THE CONVERSATION

1. Jay Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

   Furthering my identity crisis, I’m going to post the first comment on my own blog entry.

   I think it’s conceivable that this lawsuit could very well end any chance that wrestling had at being reinstated…ever.

   If the court rules in the UO’s favor, then wrestling is done for good. And I think the people associated with the program will be done.

   If you were another athletic program, would you hire someone who just sued their former employer? Probably not.

   Jay
   DSN

2. Jarred Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

   I thought it was admirable what Oregon wrestling was doing. With all that they said about their character, how could they not fight really hard to re-instate their sport? Even though it was annoying, if they had managed to get re-instated, I wouldn’t have been upset; until now!

   Screw them! This is a bitterness move. It has revenge written all over it. I hope they get counter sued and Oregon receives all the money they raised without having to take the worthless “sport” back.

   I agree completely about the impartiality of people on Oregon wrestling. However, this little stunt will surely push all those people into general rage against the wrestlers. The lawsuit will NOT bode well for them.

   To the Oregon wrestling program, good riddance; nobody wants you.

3. truth seeker Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

   UO has to add a women’s sport in the next 5-7 years regardless of what happens with wrestling. It is prong 2 of T9, History of expansion. This is what the UO has stated they go by. Wrestling did not create this fight. Wrestling has tried to take the high road on this Jay. What would you like them to do, besides just go away? Hey maybe that is a new Nike slogan! Just Go Away! Wrestling has addressed concerns with the drop. They have shown that the UO was not required by T9 to drop the program. UO could be in violation of T9 by using it as a false excuse to drop a men’s program when it wasn’t necessary. If a women’s sport was dropped , do you think T9 woud lead to a lawsuit to prevent it? Do you think the program should keep playing Mr. nice Guy, raising money, etc with the hope that the ego driven guys reinstate them? UO wrestling is as well attended as many sports on campus, and this has been the case with almost no help in terms of promotion from the department, and a below average program. That reasoning for dropping the program that has been pointed to is clearly a double standard and only really used against wrestling. Not softball, lacrosse, soccer, golf, cross country, etc. Why all the bias and holding the wrestling program to a higher standars than others? How many fans did softball draw for their top rival game against OSU with the yearly overall series being decided? I think it ws about 250 or so. I dont see anyone calling for the dismantling of that program. Why? Because it is vaible and fills an interst and need. Wrestling is no different. Whether a few guys that read the Duck page on the internet all day believe so or not.

4. truth seeker Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

   Dont worry Jarred. We don’t need you bud. Real Duck fans would support all sorts of sports. As a wrestler, I have been to football, basketball, cc, track, softball, volleyball. And will probably go to baseball. And most all of the athletes in the department are pulling for their fellow students, athletes, classmates, etc. Many coaches are too, although they are probably apprehensive to state so in a public setting. Their is no bitterness here for other programs, fans , athletes. We only want our program back and think it rightfully should be. The school has a set of policies and procedures in place, and the AD and Prez did not follow them. There is a case here. Nothing bitter against anyone else. And if the team gets saved, you can bet all the kids will be at Autzen next fall cheering on their friends and peers. Most of them probably will be anyway, because they are not bitter against their fellow athlete because they happen to pursue their goals and aspirations in a differnet sporting venue. Thanks for the support.

5. Derek Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

   If you happened to be looking for concrete proof that Oregon wrestling is lead by (and mostly comprised of) the stupidest group of individuals alive, look no further than this citation, Equity in Athletics in Oregon v. Frohnmayer.

   When I saw this, I laughed so hard I cried. Wrestling is in DEEP over their heads. Wrestlers must not be able to read resumes. Frohnmayer has, quite possibly, one of the greatest minds in the world. Frohnmayer is unstoppable in court. He won so many cases in the Supreme Court he got tired and moved on to something else.

   I’d like to say that I could care less if wrestling gets reinstated or not. The only thing I do care about is watching the monumental beat down wrestlers are forcing on themselves. Everyone in this country loves drama. People love to see one group trounce another. They love it even more when the people that got their asses handed to them asked for it. Thank y0u wrestling, for digging one of the deepest graves I have EVER seen.

6. Richard Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

   I’m sorry to say but a lot of you guys are really in the dark about this whole situation.

   I’ll take the time to answer each of your statements that you find to be true.

   1. What does this say about the UO wrestling team?

   It says they are willing to fight for what they believe in. That’s called character. Just sitting back and letting Kilkenny spread his lies about the cut would be gutless.

   2. What is our end game?

   The end game is getting the sport re-instated so these guys can finish out their dreams of competing in a Duck uniform. I don’t understand why you supposed Duck fans have an issue with that and to me personally, I wouldn’t consider you a true Duck fan if you were against it.

   3. What does “discovery” or “discoverable” mean?

   Nothing. We have nothing to hide, but these guys do and have been.

   4. Possibility for settlement?

   Sure. Re-instatement of the program. Pretty simple. We aren’t looking for money. Just wanting the right to compete in a Duck uniform as a school sponsored program. Anything else would be considered a failure.

   5 and 6- Who cares.

   7. What are the implications for baseball?

   None. Again, quit trying to turn this into a baseball vs wrestling deal. Its never been about that because UO was never out of Title 9 compliance even if they only added baseball and never cut wrestling. This has been stated many times already. So, nothing will happen to the precious baseball team.

