Jay, here.
Over the past forty-eight hours, the University of Oregon’s Athletics Department has been blitzed by the media concerning the relationship between the University and Phil Knight, highlighting the tension between athletics and academics.
In The Register-Guard on Saturday, there were two stories concerning gifts made to the university by Mr. Knight. “UO agrees to donor’s strict guidelines for athletic center” addresses the strings attached to the construction, donation, and operation of the new Academic Learning Center for Student Athletes. And “Rules changed after prior UO project caught officials by surprise” details the new rules for major work on university property instituted after the 2006 Casanova Center remodeling project.
On Sunday morning, ESPN profiled the influence of Mr. Knight on the university on “Outside the Lines”.
The end of one of The Register-Guard’s articles sums up this conflict pretty well. Terry Ruprecht, campus academic facilities officer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said this:
“It rankles me to no end that somehow athletics manages to bring in these wealthy donors that build these palaces for the athletics folks,” Illinois’ Ruprecht said. “We’ve got huge portions of this institution going wanting, and yet the athletics people get all this money. It really is aggravating.”
Ruprecht’s comments have me asking two questions. Well, there is a third one. But I’ll save that one for later.
1. Is the University of Oregon better or worse off because of Phil and Penny Knight’s donations?
2. If Phil and Penny Knight could not make donations to the University of Oregon Athletics Department, would those donations go towards academic programs?
They’re simple questions.
You might want to complicate the answers. But there’s no need to. There are very simple, easy, and right answers. Don’t over-think these questions.
Let’s look at the first question. The correct answer is that the University of Oregon is better off because of the Knights’ gifts. If you don’t think it is (You’re kidding, right?), try to imagine the University of Oregon experience without those donations? Not pretty.
Now, onto the second question. And I love this question. I’ve known several people to pose this question to academic-types at the university and they’ve gotten it wrong every single time.
I’ve got two dollars I want to donate to the University of Oregon Athletics Department. But University of Oregon faculty members want to curb athletics excess. In their infinite wisdom, the university adopts a rule that donors can only donate one dollar to athletics and one dollar to academics. I donate my dollar to athletics, but I’ve still got an extra dollar that I intended to donate to the university and the Athletics Department. Since I can’t donate any more to athletics, am I going to donate that remaining dollar to an academic program on campus? The answer is…No. If I wanted to donate to an academic program, I would have donated to an academic program at the very beginning. Just because I don’t, or can’t, donate to athletics, does not mean that I will donate to academic programs.
So, this leads me to back to Mr. Ruprecht’s comments:
“It rankles me to no end that somehow athletics manages to bring in these wealthy donors that build these palaces for the athletics folks…”
In that “rankling”, it seems to me that faculty at the University of Oregon would prefer donors not donate to athletics if those donations are not at least equaled in their giving to academic programs. Basically, if they can’t get those donor dollars, they don’t want anyone getting them.
And that has me asking my third, and final, question.
3. Why is the percentage of athletic donations increasing in relation to colleges’ overall donations?
Oregon faculty, it seems to me that’s a you problem, not an athletics department problem. And instead of blitzing each other, you might want to remember that you play for the same team.
Tags: Donations, espn, Phil Knight, University of Oregon
Morgan Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Making money usually requires an aggressive, competitive nature from my experience. Some people come from old money, but those people don’t usually attend public schools. Some people invent something cool and then sit on their asses, bully for them. Some people win lotteries. But the vast majority of extremely rich people come from the first group.
Given the competitive drive of those people, how could it come as any shock that when they follow sports, they want their team to win and are willing to spend money to make it happen? Some of them buy sports teams even. Phil Knight could, if he wanted, several times over.
If you really want money for academics, why don’t you appeal to the competitive nature of these people? Let’s see, US News and World Report has ranked Oregon as the 82nd best law school in the US…that’s a pretty damn weak RPI if you ask me. No post-season accolades there. The best and brightest lawyers in the land are not (typically) going to Oregon.
