefore, the DA’s policy is violating their employees’ 2nd Amendment rights and, consequently, their 14th Amendment rights to due process by terminating the employees for choosing to exercise their right to bear arms. The 14th Amendment protects a person’s right to property and liberty and that the any governmental compelling interest must be balanced against those rights. In this case, the employees are not being afforded due process in remaining secure in the privacy of their homes or bearing arms. Furthermore, in Griswold v. Comnecticut, Justice Harry Blackmun located the right to privacy within the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause’s protection of liberty. He concluded that the liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct that was inconsistent with the Constitution’s concept of ordered liberty. Another related case was Stanley v. Georgia in which the right to privacy within the home was called into question. Although that case in particular dealt with an individual’s right to view pornography within their own home, the logic behind the ruling can be applied here. “Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one’s own home. If the first amendment means anything, it means the State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, that he cannot exercise that right.” It would stand to reason that this same idea and concept would also apply to the 2nd Amendment. Simply replace obscenity with gun ownership and 1st Amendment with the 2nd. What is left is the same, basic concept that the government should not be able to legislate how an individual exercises his basic rights granted through the Constitution within the confines of his own home, especially if the observation of that right does not influence employer-employee relations. If this is not enough to convince the current Nassau County’s DA to change the policy in a manner that would not violate employees’ basic rights in a less restrictive manner, then there is the New York Labor Code to consider. The New York Labor Code 201-d says that collection of handguns is considered a “lawful, leisure-time activity.” It goes on in subsection 2 to “prohibit employers from punishing employers for engaging in lawful off-duty activity on an employee’s own time and without use of company property of equipment.” Since the collection of handguns falls under a lawful off-duty activity and the Labor Code prohibits employers from terminating those employees who undertake such activities, the DA has essentially created a policy that also violates New York Labor Codes, furthering the fact that the individual’s right to bear arms at home outweighs the governmental compelling interest. In conclusion, the DA does have a compelling interest in the health and safety of its employees, but does not further that interest in the least restrictive means possible. In order to further its compelling interest without intruding on the basic rights of its employees, the DA should modify the policy to restrict the possession of handguns when fulfilling duties in a work capacity. It is also worth pointing out that the tragic instances in which the policy intends to mitigate has not involved a single employee of the DA’s office. However, the DA still has the ability to restrict constitutional rights that could directly affect employee-employer relations, especially at the work place. Conclusion: The Nassau County District Attorney’s new gun policy violates both the 2nd Amendment and the 14th Amendment and, as it turns out, the New York Labor Code. IRAC #4 (TEST): Texas Highway Project delayed by ESA Issue: The continuance of a Texas highway project, which could destroy the habitat of the Cucurina Venii, may violate Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Rule: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, called the “Interagency Cooperation”, is the mechanism utlilized by Federal Agencies to “ensure the actions they take (including those they fund/authorize) do not jeopardize the existence of any listed species. Analysis: Construction of a connection between Texas Highway 51 and Loop 1604 was stopped in 2012 due to the discovery of a small, very rare, blind spider known as the cave dwelling meshweaver. This is only the second time this spider, scientifically named Cucurina Venii, has been recorded and observed. The original project, which would have been completed in 2013, carried an estimated cost of roughly 15 million dollars; however, the halt in construction and possible plan alterations has tripled the costs to nearly 45 million dollars. However, this occurrence is not something new in Bexar County. Over the past decade the population surrounding San Antonio has more than doubled and with that population boom has come infrastructure expansion and development. Currently there are 28 endangered species in the area, 9 of which have been added within the last decade possibly as a result of commercial and residential development. In fact, development increased at such an alarming rate that the county enacted the Edward Aquifer Ordinance which limited the amount of water pumped from springs-the habitat for many of these endangered species. For many conservationists, this ordinance came too late as thousands of acres of habitat had already been