   8. Implications for a womens sport?

   This would be a good thing for womens sports as well since UO would have to try and add another womens sport within 5-7 yrs. What’s wrong with that?

   9. Public perception?

   Sure we’ll have our haters, like we do now. But, will it be any different than before? Not really. we’ll still have our same wrestling fans and that’s all that really matters. If people want to hold a grudge because they think for some reason we offended them, then so be it. They can be petty all they want.

   10. Best solution for the wrestling team?

   Re-instatement is the only solution. Being widdled down to a minor club sport isn’t. Should football or basketball be widdled down to a club sport? Sorry, but dumb question.

   Bottom line is, this isn’t personal regardless of what the spin doctors are trying to tell you or get you to believe. This is about fighting for what you believe in and never giving up. Aren’t these things still considered good qualities or are they thrown to the side in a big Swoosh? I remember a time when UO you to be all about standing up for what is right. Your question should be, has UO sold out?

7. Richard Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

   Actually Derek, if you knew the actual facts you’d know that Frohnmayer and Kilkenny might be in oer their heads on this one. There are so many public lies and changing of stories that they’ve told, that they are the ones in deep.

   Stupidest individuals alive? If memory serves me correctly, wrestling had the 2nd highest graduation rate at UO last year with something like 76%. Only to be beat out by Mens tennis. Football and basketball were the bottom two at like 54% and 56% percent. I think the stupid one is the person who didn’t bother to look up if his statements were actually true or not.

8. Jay Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

   Richard -

   I honestly thought it would be a while before I wrote any more about wrestling.

   Ooops.

   So, here we go. Again.

   1. I don’t necessarily equate character with being litigious. And I don’t think most Duck fans will view it that way either.

   2. I know wrestling wants to be back on campus. But does SOW think they can win this? If they think they can, fine. If they don’t think they can, then what’s their real reason.

   3. Richard, are you sure about this? Are you positive Oregon wrestling has all of their affairs in order and above reproach?

   4. That’s what I mean. This thing is black and white. No compromise.

   5 & 6 do matter. Venue and judge matter quite a bit in any case.

   I’ll get to 7-10 later.

   Jay
   DSN

9. Darrin Says:

   June 9th, 2008 at 1:46 pm

   I’m no wrestling fan, but I think there is a compelling case here. If wrestling has the funds and there are no Title IX reasons to get rid of it I don’t see why not let them stay. I don’t know UO’s rebuttal, and I don’t think I’ll ever go to a wrestling match, but I see no reason to get rid of this program. I also see no reason why this would make people against the wrestling program. If a mistake was made why not correct it?

   Also, obviously, just because it doesn’t make money does not mean you cut a program. This is college athletics. Not a business.

10. John Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    I will just say this I am a beaver fan and killidiot has made sure I will always be one. That said, I aplaud the effets of SOW. I hope the soon retiring head idiots at UO go out getting their @ss kicked in court rather than on the court. If this was baseball or basketball I would be just as upset over the lies told by these up standing gents. MY 2 cents..

11. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Cal-State Bakersfield sued for their right to be re-instated and won. UO has a good chance of being no different. Cal-state won with less of an arguement.

    Sometimes standing up for what you believe in get to the litigious stage. If it didn’t we wouldn’t have a lot of the things we do now. That’s called having character in my book.

    I’m pretty sure. This lawsuit has been in the making for quite sometime and SOW has given UO admin plenty of time to make things right as far as correcting thier statements, lies and procedures, but they refused.

    Sure there may be no compromise in that sense, but it doesn’t mean you just give up on things.

    5-6, IMO don’t really matter as this isn’t some OJ murder case. Its a case about getting the team re-instated.

    I guess what you don’t understand is this case could very well change athletics as we know it at the college level. There are plenty of people who are tired of being thrown by the wayside by all the football and b-ball only backers. These people need to realize that these are not the only sports in the US that kids want to compete in. They also need to realize that not every athlete is about making money. They just want the right to compete at the college level. They don’t need the fans that you guys think we so desperately need. They just want to compete. So, if a program like wrestling, is willing to fully endow its program just for the right to say they are Ducks and bring home glory to UO on the national scene(Like Shane Webster did in 2006 when he won the NCAA title), then why do you people still continue to have a problem with it?

    If tthe role was reversed and it were say football, fighting for its right to stay put, I know as a wrestler, I’d be right there in their corner. As would many of my brethren.

12. Western Man Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    What are you insinuating with having things in order? Is there something we need to know about?

13. Jarred Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    I’m not at all worried “truth seeker”. Apparently the school actually doesn’t need you. Otherwise, your program wouldn’t have been cut. Real Duck fans aren’t required to support everything that goes on at Oregon, especially things that bring lawsuits against their school.

    For being a “truth seeker” you do an awful lot of “lie spreading”. You might want to consider a name change. If most of the athletes and coaches really wanted to save wrestling, they’d probably do something about it other than secretly tell you they want to save wrestling. I too can make it sound like most everyone concerned about the program actually doesn’t want wrestling back. Everyone I know, including friends on several different athletic teams at Oregon, has told me that they support the athletic department’s decision to cut wrestling.