I’m an Oregon honors college graduate. When I show people my resume, I don’t think ‘University of Oregon’ jumps out at people much. I don’t get any “wow”s or “ahhh”s. When compared to a UW grad, I’d bet I don’t get a similar amount of credit. Perhaps it’s not a significant difference, but does it bother me? Hell yeah. I don’t just want to beat down Huskies on the gridiron. And I want to be respected for the hundreds and hundreds of hours I spent in Knight’s library NOT watching football.
If I had a great deal of money and someone from the UofO told me I should give my money to them for smaller class sizes, better pay for professors, or painting dorm rooms, yeah, it’s noble, fine, maybe I will write the check. Come to me and tell me that my money will vault our Anthropology graduate program into the top 10 nationally, a full 20 places higher than UCLA’s - guess what? I’m intrigued, despite never taking a [fill-in-the-blank]-ology class in my life. Where’s my check book?
Do academics compete with athletics for donor dollars? Hell yeah. So compete, and win. Hire your own Bartko. Take aim at other colleges and hire their best away from them…bet if you were luring the best Comparative Religions professor in the country to come to the U of O and you asked for money to make it happen, you would get it. We all want U of O to be the best, no matter the measure.
Treston Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
People who feel that they are entitled to money, just because others are getting it, are never going to get that side of the argument.
Jay Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Morgan -
Your Honors College education has served you well. You’re spot on.
RW and I were just talking about this. What’s the difference between the donor who is a sports fan and the donor who is an academic supporter (mind you, they are not mutually exclusive)?
As you point out, Morgan, I think competitiveness is one of those qualities. But I also think that Oregon breeds different levels of loyalty throughout the campus. And, for whatever reason, athletics seems to engender more loyalty that results in action (in the form of donations) than the academic parts of campus.
Jay
DSN
Jay Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Treston -
You’re exactly right. The academics and faculty feel entitled to the Athletics Department’s donations.
Bottom-line, they are jealous. And instead of acting like adults, they want to act like children. If they can’t have nice toys, they don’t want anyone else to have them, either.
Jay
DSN
Dane Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Oregon’s success in athletics has translated into greater demand for admission. Any economics professor should be able to understand that an increase in demand for a product is never a bad thing. Oregon is a better academic institution for that very reason, and the trend could continue.
Athletic donations may not benefit the academic side directly, but they’re certainly gaining a lot of indirect benefits. Stifling donations would come back to bite the whole school in the butt.
Jay Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Dane -
You make perfect sense. And your point has been backed with research (”The Flutie Effect”). But I’m afraid the conflict between academic and athletics donations has very little to do with those kind of “sense”.
That’s why I’m in agreement with Treston that I don’t think the tension between academic and athletics donations is rational. I think it comes down to one side feeling entitled and jealous of the other side’s “cents”.
Jay
DSN
Joe Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
First and foremost as an Oregonian and Duck through and through, I’d like to point out that my Bachelor of Arts Degree in Geography from the College of Arts and Sciences played a role in me landing a Geospatial Technician job with a defense contractor. However my degree and alma mater wasn’t the deal maker or breaker when I found my job. Call me naïve, but the only public universities nationwide that I associate with high value “Ivy League-like” undergraduate education are Cal-Berkeley, the University of Texas-Austin, Michigan, UVa, and UNC-Chapel Hill. Other than the aforementioned, I personally think people put way to much stock in the “name value” of a college or university. We could debate this ad infinitum and not come to a consensus. GO DUCKS!!!
Jacques Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
All of you have hit the nail right on the head! In that interview with ESPN they try to make it sound like it’s a bad thing that knight and kilkenny are so involved with the athletic department’s major descisions. They forgot to mention that Pat has donated his whole salary for two years back to the school! I would challenge ESPN or anybody to find another AD that is that sincere about the direction and foundation of there respective university. Trying to question a self-made millionaire about his qualifications is as pathetic as it gets! How is Phil Knights donations controling the athletic department? All I see is an all positive situation with such a strong booster as phil is. How else do you get the big recruits to come to such a freak’n cold and small venue as Orygun.
Hank Hosfield Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I’ve heard that athletic donations do not take away from academic giving. In fact, both are increasing, AND much MORE IS GOING TO ACADEMICS. Furthermore, the success of the athletic department has done nothing but promote all aspects of the UO.