destroyed by developers. Unfortunately for environmentalists and conservationists, the original capacity of the ESA has been slowly eroded since its creation in 1973. In 1982 Congress passed legislation that made it easier for development in the face of a protected species’ habitat. Known as an Incidental Take Permit, these permits excuse the bearers from any legal liability if a habitat is incidentally destroyed. The permit holder, for example, could not go out and hunt a California commodore, but if they knocked down a commuter’s nesting area while clearing a wooded area for a strip mall, they would not be prosecuted. Another section of this amendment to the ESA was the creation of Habitat Conservation Plans, or HCPs. These plans gave non-governmental, private landowners the ability to develop or alter the habitat of an endangered species as long as they attempted to minimize the damage or mitigated that damage. The HCPs also include a “No Surprise Rule”, which strips the Fish and Wildlife Service of power to protect any new discoveries of endangered species on land that has been granted an HCP. The halt of the Texas Highway 51 construction is just one of many past and future problems to come to Bexar County. The exceptions granted through HCPs and permits have only exacerbated listed species’ habitats while tying up tax payer money. The state could appeal to what is called “The God Squad”, which is an ESA empowered committee that can evaluate proposed projects and exempt those projects from ESA requirements only if the benefit of exemption outweighs the benefit of saving the species. However, “The God Squad” has a checkered, uncertain history in decision making and would only be a piecemeal solution in an area that is bound to have repeat, similar situations. Nevertheless, the San Antonio area is consistent with these piecemeal solutions when it comes to the booming development. In 2011, Cap Bullis became so crowded with golden-cheeked warblers that Army officials worried the situation would disrupt base operations. The solution was to purchase a 1,244 acre bird sanctuary for the listed birds. Again, in 2014, the city in collaboration with conservationist groups spend 20 million dollars to purchase land for the Mexican free-tail bat. All of these anecdotes underline the deeper situation that is brought to light by the meshweaver ordeal: the county needs to come up with a solution that can benefit the people while maintaining its ethical and legal duty to preserve its natural resources and wildlife. Since this does not appear to be a violation of Section 7 of the ESA due to the subsequent legislation, the county must now come up a viable solution for the future. Developers and critics of stringent ESA regulations would say that impediment of progress because of single spider is injudicious and a disservice. Conservationists and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service would say that quick develop without careful assessment is impetuous and a danger to our future. I propose that the two utilize the laws already in place and move forward effectively by following some of the models already in place in neighboring areas. By following the HCP used by Austin, Bexar County can move away from the slow, piecemeal approach and began to accommodate both sides. The USFWS claims that many developers at the moment do not complete the required Environmental Impact Studies, obtain permits, or provide mitigation for damage done. According to Adam Zerrenner, the field supervisor from the USFWS for the Highway 51 project, many developers will clear land prior to complying with the law or obtaining a permit. This is exactly what happened in the meshweaver case. However, these cases are hard to prosecute because the land has already been destroyed. The developers find it easier to proceed and simply settle out of court-costing the taxpayers more and harming listed species’ habitats. The HCP being used by Austin would diminish the instances like the meshweaver case and provide a new means of dealing with possible ESA violations. The USFWS would grant a permit to San Antonio and Bexar County for the covered habitat areas, then allow those entities to process projects and arrange mitigation. The legal work of filing for a permit would already be complete, lowering the costs and time needed to complete projects that run into a possible endangered species. The developers would respond to these more cost effective methods and be more apt to comply with laws and permit requirements. (This has been the case in Austin) Developers have also been more prone to construct around habitats using less invasive means. In this case, the construction crews could build an overpass and pay for mitigation while still being more cost effective than waiting over 3 years to begin a project. Although the meshweaver case did not violate Section 7 of the ESA, it would behoove the county to mimic the HCPs of other counties and protect and benefit both its citizens and the endangered species and habits within its borders. Conclusion: The construction of Highway 51 and Loop 1604 was halted and did not violate Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, Bexar County could mitigate future problems by following some of guidelines already in place in Austin.