    It isn’t like wrestling didn’t give a good showing for trying to save their “sport”. It is obvious you cared about the sport and that all the money wrestling wasted from year to year wasn’t completely in vain. Thank YOU for supporting your school by bringing lawsuits against it.

14. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    It’s no surprise that litigation and lawyers aren’t very popular in America–until such time as you need one.

    I’m sure there are a lot of people out there who are still mad at that lady who sued McDonald’s over the spilled coffee. Some of us have taken time to read about the case. When we did, we found out that the defendants increased the temperature of the coffee to a dangerous level, to keep it hot while the customer drove home, despite a history of customers who had been burned previously.

    This blog is filled with irrational comments by people who are mad that their school got sued. Or that the athletic director they’ve elevated to godhood has been challenged.

    Okay, you’re entitled to feel that way. But give us our day in court. This is how we settle disputes in this great country, once reasoned negotiation fails.

    Do you honestly think Oregon wrestlers fear a backlash? Fear it so much we’ll just roll over and die? Who’s being unreasonable?

    Save Oregon Wrestling tried its best to negotiate its resurrection, for almost a year. It asked Kilkenny to set a figure. Arizona State had a willing athletic director who set a price tag, and within ten days Sun Devil boosters had raised $8 million to endow the program.

    Wrestling boosters think that if they had been treated fairly, they’d never have had to go to court. Now we have our day before the judge.

    By the way, the same attorney who is representing us filed suit against Syracuse, and got the Orangemen to give men’s and women’s swimming three more years to endow their sport. The Oregon lawyer on our staff is a Duck, a former UO wrestler, who voluntarily coaches a junior high team.

    We’re not evil people, and yes, we do know what we’re doing. We’re sorry you don’t like it, but you’re entitled to your opinion.

15. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    You hit the nail right on the head Dave. Regardless of what people’s opinions are, the UO wrestlers will have their day in court.

    And truth seeker is way more informed about this issue than you are Jarred. The other coaches and athletes have expressed their displeasure about the sport being cut but I’m sure they don’t want to piss off the hand that feeds them at the same time. I guess you don’t realize that the wrestlers, football and basketball players, soccer and softball players all hung out together. And I guess you didn’t know about the wrestling team being the ones who ran the biggest donor tent before every football game. That place is always packed with UO fans and alum.

    And two can play your game because all the people I know and their families and people from other sports I know are mad as hell about UO wrestling getting cut.

16. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    A couple of other things:

    Venue: Up until a week ago, we weren’t clear whether we’d sue in federal court in Eugene, to attack the Title IX allegation directly, or in state court. We decided to sue in state court because the state law issues are rather clear cut: The UO cut the team without following the proper procedures. A challenge of the Title IX issues is not out of the question, especially if UO reacts conducting the administrative hearings and find, much to our surprise, that they still need to cut wrestling! [/sarcasm]

    Why Marion County? When you sue a state agency in state court, often you do it in the state capital. But we had no idea of what judge we would get.

    Oregon has some pretty strong laws and bar association rules against trying to influence which judge gets selected. A lawyer can lose his license easily if he were stupid enough to try such a stunt. We’re smarter than that, even if you think differently because we had the audacity to sue the high and mighty U of O.

    The plaintiff gets to pick the court. But he has no choice over the judge. Our Oregon attorney did tell his partner council that he believes we got a good draw, though. All of that is less important than you may think. No trial judge wants to get reversed on appeal. This case will be decided on its merits.

    Finally, as to the case citation. In English common law, the king is perfect, so you can’t sue him. You can’t sue the University of Oregon, which enjoys sovereign immunity in state court–with stated exceptions.

    However, the same English common law says you can sue the king’s officers. So, that’s why Frohnmayer, Kilkenny, et al., are the named defendants. Don’t worry about poor old David. As a former Oregon attorney general who argued half a dozen cases successfully before the Supreme Court, he won’t have his feelings hurt.

17. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Nelson,

    The reason people don’t like trial lawyers is that they regularly abuse the system for financial gain. The reason people were shocked by the McDonalds case was not that she didn’t deserve some compensation. You’re right that she probably deserved a free pack of McDonald’s coupons for her trouble. The shock was due to the absurd settlement she (and her lawyer) recieved.

    —

    I am surprised with this development. It just seems like an impatient move. With all of the good reasons for re-instating wrestling, it seems like a longer reaching-out effort could have been maintained before going with the nuclear option.

    I guess they want their oompa-loompa now.

    Now, as Jay pointed out, failure probably means zero chance of wrestling making a return and success will mean working with people who they forced via legal attack to accept them. If they get re-instated via legal threat, are they going to continue to disparage the AD while being part of it? Isn’t this a bit like the Coke commercial where Coke Classic asks the lawyer to sue Coke Zero?

    I’m not certain that the lawyers involved really do “know what they are doing.” They make the claim that Oregonians do not compete in women’s lacrosse at the high-school level. I know for a fact that this is not true. All of the high-schools in my area have women’s lacrosse teams. That they could be so wrong about that fact makes me question their other facts about the popularity of sports, etc.

18. Western Man Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    I think they mean probably just that it is not a sanctioned sport at the HS level. and why no Oregon homegrown girls on that roster?

19. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm

    The popularity of the sport is all public record, thus its a fact. Just go to the National Federation of State High School Sports for the info. The lack of girls lacrosse teams sanctioned by the OSAA is also a fact. Just go to http://www.osaa.org to find out.

20. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Hmm. I don’t know. It seemed clear to me that their point was that wrestling is popular and practiced in high school but women’s lacrosse is not. That is simply false.

21. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

    “They make the claim that Oregonians do not compete in women’s lacrosse at the high-school level. I know for a fact that this is not true. All of the high-schools in my area have women’s lacrosse teams.”

    If that is the case, they’re club teams not sanctioned by the OSAA. Go to the web site and look under participation statistics. No Oregon high school reported lacrosse participation figures last year.

    As for how Oregon’s wrestlers “disparaging” the UO if they get reinstated, I don’t think so. They’ll be glad to be back, unless of course they’re the victim of illegal retaliation. Then, if they complain, you’ll probably consider that disparagement. I wouldn’t.

    As for McDonald’s, look up the case and read the reports.

    http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

    If you still sympathize with McDonald’s after that, I’m glad you’re not related to me.

22. Ducksinarow Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    Mr C. Nelson, the only reason most Americans will need a lawyer is because our country is litigation crazy. If you want to read a great article that goes into the numbers and reasons why, check out this link: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/06/10/05/how_many_lawsuits_are_there_in_the_us__amp_what_are_they_for_an_amazing_overview.htm

    I am afraid that tho I A

23. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    I think the only people who are thinking about dishing out some backlash if the program is re-instated are people who don’t attend matches in the first place.

    I would like a real response as to how, if the UO wrestling team is willing to endow their program and have a new facility built for free, its going to affect the haters? You don’t attend the matches in the first place or donate money to the program so how is it going to affect your everyday life?

24. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    It’s not encouraging when one has to defend a lawyer’s formal statements.

    This is the claim: “The University sponsors intercollegiate sports, such as women’s lacrosse, in which Oregonians do not compete on the high school level.”

    Notice that there is nothing in there about who is “sanctioning” the high-school competition. The fact is, Oregonians DO compete on the high school level via women’s lacrosse.

    The point about what it says in the public record only serves to explain how the lawyers came to make their inaccurate claim. Regardless of that, it completely undermines the point they were making by bringing it up.

    I’m not saying this with any anti-wrestling feelings. But, I think this legal effort is going to be demolished in court, costing somebody a bunch of legal fees and leaving wrestling with fewer options than ever. But, yes, you will have your “day in court.” Congratulations on that, I guess.

    —

    Nelson,

    As terrifying a prospect as it is to realize that I’m not related to you, I have to say that I don’t find a link to a web-site representing lawyers interests very compelling. I can easily provide similar articles that say the opposite. What I found was that there have been many identical cases to the one you refer to that have been thrown out of court. There have been studies that showed that the temperature of the coffee she had is the same that other McDonald’s in the area had been selling it at. It’s unfortunate that she burned herself with the coffee she bought. But, saying that McDonald’s should be materially liable is like saying that, should you twist your ankle by stepping on a shovel in the garage at home that you should be able to sue the shovel manufacturer.

25. Ducksinarow Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Maybe if in this country the losing side of lawsuits had to cover both sides legal fees, then we wouldn’t be saturated with frivolous lawsuits. Maybe Cody Kempt should sue Oregon football since he simply wanted to play for the Ducks but they just kept recruiting players who had more talent. Not everyone gets what they want, especially in our capitalist country, where money decides most battles. It’s a simple case of supply and demand, since the only ones who care about wrestling at the U of O are the wrestlers and their families, there is no real demand. I am sure the lawyers on the wrestling side are excited to give you hope since they will make their cut no matter what happens, as long as two sides are suing each other they have job security, at the cost of what, around $300 per wasted hour of this silly lawsuit? Take your pride, headgear and unitards and join club sports. See what kind of momentum you can get rolling and then prove us all wrong before you waste peoples donations on some lawyers new Mercedes…

26. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    “As terrifying a prospect as it is to realize that I’m not related to you, . . . ”

    This is the problem, which is exacerbated by the anonymity of the Internet. You take disagreements personally.

    I disagree with you about the legal profession, about Oregon wrestling, and probably about a half a dozen subjects which we’d probably discover in a half hour of conversation.

    But I’m not horrified at the prospect that I may be related to you. I don’t take your disagreement personally.

    We’re in court because we couldn’t resolve our case through lesser means. That’s the way civilized societies do things. There is no shame in depending on the system. If we lose, we’ll accept the court’s verdict. That won’t mean we’ll stop trying to get wrestling back, but we’ll respect the system.

    Why don’t you?

27. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    The same guy who is arguing our case, won a similar lawsuit against Syracuse for them dropping their swimming program in the same manner. And they had less to work with.

    UO admin have added plenty of ammo for this court battle to be won in favor of the UO wrestlers.

    And again, if the wrestlers are willing to pay for their right to havea program and havea new facility built for free, why is it a problem for them to be re-instated? Other than just some personal opinion.

28. Shaun Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Alright, so now we get ready for a possibly prolonged court battle. Great. Wrestling team, I get that you don’t want to wrestle anymore and I surely get the idea of fighting for what you believe in. The problem I have is, as a lot of the general public, we just don’t give a rip about your sport.