Morgan made an interesting point about the prestige of his UO degree. School rankings are tabulated by including factors like faculty salaries. So higher academic giving that would create larger endowments and higher staff pay would, in fact, raise the UO’s national standing–regardless of whether or not the actual instruction improved. So if Morgan truly cares about the prestige of his degree, he might want to consider giving more money to academics.
Are academics jealous and resentful of athletics? Absolutely. Is this justified? Maybe, in so much as academics is still struggling to meet their basic needs, and athletics is swimming in wretched excess. They have reason to ask if priorities aren’t misplaced.
Then again, academics is also playing their own game of keeping up with the Joneses. They’re equally desirous of having bragging rights about flashy new facilities and high-profile faculty. I just read about Cal’s $1.1 billion slush fund dedicated to match and/or better all competitive bids to steal away their noted professors.
As for Oregon, and the ESPN report, I think someone ought to disabuse Knight and Frohnmayer of their fallacious notions about Knight’s lack of controlling interest in all things Ducky. There isn’t a decision of consequence made in the UO Athletic Department without consideration of what Phil thinks. Both pretend this isn’t the case, because they both understand how improper this relationship has become. Luckily for Oregon, almost everything that Knight has wanted to do has been very good for the university. Hiring Kilkenny, someone who has no business running a college athletic department, appears to be a rare exception. He seems more adept at putting together deals than
understanding the role of college athletics. He knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Should donors be able to exert this kind of control over public university programs? Philosophically, I’m opposed to it. But I also recognize how it often has worked out in Oregon’s favor as less competent UO officials were pushed to do better work by guys like Knight and Kilkenny.
Lastly, I suppose it depends greatly upon what circles one travels in, but I’ve heard a lot of UO alumni who are more than a little embarrassed about the way the UO bent the rules to hire Kilkenny. I think this ESPN feature will only add to their shame.
Jacques Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I still don’t understand why it’s so bad to communicate with phil when making decisions on how to spend the money and athletic department employment decisions?? I’m sorry but if I’m donating the amounts that Phil does then he deserves the respect of communication at the least! Why is that considered a negative when all he wants is the best for the Ducks! How is that an unhealthy way to run a athletic department? If he had a reputation of a Don King then I would be concerned. As much as I know Pat is in the “athletic dept” it’s still pretty much a position for a savvy businessman. At least if you want to compete and continue to evolve. You can say what you want about the hiring of Pat but the bottom line is in the short time he’s been in his position he’s done more great things then anyone before him! Alot of the times when you are agressive like he is your gonna ruffle some feathers along the way and those same people will try to find any excuse to belittle that person and the positive things there doing. The great thing is Pat doesn’t have to care what people think because he’s not relying on this employment so that takes away all the stress.
Bottom line Phil and Pat are two “big time heavy hitters” that we should all be very lucky to have for whatever length of time!!!
Hank Hosfield Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 1:09 am
To generally address your question, Jacques, as to what might be bad about giving policy-making power to mega-boosters (never mind, hiring them to do jobs that they have no training or experience doing), I think the first reservation may be the impropriety of letting the oligarchy turn public universities into their personal playgrounds. Secondly, policies that guard against such relationships are designed to protect us in the event of worst-case scenarios. Phil Knight seems like the best sort of donor, with the best intentions, but what about someone else? Lastly, in the marketplace of ideas, one would hope that decision makers choose those of greatest merit, not those that are sponsored by the fattest wallet.
As for the hiring of Kilkenny, it is manifestly indefensible. I’m better than most at arguing both sides of an issue, but I’d hate to have to defend Frohnmayer’s position. His own vouching for Kilkenny bespeaks more about Frohnmayer’s surprising capacity for rationalization and cronyism than it does for Kilkenny’s fitness.
The UO Athletic Department is not a business. There are business aspects to it, but unlike business which exists to generate profit, college athletics primarily exist to generate better people. Furthermore, the entire venture is a public trust. It is not some professional sports franchise. The UO Athletic Department is supposed to guided by the educational mission of the university.
