Ms. Ellison’s book is an interesting one, from the sheer fact that it tries to tackle head-on Kentucky’s past, exposing the scandals, corruption and deceit which has occurred during the course of more than 100 years. It is true that quite a few of the issues and information Boles brings up have not generally been reported in the [relatively vast] literature which has been published on the most successful college basketball program in history. It also no doubt took courage for Ellison to examine more recent events and to force the powers that be to divulge this information.
However, despite the courage and despite the years she spent researching and writing the book, it doesn’t make it an extremely reliable one, nor one which should be considered objective. Ellison’s tone and assumptions about distant people and their motivations strain any credibility the book might otherwise deserve. According to her, anyone and everyone who was ever associated with UK athletics automatically joins the “good old boys,” a undefined and apparently timeless network of morally corrupt people she refers to throughout the text who, according to her, do nothing but drink, gamble, swear and spend their time trying to cheat and swindle money from the University, break amateur regulations and otherwise undermine academic progress at the University.
One example is her characterization of John J. Tigert, who was a distinguished graduate of Vanderbilt, a Rhodes Scholar, chair of Philosophy at UK, Commissioner of Education for the Harding and Coolidge administrations, President of the University of Florida where he played the key role in expanding the university while strengthening the academics and research and also helped plan India’s system of higher education. Despite these seemingly impressive academic credentials, Ellison lumps him in as just another of the “good old boys.” Tigert assumed athletic director and coaching responsibilities in the teens for the UK men’s basketball team (and later women’s basketball team) when the head coach abruptly quit.
This type of characterization of those associated with UK athletics is repeated time and again in the book. In lieu of facts, she often intersperses her own personal commentary and assumptions. Items such as “I suspect …” or “I’ve always felt…” are randomly interspersed throughout the text. That’s not to say that the criticism Ellison dishes out isn’t on-target or deserved, I’m sure a lot of it is, however Ellison is apparently not objective enough to discern either way and unwilling to back up her assertions with hard facts. Her penchant for casting everything related to those associated with UK in a negative manner makes it virtually impossible for the reader to determine what is valid and what is not, and ultimately to take much of it seriously.
Her broad characterizations don’t just pertain to individuals, but is used to broadly sweep events also. Her characterization of the development of Kentucky sporting life up until the late 1800’s is “With no Indians to be chased, Kentuckians looked for another avenue of action and a way to settle their arguments.” Ellison also fails to put the athletics program into proper perspective. While today it is a multi-million dollar enterprise, that was certainly not always the case. More often than not, the early sports teams played to a handful of spectators, little to no media coverage, a shoe-string budget and no scholarships. I would liken it to “club” status at Universities today. Yet Ellison’s portrayal of people associated with UK athletics as being in some sort of grand scheme to become outrageously wealthy and powerful through UK athletics, whether it appears realistic for the time or not. Whether she’s discussing the 1990’s or the 1890’s, it’s of little consequence in Ellison’s portrayal of sports at Kentucky as a powerful negative force.
In terms of accuracy and knowledge of the subject, Ellison often misses in a lot of places and exposes her own shaky knowledge of the topics at hand. For example, she claims Central University was in Richmond in 1913, when the university had moved to Danville the decade previous. She boldly claims that UK’s all-time record is incorrect, because she ‘discovered’ that UK had an exhibition game which wasn’t counted. Any casual fan knows that exhibition games aren’t counted in all-time results. She apparently didn’t realize that Helms titles prior to the early 1940’s were awarded retroactively etc.
Her characterization of the 1913 Arson Scandal is a complete mess. In typical fashion, she paints the situation in the worst possible light, glossing over many key details and freely interspersing her own prejudices into the motivations and habits of the main characters, all of whom are long since deceased. Instead of trying to understand why people may have acted the way they did given the circumstances, Ellison assumes the worst about people she couldn’t possibly have known and then moves on to throw mud on the next person.
Perhaps more revealing is that much of what Ellison discusses in the early part of her book was covered much more thoroughly and more objectively by Gregory Kent Stanley, who received a PhD in history from UK (the very same program Ellison was in) and published “Before Big Blue” many years before Ellison’s book came out. Only with the aid of Stanley’s book can much of Ellison’s casual, slanted and spotty portrayal of early events make any sense. Amazingly, Stanley’s book isn’t mentioned once in Ellison’s extensive references or bibliography.
Given the poor job Ellison did concerning the early years of UK, one has to wonder how valid her portrayal of later years are. Which is a shame, since as mentioned, a lot of the more recent information and situations detailed in the book are simply not found anywhere else to date.