    I have had tons of friends wrestle growing up. I went to Jefferson HS in Portland during the early to mid-90’s and we had a very good program. We had multiple national champs and one guy was actually the 2nd ranked freestyle wrestler in his weight class in the world. I was very close to a number of the guys on our team as I played football along side of them in the fall. With all of that being said and all of the potential there was for me to be interested…I just could not. The general masses do not care about your sport. Your fighting a battle that not many people really care if you win, and in reality I would think more people would be pleased if you lose. I get that you’re bitter you were thrown over for a bunch of (hopefully) pretty girls dancing and prancing but in reality I would rather watch that (cause they’re hot…hopefully). All I can say here really is this is a situation where it sucks to be you.

29. Curtis Sexton Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Some people here have said some mean and uncaring things about this sport that a quarter million sportsmen compete in each year in the USA. In excess of 94,000 fans attend in person to watch the best of these same sportsmen compete each year in the NCAA Wrestling Championships. Then there is the growing Olympic sport of Women’s Freestyle Wrestling, not offered at Oregon either.
    I think perhaps some are mistakingly reacting to this legal action as if someone was suing for millions of dollars with an underlying motive of greed.

    All this law suit is about is bringing resolution to a disagreement. We need a third party to officiate and make sure that all parties involved are following the laws of our state and nation. No greed there at all! Think about it. A group of sportsmen locked out of the gym, not allowed to represent their University.

    College athletics is still about the educational growth and learning of student athletes. We would still wrestle if the gym was locked and only the wrestlers and coaches and officials were allowed to enter. Give the keys back to the Duck Wrestlers. Ken Kesey, Dr. John Miller, Greg Gibson, Bruce Glenn, Gary Strensland, Dan Vidlak, Kevin Roberts, Bill Nugent and many more worthy American Sportsmen will follow their lead.

30. Brian Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    Women sue all the for the right to compete. What’s wrong with a men’s program filling suit for the right to compete? It’s a double standard.

31. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    I think what people are losing sight of is the fact that UO wrestling isn’t the enemy, regardless of how people are trying to portay them.

32. KevinD Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    As I read the hateful comments about the wrestlers “desperate” attempt to save their sport at Oregon, I am saddened. Here we have a group of people that compete not for the glory, or the possibility of riches, or other great benefits that people in the “money sports” get; they just want to compete. They are not even asking for a dime; they are willing to PAY for the opportunity to compete. I am saddened that people who would not be affected one way or the other whether the Oregon wrestling team lives or dies still feel compelled to kick the wrestlers while they are down. I don’t have any interest in girls volleyball, but I am certain that the athletes who have trained and competed in girls volleyball all their lives, with dreams of competing at a DI level, are passionate about their sport and would fight to keep it alive; and I know I would not be cheering their demise if they suffered a similar fate. Sports should not be all about the money, but that is what they are becoming; and we, as a society, are losing something in the process. That is the saddest thing of all.

33. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    I think that what people are saying is that the wrestling camp is using rhetoric and now action that makes them adversarial to the UO.

34. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    Nelson,

    No hard feelings from me, personally.

    I’m just not sure how you can make statements like “If you still sympathize with McDonald’s after that, I’m glad you’re not related to me” and then go on about the problems of people taking things “personally.” What possible relevance does family relation have to this subject other than your personal feelings about anyone who disagrees with you on that subject?

    I have taken note of your pre-emptive disagreement with the next 12 subjects we discuss and will prepare for your rebuttals accordingly.

35. Brian Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    News for all the wrestling haters.

    Wrestlers don’t want to compete in order to entertain you. Neither do the football players, BB players and every other serious collegiate athlete. They want to compete for the love of their sport. I bet Galen Rupp runs because he loves it, not because there are tons of fans cheering him on. To be able to compete at the D1 level took many years of hard work, and sacrifice. They don’t want that taken away from them. College athletics is supposed to be about the student athlete. It’s not about you, the apathetic lazy ass fan who needs to be entertained. Read the mission statement of Oregon’s athletic department. Tell me where it says we have athletics to entertain a bunch of do nothing, know nothing, never was good enough at anything losers. I could call you a bunch of has beens, but you would have needed to do something to be a has been. A never was is more appropriate.

36. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Rhetoric? Are you serious? There is nothing outlandish about our claims. They are all facts that the UO admin didn’t even bother to look up. We’ve found every single statement made by Kilkenny about the cut, competely false, called him on it and that’s called rhetoric?

    What is it with people claiming personal opinion as facts and then trying to base their whole arguement around it? UO admin broke the school laws, among other things.

    If this were real life and you were working with someone who lied about everything and broke policies in your workplace, would you just let it slide or would you stand up for what’s right? I mean, throw your whole bias aside and actually think about that.

    People need to remember, we didn’t pick this fight, but yet its wrong for us to stand up for ourselves. Backing down is what cowards do and people who try to say otherwise are no different, IMO.

37. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    KevinD, great response. What does that say about the people who are trying to kick us while we’re down? Not much.

38. Jeff Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Shaun,
    Are you really that stupid? I mean, your post sounded like a 14 yr old writing it? You were actually smart enough to play football? You are only 1 person, and not a very bright one at that. It doesn’t matter if you don’t give a rip about wrestling. Others do.

    You people in Oregon act like your football team is on par with the top schools in the country, or that your basketball team is a final 4 contender every year. I think a wrestler was your last national champion.