Brian Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
If Kilkenny is so great, why does he turn down a 2.7 million dollar donation that grows every day? He has been quoted as saying “we can’t be all things to all people” He is referring to the wrestling team he has taken a crap on. Oregon prides themeselves on being creative, and forward thinking. Cutting teams is not creative. It’s backward thinking. This team has donors who are willing to pay the cost to run the program. Oregon athletic department loses nothing, and in return creates more opportunities for Oregon high school athletes. Kilkenny doesn’t want that. There is no logic there.
Jacques Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Hank I can see some of your points but the reality of college athletics in this day and age is that it is no longer just about making a person better but mainly it’s about the almighty dollar! Case in point: How much does Bellotti make yearly compared to a professor? I’m not saying it’s right but it’s the reality of “major” college sports! Yes, along the way we all hope those athletes become better people because of there college experience. We are just fooling ourselves if we still think college sports are guided by the educational mission of the university. It’s just not reality for any major university. Once again I didn’t say it’s right but it’s the reality of the situation! Not just at Oregon either, everywhere. Rather then trying to push the evolution of that “business” away, why not be the best at it! That is why I think Pat is doing a great job!
To address Brian’s comments: I thought that 2.7 million was a one shot deal that people had donated all together? If that’s true, wow do it! Don’t blame the departure of the wrestling program on Pat. He’s not the one who hired the worst wrestling coach in division 1 history(Chuck Kerney)!! When Moos hired Chucky as the coach he showed how much he really cared about the wrestling program(none what so ever)!! Did you know Moos turned down “three” olympic gold medalist for the job for someone who “placed” in nationals!!! Those other three candidates are legendary in the wrestling community and just with them there would’ve attracted “huge” recruits!! We wouldn’t even be having this discussion on why the program is gone!
Brian Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I know Tom Brands Olympic champion and current Iowa coach interviewed for the Oregon job. Iowa just won the NCAA title this year. His second year there. I will never figure out why Oregon didn’t pick him up. College coaches get fired all the time. A friend of mine coaches a small college football team in Montana. He once told me there are two kinds of coaches. Those that have been fired, and those who will be fired. You don’t fire the program and the athletes, you fire the coach. There are still a lot of good coaches out there with huge credentials. It’s never too late to turn a program around. Look at Oregon and Oregon State. Both good at football now. Should they have canned the programs back in the day when they were terrible? No, you make changes with the coach. Don’t penalize the athlete. Missouri was terrible in wrestling for years, now they are a national power. One good coach made all the difference.
Jacques Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Brian is agree with your comments whole heartily! Just like the baseball program, the wrestling program can still make a comeback. I wrestled in highschool and college but I wasn’t shocked to see what happened to that program. Not because of his performance as a coach but because they hired him in the first place! Even in football, you usually don’t set yourself up for failure like Moos did with that hire!
Brian Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
So the question remains. Why doesn’t Kilkenny allow wrestling to continue? They did have a national champion two years ago. There are a lot of good young coaches who would love the challenge of coaching for Oregon. It’s a sweet gig.
Brian Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
If Oregon wanted to be a big time athletic department, they should model Ohio State. This university offers 37 varsity sports. They can be all things to all people. They think, and dream big. http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/ Oregon thinks small. Dropping teams because you think they are unfashionable is the sign of ignorance. Create opportunities. Build programs, not eliminate them. Create new programs, and honor the tradition of your old programs. Be all things to all people. Kilkenny says they can’t be all things to all people. Why not?
Hank Hosfield Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Regarding the big business reality of college sports, the revenue generating sports have assumed the responsibility for funding the greater athletic programs at D-1 schools nationwide. But the essential question remains as to why college athletics should exist at all? I say, if it is not for the benefit of the athletes, then the whole effort is misguided. To spend this much to run quasi-professional sorts for the benefit of fans and TV seems a bit a travesty.
I believe college athletics do exist to further enhance the development of the individual–and this philosophy is shared by many hundreds of colleges across the country.
But if that is no longer the case, let’s scrap the whole mess. We put up with the compromises and the unseemliness of this big business aspect of college sports because they are allegedly
paying for broader programs that we believe have merit. But if we truly don’t care about non-revenue sports or the greater educational mission, why bother?
