I was fortunate this year to get time in the Lakers locker room and interview room during the season and through the Finals. When talking coaching philosophy, Jackson quotes Wooden and talks about him a fair amount. First, about in an ideal world doing your coaching during the practices and preparing the guys for the games, then during the games letting them find their way. As you mentioned Nestor, it’s that same calmness that the work of a coach is done in preparing a team, not trying to over-control them on the court. He used Woodenism like “be quick don’t hurry” now and again.

However, when asked directly if he got his timeout strategy (or lack of calling them) from Wooden he said no. I think that is true in the sense he didn’t take that from Wooden directly but reached the same conclusions as to why not to call timeouts on his own.

I understand that Einstein had a few problems with his relatiivity theory, which he solved by adding to it the “universal constant.” That’s the way Coach seemed to be to me. I know the popular theory is that Coach never called a time out, but I can’t attest to that. I just don’t recall one way or another. I do recall specifically a time out in Harmon Gym. The game was close, and a time out was called. I was sitting right behind our bench, and I remember Sidney Wicks sprinting back to the bench so he wouldn’t miss anything Coach said. I couldn’t hear, but it was clear that Coach was coaching. Those championships didn’t just happen, and we didn’t always have the dominant player(s). But we had the Universal Constant – the stabilizing and guiding hand through it all.

I can’t offer any similarities between Coach and Jackson, because I don’t really follow the Lakers. I saw a few minutes of the finals, and the guy for Orlando seemed to be a little more excited (and on camera a lot more) than Jackson.

I really don’t think you can compare the two. I don’t think we would have won all those championships with Phil Jackson as our coach. And I don’t think Coach would have won this year’s championship if he had been coaching the Lakers. After all, he’s almost 100, and probably wouldn’t have been able to handle all the travel (or all the tattoos.)

I was a UCLA CHEERLEADER for the 1968/69 and 1969/70 seasons, so I saw all the games of the team those 2 seasons. COACH WOODEN was very verbal when he needed to be, with his players and with the refs…i sat on the floor at PAULEY directly across from where the team sits and was in a GREAT position to see all…i guess in thinking back COACH WOODEN and COACH JACKSON are somewhat the same, and not only because they both have so many championships to their name…their coaching of the players both includes life coaching, as a way of teaching them more about the game…as well as in-game coaching…

I was at every single home game in the 67-68, 68-69, and 69-70 seasons. I recall that he only called a timeout first in one game, and he didn’t seem happy about it. Admittedly, my memory could be hazy on that. Most often, the opposing coach called the first timeout because he had to. Wooden had the luxury of rarely having to. He always had his rolled up program, which he twisted and seemed to take his angst out on, but his demeanor seemed constant to me. He seemed at peace, as if winning wasn’t the reason he was there. But when he was talking to his players (sometimes firmly and even heatedly), he expected them to listen and be engaged. Somehow, I don’t think he would have put up with Jrue Holiday chewing gum and looking around distractedly. A couple of times I saw him get royally pissed, but those occasions were extremely rare. Even 40 years ago, before his reputation was fully burnished, he had a charisma and a way about him that made him seem like a star. Phil Jackson seems like a completely different kind of guy to me, though I don’t watch much NBA basketball.

I watched almost every single UCLA games since 1960 when we had the great Walt Torrence. I think both coaches are very different. Coach Wooden is very verbal and Jackson is not. When it comes to strategies, Coach Wooden is a genius. He knew when to play man to man or zone. He knew the capability of every single player and design the style of play accordingly. I don’t know how many times Coach Wooden outsmart his opposing coaches. He did show emotion but alway under control ( maybe except one or two times in his entire tenure). Coach Jackson is in a somewhat different condition. He is more subdue and his players know their roles. I think his biggest asset is that he makes his players know he is the boss and they respect him. On the other hand, Coach Wooden is a teacher, whether the players are on the court or off the court. The only similarity between the two of them is both are respectable by their players.

for both of them. LA has 14 titles between them and counting. See y’all at the parade tomorrow!

I only check the Nation in the a.m., and I had a busy day, so forgive me for this late entry. But it’s about one of my favorite subjects—Coach—and so I have to pipe up. The most interesting comparison between Coach and Phil Jackson is their ability to win with different types of teams. Jackson is somehwat constrained by the peculiarities of the NBA game, with its endless timeouts and rugby scrums under the basket. But he won at Chicago with an all-time guard, an excellent forward, and one other solid shooting guard (Paxson and then Kerr). He won with the Lakers with an all-time center and a young and immensely talented guard—and then again this year with that young guard having developed into into a hall-of-famer and surrounded by a cast of complementary players. Wooden won with a small team (64,65), a big team (67-69, 72,73), a medium-sized team (70-71), and a grab bag (75).

As to demeanor, Coach always appeared to be quiet, but he was always on top of his players and the refs. Phil, too, gets out of his zen zone when there’s a bad series of plays or, as seemed common during the playoffs, bad calls against the Lakers. As has been pointed out, Wooden hated to call the first timeout. After that, it was as necessary. His players were the best conditioned in the country—I was privileged to watch his drills on occasion—and he knew that they would run the pants off any opponent at some point. I also had the privilege to interview Coach on several occasions, and he was the most gracious subject imaginable. Jackson seems to be that way, though I have no personal experience with him, and if he can survive the moronic TJ Simers, he must have special gifts. Coach never had that kind of press. College basketball was simply not as big and contentious as it’s become in the era of the 64-team tourneys, Nike and Adidas high school teams, and ESPN. Being on the West Coast, he was isolated from the major media, which is why the 64 championship was such a surprise to the national press and why Bill Bradley won MOP in the 65 tournament rather than the more deserving Gail Goodrich.

Most of all, though, Coach’s Bruins were always prepared. Failing to prepare is preparing to fail, as the Big Redhead always quotes. There’s never been a coach like Wooden, and there’ll never be another.

I agree completely with the comment above that Coach Wooden and Phil Jackson have both demonstrated a great ability to win with different mixes of players.

However, one huge difference between Coach and any pro coach (including Phil Jackson) is that Coach never had a player for more than 3 years. Phil Jackson had the luxury of having Michael Jordan as the focal point for every year of the Bulls’ championship run.

Coach had Hazzard and Goodrich, then he modified his approach with Lewis Kareem and crew, then had to modify again with the focal point being Rowe and Wicks, then again with Walton and crew, and finally with the final 75 team.

Both Coach and Phil Jackson are masters of sticking to fundamentals. But to pound the triangle offense with the same focal point for 6 seasons has got to be a different task than having a complete turnover of personnel every 3 years.

This is not meant to take away anything from Phil Jackson. He is a great pro coach. But Coach stands alone.

Both coaches have similar on court behavior. I was a kid during Coaches reign but I saw all the televised games on KTLA channel 5, even the 11:00pm rebroadcasted games. What I remember so vividly is Coach sitting crossed legged during the game, holding his roll, occasionally tapping it to his chin, no arrogance, but very confident. At times, and I say this very carefully, he even looked bored. Phil shows this behavior but is a little more excitable than what Coach was, and I’ve even noticed the “bored” look on Phil too. I don’t know if “bored” is the right word, but it’s the best I can come up with.