    Most people who don’t understand wrestling or don’t get it are usually the gutless who couldn’t do it. Shaun is a prime example of that.

39. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    Richard,

    Perhaps you should take a look at the meaning of “rhetoric” before you start making assumptions and personal slights.

    My usage of the word was in reference to the wrestling camps characterization of the AD and people within the AD as being corrupt, corporatized, immoral, stupid, etc., etc. As Jay pointed out in an earlier article, it makes little sense to disparage the AD as wrestling has and say that you still want to be involved with them. It’s like saying that wrestling is willing to be dishonest about who the AD really is as long as they are allowed to wrestle for UO. Not exactly what you expect from people with “character.”

    I’m not sure what bias you’re referring to? You mean my bias that I think wrestling should be re-instated?

    I think you guys need to remember that nobody “picked a fight” with wrestling. My intention is not to comment about whether or not the program should be re-instated but what the most effective means of making that happen are. This lawsuit is possibly the worst coarse of action I could imagine. The sooner you guys stop thinking of this as some kind of back-yard scrap or civil war battle that requires courage, the sooner you can put together a more persuasive effort to bring wrestling back. Courage isn’t the quality needed here. Brains and tact are.

40. Richard Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Yes I know what it means and what you’re saying is that we are using exaggerations as a way to describe Kilkenny and the admin. None of which are exaggerations. Tell me, what lies have we spread about Kilkenny?

    So, you’re saying its perfectly okay for one side to lie, cheat, steal or bad mouth us or our cause(Kilkenny and yes he’s done all these things), but if we start to return the favor, we’re in the wrong? And yes they did pick a fight with wrestling.

    Have you not been following things are simply not reading what’s being said? We have taken a very persuasive approach for this fight since the very beginning, but Kilkenny has chosen to just continue to spew lie after lie. We’ve been very patient, but its Kilkenny who has taken this fight and turned it into a back yard scrap.

    This is actually the best course of action because now people are starting to WAKE UP and realize what injustices are being done by their beloved AD and his dept. Some people just can’t handle it when the truth comes out. And trust me, there is way more still to come.

    What you don’t get is that Kilkenny knows he made a mistake and simply refuses to admit he was wrong, even when shown the ACTUAL facts and not what he claims are facts. So, he’s letting his pride get in the way of decision making and heaven forbid, Kilkenny making himself look bad in public because that would mean, maybe they hired the wrong guy for the job.

    And yes courage is needed in this fight, as well as brains and tact. All three are in play.

41. truth seeker Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Tact and playing nice have been tried Wheaton4prez. This is what it came to. Negotiations didnt work, fundraising didnt work, good will, etc. There were many attempts made. The UO brass didnt want to sit at the bargaining table. Wrestling was and is willing.

42. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    What do you guys believe to be the real motivation for why they chose to cut wrestling?

43. Jay Says:

    June 9th, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    wheaton4prez -

    I believe the real reason the UO cut wrestling is because people within the Athletic Department simply don’t like wrestling and don’t think it has a future.

    Fair or unfair, I believe this to be the case. I also believe that the reasons are very personal.

    And that’s what this case is about: can the UO eliminate wrestling because they don’t like it?

    Jay
    DSN

44. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 12:56 am

    What is the evidence that shows that this is the motivation?

45. Jay Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 12:59 am

    wheaton4prez -

    There is no evidence for this. And you won’t find any evidence for this. It goes beyond what’s been put on paper or in an email.

    Jay
    DSN

46. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 3:45 am

    There’s certainly much here for me to make hay with, but before I wade into any of that I want to state for the record that I regard virtually everyone who posts here as honorable people who share a passion for the UO. The fact that we may fundamentally disagree about something (or perhaps many things) should not make us enemies. I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with me–especially those who have limited knowledge of the things that I know. Likewise, I’m not going be terribly offended if you disagree with me. I’ve been wrong before. It was long ago–at least 30 minutes. Over the course of the past year I’ve contributed much to the battle to save Oregon wrestling, and written many thousands of words in articles, editorials, correspondence, and, of course, on blogs such as this. Some of those words could have been better chosen at times, but I’ve strived to offer more light than heat. I’ve faithfully been true to the facts as best I know them. I’ve defended my positions with structurally sound arguments, along with appeals to emotion and to our better angels. And, as I mentioned to Jay recently, I’ve felt sometimes like I might have had better success singing the virtues of opera to a ham sandwich. So it goes.

    Wheaton4prez, here’s my opinion about why they cut wrestling. Kilkenny wanted baseball, and asked his staff to give him some scenarios of how he could make it happen. Wrestling was vulnerable. With the exception of 2006, the team was underperforming. Losing to a host of schools many deem below Pac-10 caliber in the cobbled-together Pac-10 wrestling conference wasn’t winning anyone over. In fact, it had some enemies in the Cas Center long before Kilkenny arrived. One of the big reasons that no one at the UO has yet publicly acknowledged for dumping wrestling is that they didn’t like the leadership, that they had problems with the coach. Several top UO leaders have privately mentioned this issue, but it has never been officially stated. I don’t know if Jay knows something about this, but his warning about disclosure and discovery made me think that he was anticipating that the UO might unload a bunch of dirt about the wrestling program under Kearney. I’m unaware of any bombshells. But it’s no secret that there was growing dissatisfaction within the wrestling community about the state of the Oregon wrestling program. Kilkenny was somewhat aware of this, but he lacked any appreciation for the dynamics of the situation. He saw a moribund program that had few fans and even fewer donors. Perhaps it never crossed his mind that the problem wasn’t the vitality of the sport itself, but rather specific problems that he could fix. At any rate, given the information that Kilkenny was handed, cutting wrestling seemed the most expedient path to reinstate baseball.