Jacques Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Hank I understand your point and agree with you if it was possible to go backwards. My point is. It is what it is, why not make the best of it and enjoy the positives that come out of it and quit focusing on the negatives. I understand in general you don’t want boosters running your program but there should always be acceptions when they’ve proven time and time again they have the best interest of the programs involved. The cup is half full not half empty!! I don’t want to hear that someone is just being realistic! It’s half full!! Until we get burned we should ride this wave to the end!
It is a travesty that it has become that way but once again, the sports are not going away anytime soon so lets enjoy the little bit of purity that is still in tact.
Division 1 sports should exist because it’s a way to bridge the gap between different walks of life to one common interest and become a bigger family. It sounds like nothing but if you ever go tail-gating before a game you would see that if it wasn’t for the “excuse” of the game alot of those people would never talk to each other. I know it’s easy to say that has nothing to do with the bigger picture but I just wanted add that side note.
Hank Hosfield Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 12:26 am
So you agree that big-time college athletics have become a travesty, but believe there is no going back, so why not make the best of it; is this your position, Jacques? If not, please set me straight. In the meantime, let’s explore this notion—which may very well be the majority view. Indeed, why not make the best of it? If rape is inevitable, why not lay back and enjoy it? Would this be your philosophy, Jacques?
First, let’s look at the assumption that there is no going back. Is such corruption inevitable? It seems to me that this big business of college sports is here to stay only so long as people such as us pay the increasingly-expensive freight. Furthermore, this assumption denies our capacity to control our own institutions. True leadership is certainly in short supply these days; rarer still are idealism, courage and personal sacrifice. But this may change. We are on the cusp of electing a new president who hopes to inspire such things. So maybe fundamental change is not an impossible dream. Who says we can’t clean house?
Secondly, if you believe big-time college athletics are a travesty, why would you choose to let it be so? I think it was Edmund Burke who said: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
As for embracing the new leadership of Pat Kilkenny, a bottom-line business guy whose love of traditional values extends no further than to what can be bought and sold, I’m less bullish.
On the positive tip, in addition to his considerable largesse, he did reinstate baseball, reinvigorate construction of the new arena, bankroll a new baseball facility, pave the way for Phil’s $100 million endowment and sign a media contract worth as much as $67 million to the UO over the next ten years. He also hired a top baseball coach, restructured Ernie’s contract for a cheaper buyout, and brought in competitive cheer. Plus, he found another $900K a year for Bellotti. I really can’t give him credit for the Olympic Trials. That was Vin’s deal.
How can anyone argue with such a slate of accomplishment?
Well, for starters, I‘ve got to take issue with all of the fudging of the projected revenue numbers for the new arena. That monster could be a money loser for the UO for a long time. To balance the books, they are going to nearly triple the cost of season tickets and charge huge construction fees for seat rights. I don’t know if Pat’s noticed, but the US dollar ain’t quite what it used to be, and the economy is going into a funk. A lot of the swells that have been paying top dollar for seats at Mac Court are already reaching their pain thresholds. I’ve heard that DAF donations are virtually maxed out. How much more does he think fans are willing to fork over for sports entertainment that they can see for free almost nightly on ESPN, without driving to Eugene on a weeknight in the dead of winter? Then again, it’s the Oregon taxpayers who are on the line for this deal.
Kilkenny similarly took fictitious liberties with the revenue projections for baseball. He sold baseball as a revenue positive venture, but the truth is it will lose way more money than the sport it replaced–maybe a million more per year. No college baseball program makes money, not even LSU or Mississippi State.
Then there’s the new baseball stadium slated to go in where 400 football parking donor spaces used to be. Because there are fewer spaces to go around in the old Autzen parking lot, fans will have to pay more for the right to have one. How much more? Motorhome spaces will now cost $5000 a year! (I think that great melting pot that was the tailgating scene is about to become a much more exclusive neighborhood.) I hear many loyal Oregon supporters are not taking this news well.
Don’t worry, Kilkenny is confident we’ll get good use out of that baseball facility—or at least his San Diego pal, Kevin Towers will enjoy moving a Padres minor league team in there for the summer. The Padres thank all UO donors for their generosity.
Baseball is replacing wrestling. Oregon is a hotbed for high school wrestling. Oregon has a rich wrestling tradition. The wrestling team has traditionally filled its roster with a high percentage of in-state athletes—the highest by far among all UO teams. It also boasts the second highest graduation rate and has always contended for the top GPA. College baseball teams are traditionally weak in these things. In fact, the way scholarships are penalized for poor academic progress toward degree and dropouts, baseball could be a liability where wrestling was strong.
Kilkenny didn’t know anything about wrestling before he terminated it with extreme prejudice. I know that some tried to point out to him how well it matched the educational mission of the university and cost very little to have, but he believed it would never pay for itself. He’s spent the last few months denying the strength of the support of those raising millions to save Oregon wrestling, and remains determined to turn down wrestling’s offer to endow their sport and pay to build a new wrestling facility.
Wrestling people are livid. Not just in Oregon. Nationwide. Few Oregon fans are happy to see wrestling scuttled like this. Most don’t yet know how needless and poorly considered the decision to drop wrestling is, but they’re finding out. And they’re shaking their heads. It’s another bad PR nightmare.
Which brings me to my main complaints about Kilkenny. He has no appreciation for the intrinsic values of the programs he’s running. (One can hardly imagine the amount of cynicism involved in choosing to add competitive cheer. In fact, that’s so pathetic I’m erasing it from the accomplishment slate and adding it to the complaints.) He’s all about raising the national profile of the UO, but his very improper hiring has done more to undercut Oregon’s reputation in the national spotlight. Oregon is seen as more arrogant, more eager to buy success, and more embracing of style over substance. It’s the one area where Kilkenny and the Nike-driven UO marketing sports machine are supposed to be so savvy, yet are making more enemies than friends. We are becoming a national laughingstock. In state, we’re losing the popularity poll (and bragging rights) to our rival.
(However, we are recruiting a different class of football players—the kind that don’t cut it in the classroom and are pulling such low academic progress rate (921 APR) scores, that football is in danger of forfeiting scholarships.)
It feels like we’re losing something more than our good name. Maybe it’s just our innocence. But what does it profit you if you gain the whole world but lose your soul?
I used to be proud of what Oregon stood for. Guys like Pre and Bowerman were all about doing right by athletes. They were men of principle and integrity. It was the Oregon Way. Those were better days.
Is our cup half full? Oh yeah. But I don’t much like the taste of it.
Jacques Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 9:02 am
First of all the wrestling would be still intact if they didn’t hire the “worse” coach in history(chuck kerney)!! They might recruit local talented wrestlers but what have they accomplished as a team in decades?? Nothing!!! The best they’ve placed is third in the pac 10!! So is that a smart road to keep going down?? Your trying to tell me that baseball would lose more money then wrestling? There is no way that is true as long as your serious about supporting that sport! I think oregon has proved that there serious with the coach that they hired! Let me get this straight, your happier w/ wrestling because it supports local athletes then a more national past time sport like baseball?? You need to think again about what is more popular and potentially a positive! Once again like I told the other guy, I wrestled in college and I’m saying go with baseball because moos started the downward spiral of the wrestling program when he hired chuckey! If your trying to educate me about wrestling your barking up the wrong tree buddy!! If anything I should be calling you out about this and asking your personal experience with the wrestling team to merit your opinion compared to mine!!
Also your comparing rape to college sports?? Wow!!!! All I’m saying is that moos was stalling and kilkenny is acting!! There will always be some negatives but overall it’s a huge positive! My position is that the sports have always been corrupt but I just admit it, but enjoy the little bit of pure performance as I can. Unlike you I can speak from “personal” experience that it has always been this way but your just in denial and or your living in a pipe dream that it’s all pat’s fault and it’s a conspiracy against the traditions that have been going on for decades! If you believe that you obviously have not actually been around a true d-1 athletic program! You must be one of those guys that goes off of here say! Well… Whatever gets you through the night big guy!!