    I know that there came a point when Kilkenny realized that his original justification for dropping wrestling was full of holes. But he had bigger problems on so many other fronts (he still does) that he opted to ride the storm out. He delegated the overseeing of the wrestling battle to Zoumboukos, who mouthed a new company line of occasionally contradictory excuses, and shined us on. Zoomer actually told us to keep raising money and come back in three to five years to seek reinstatement. One wonders how he ever figured wrestling, the sport they claimed was dying, would be considered more viable three to five years down the road?

    It’s regrettable that wrestling was forced to sue in order to get a fair hearing. I realize this may irrationally harden more hearts against native sons who dream of wrestling for the Ducks. But I also reject the insinuation that seeking a hearing in court to settle a dispute where you believe you are being injured by a governing body that has both ignored proper institutional procedures and violated federal law is evidence of a character flaw. Never mind that SOW exhausted all other avenues first. There is no other way to save the program at this moment. This is not a vindictive move. It is, however, an action that was compelled by circumstances. Whether it will be successful is yet to be seen.

    Am I concerned that a forced reinstatement of wrestling will galvanize antipathy for the program? It’s about as worrisome to me as a cloudy day. The prospect of a great majority of people who never watched wrestling suddenly not watching it with a vengeance is almost meaningless to a group of athletes that never gave a damn about what others thought about them in the first place. But the idea that such a sea change would occur is absurd in its lack of understanding of human nature. People have other better things to do than cultivate and stoke irrational hatreds for things that have no bearing on their lives. But I pity those that do, because most often the hatred is far more injurious to the hater than it is to the hated.

    Wrestling will always be primarily for the wrestlers. I gained much from it. It was brutal, but it was so much fun. If only I knew how soon I would become old, I would have wrestled even longer. I only wish to preserve this opportunity for others to benefit as I have. I think that makes me very much like the rest of you, desirous to hand down the things we find most valuable to future generations.

47. Mr. Nelson Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 4:25 am

    I understand that this places a focal point on the University of Oregon and the SOW organization. It may seem like a localized issue for those who read this blog, but you must realize that whatever happens in that courtroom will set legal precedence for every athletic team cut by a university. This local fight will be a national issue.

    I am astounded that the wrestlers are seen a “the bad guy” in all of this. Aren’t they simply wanting a fair shake? Ironic because wrestling is the only college sport where athletes must shake hands before and after each of their individual matches.

    This case will be watched closely by every gymnastic coach, swimmer and track & field parent who is concerned that their/their child’s sport will simply be eliminated.

48. Kelly Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 7:27 am

    I think this is a very one-sided discussion here. The fans of the University of Oregon who have made their case here are:

    A. Intelligent
    B. Reasonable
    C. Informed.

    Yet, on this forum here, they are responding to people who are:

    A. Completely uninformed
    B. Unintelligent (particularly Jarred) C. Small-minded little twits who can’t recognize fact from fiction and CLEARLY have no idea of the fact that there is a distinction between that which is RIGHT and that which is clearly WRONG.
    D. People who are guided (or led) by their emotions rather than FACT.

    The current makeup of the Athletic Department at the U of O is corrupt and the self-described “fans” of the U of O simply can’t “deal” with that fact.
    The FACTS of this matter make it clear that LAWS WERE BROKEN and LIES WERE MADE by the Athletic Department at the University of Oregon (led by Killkenny).

    The “haters” here are, frankly, just making a$$es of themselves. And the supporters of wrestling at Oregon are just wasting their time responding to these twits.

49. KevinD Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Wonderful post Hank! Very refreshing. There is a lot of emotion wrapped up in this battle, though I really can not fathom the negative, knee-jerk emotion that some people are expressing about a sport that they profess has no relevance in their lives. Is it some kind of blind allegiance to the administration? some kind of misplaced school pride? I really don’t know.

    In any event, I am also taken aback by the blanket statements that equate filing a lawsuit with bad character. We live in a civilized society in which we all have fundamental rights that are protected primarily by a court system that is set up to protect those fundamental rights. Because of the forward thinking of our forefathers, we do not stone people, suffer lynch mobs (any longer) or put up with kangaroo courts. We all have a fundamental right to have our differences resolved in a court of law instead of on the street. There is nothing lacking in character to present a dispute to a court of law for resolution when other avenues at a workable solution have been tried without success. People recitre worn cliches about lawyers and lawsuits and courts without really knowing or understanding what they are saying. This is really a topic of another blog, but it bears mentioning in all of this.

    Another great thing about this country is that people in power can be held accountable for their actions and can not simply use their power, influence and money in any way that is expedient for them. If there was an abuse of power and if rules were ignored, there really is no other affective way of dealing with those things. If, at the end of the day, there is insufficient proof of those things, there is still no question of character at issue. The court system will “work” either way to resolve these things, as it should be. The system we have is not perfect, but it beats stonings, and lynchings, and rioting and ….