Brian Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I wrestled in college. Div 1 and on scholarship. I find it hard to believe that any former college wrestler supports Kilkenny, and his decision. Wrestling people are like family, and we are supposed to stick together. As I said before, fire the coach, not the program. We are not against baseball. The truth is baseball will lose much more money than wrestling ever did. Now the wrestling community is offering the university a sport that will not cost them a dime, and they say no.
Hank Hosfield Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Strangely enough, Jacques, I’m actually glad to see baseball reinstated. But I don’t harbor any illusions that it will be anything more than a huge money loser. The math is daunting. Wrestling cost the UO about $650K a year. (I think it was $629K last year.) Baseball coaches’ salaries alone nearly equal this amount. Add on much greater travel, scholarship, recruiting and facilities expenses, and you run up something closer to the average $1 million loss that even two-time NCAA champions OSU is accruing. If you want to become conversant on college baseball revenue, you should check out the study that former UO SID David C. Nelson did by filing open public record requests of the 60 top D-1 baseball programs. Other reporters have also done due diligence and have discovered that Kilkenny’s hopeful projections are nothing but blue sky. The idea that baseball could ever be revenue positive is based on either stunning ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
But the idea that a non-revenue sport might but run at a sum loss isn’t that big a negative for me, because I view the fielding of sports teams to offer some greater value beyond gate receipts. I think more sports are a good thing.
FYI–I wrestled in college. I was on Oregon’s 1981 Pac-10 championship team. You can ask Finley or my teammates if I was any good. I placed in every national freestyle and Greco championship tournament I entered, including winning the RSA national freestyle championship at 180.5. I also coached national club championship teams here and abroad, and was NZ Olympic Wrestling Union junior coach. I’m very familiar with the wrestling program at Oregon. I also know the other three finalists for the head wrestling job that Kearney got ten years ago were Scott Bliss, Zeke Jones and Tom Brands. Only Brands was an Olympic champion. Bliss was a USA Greco team member (and my workout partner for several years), and built solid teams at Montana and Wyoming. Zeke Jones and Brands were inexperienced at the time, but would have been excellent hires. I backed Bliss, but thought Zeke was the best pick if Bliss weren’t hired. I don’t think Moos and the selection committee were intentionally shooting low when they picked Chuck, I just think they valued loyalty and Oregon ties to a fault. But it’s true that the UO has offered poor support to the wrestling program and allowed it to wane during Kearney’s tenure. Likewise, the wresting community has been largely disengaged. They appear much more energized now.
As for my understanding of college sports, I’ve been involved in many aspects of college and professional sports and sports marketing. I have many friends working in college and professional ranks (and, of course, high school and club programs), including inside the Cas Center. And as an adman of 20-plus years who has written a lot of Nike stuff, as well as advertising for the Portland Trailblazers, the NBA, Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, SPARQ, TaylorMade Golf, adidas, Chicago Blackhawks and more (even my beloved Ducks), I’ve got a unique insiders perspective on the business of athletics. I’m far from naïve. In fact, I’m closer to studied, as this is an area of interest. So maybe ad hominem attack isn’t your best argument.
I don’t think I’m in denial about anything. The ills that we both acknowledge are present are not new, but they are getting worse. I imagine Pat has great love for the UO. Unfortunately, I think he’s taking a course of action that minimizes what’s best about college sports while exacerbating what’s worst. I know your cup is still half full. But I’m through drinking the Kool-Aid.
Brian Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Hey Hank, Scott Bliss was my coach at Montana. As I’m sure you know our program got the ax with the title IX excuse. We won our conference, and then were put on the chopping block. Where did you wrestle Jacques? How come you don’t join the fight to save our sport? Wrestlers never quit, but sounds like you don’t even want to join the fight.
Richard Says:
April 15th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I’m sorry, but I think Jacques has went off the deep end on his assessment of the situation.
Garett Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Jacques, if you really did wrestle anywhere, let alone college, here is what I suggest:
It’s time to shake your opponent’s hand and congratulate him.
Your desperation “throw” turned out to be another “slip” and the referee has slapped the mat several times now.
Richard Says:
April 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Hey Jay. Curious as to when you are coming out with our new blog post about wrestling.
Jay Says:
April 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Richard -
Soon. Very soon.
J.
DSN