50. Jay Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 8:52 am

    Perfunctory disclaimers:
    - Oregon should not have cut wrestling.
    - Oregon treated wrestling unfairly.
    - Not a Title IX fan.

    KevinD -

    The reason that I believe filing a lawsuit is not seen as a character move is because I equate that notion to a wrestler winning a match on a technicality. And if the UO wrestling team wins, that’s what I think this is going to come down to.

    I think both sides want to avoid the Title IX issue because of it’s complexities and far-reaching implications.

    So, this will come down to a question of whether or not Oregon followed proper procedure in the elimination of the sport, and can eliminate a sport. And that issue will strike at the heart of the UO institutional right to determine its own programming.

    As far as accountability is concerned, people in power do indeed need to be held accountable for their actions. And I think UO wrestling is no different. As several in the wrestling community have pointed out, UO wrestling would not be in this position if they had handled their own business much better in the past.

    The reason we are here at this point in time is because both side have mishandled their own business. The UO has stumbled their way through justifying the elimination of wrestling (UO, please hire a PR firm.). And wrestling was so caught up in wrestling, and not caring what the world thought of them, that people stopped caring.

    So, we find ourselves here. And in the end, wrestling might get their injunction for a year, or two, as this case makes its way through the court system and the appeals process (not granting an injunction would effectively eliminate the sport, neutralizing a win for the Oregon wrestling team).

    But in the end, I don’t think Oregon wrestling is going to survive in the long run. The tide is not in their favor. There is no right to wrestle. But I believe the UO does have a right to turn its tide in the direction it sees fit.

    Jay
    DSN

51. truth seeker Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 9:11 am

    It often times comes down to leadership Jay. Is it the fault of thousands off Oregonians involved in wrestling and the young men in the program that a few didn’t help with the promotion, etc of the program. Would UO get rid of another sport rather than change leadership, if what you are saying is true and that was a problem?

52. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 9:18 am

    Winning on a technicality? Our opponent was also the referee. He never really engaged. He declared himself winner and rolled up the mats.

53. Dave Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am

    Jay
    Do you think things would of been different if there was a different coaching staff on board the past ten years?

54. wheaton4prez Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Great post Hank.

    From what I’ve learned about the situation, I think that you’re exactly right about how this whole thing came to pass. But, to me, if that is how this happened, it sounds like there was still room for a more diplomatic solution.

    If Kilkenny already realized that he had miscalculated and the department was already talking about the possibility of a re-instatement in a couple years, it seems that convincing them to re-instate sooner was still possible with a little time and effort. While the law suit is not asking for compensation or anything, there is still a punitive aspect to it in that it damages the public image of the athletic department.

    If re-instated, wrestling has to work with the department in the future. I can’t speak for other fans. But, I agree that wrestling shouldn’t be concerned about people who were not wrestling fans to begin with. However, they should be concerned with the relationship they have with the athletic department as it’s a big part of whether or not the program will be supported in the long run. I don’t think that suing leaves them any room to correct their mistake in a way that can be percieved as them re-embracing wrestling.

    I mean, if the ability to wrestle is all that is important and you guys have the funds to support yourselves, why bother with UO at all? What I’m getting at is that the current athletic department and staff IS the face of UO athletics right now. Like them or not, they are an extension of any competitive efforts representing UO.

55. KevinD Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Jay

    I really don’t know the history here so I will assume you are correct - that “wrestling” had its collective head in the sand. First, I didn’t realize that is a crime or sanctionable conduct. I am probably in trouble (and I don’t even know it). I can understand the University wanting some accountability from its coaches (if, indeed, that is what you mean). That makes sense. Most of the time I see universities change leadership to correct that kind of problem. If there really was some problem with the wrestling leadership, eliminating the program is a rather draconian way of correcting the problem. My kids would probably have a problem if I adopted a similar policy as a parent to deal with their imperfections. But I don’t think that is really what this is about, is it? This is not about correcting a preceived problem with a one of the sports at OU. If that were the case, a less permanent “solution” would have been tried first to correct the problem. No, I don’t think there is a case here to blame wrestling for its elimination. Rather, wrestling was eliminated because it was perceived to be the weakest link and the easiest way to make room for the new favorite child.

56. truth seeker Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Pat K and Prez Frohnmayer wont be there long. Wrestling, I do not believe had a “bad” relationship with Moos. No reason to believe that the relationship could not be anything less than great with the new administration.

57. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Depending on when you caught me, Wheaton4prez, I would have regarded any statements by UO administrators about possible future reinstatement of wrestling as pandering malevolent false promises or conciliatory false hopes. I don’t think it was ever in the cards. It was a ruse to get us to go away until Kilkenny and Frohnmayer are gone. They were dug into their positions. And while new leadership may someday smile more favorably upon wrestling, the landscape will likely be very different in three to five years. Given the uncertainty of the profitability of the new arena and costs for baseball, the UO could be in worse shape. Adding wrestling would pose even more difficulties from a Title IX standpoint of also having to add new women’s teams by then. Furthermore, this was an untenable prospect for wrestling due to the harm the immediate loss of the program would inflict on several classes of high school wrestlers in terms of opportunity lost, real and symbolic damage to college wrestling, and fundraising efforts.

    There was a point back during the season when it was obvious that wrestling had demonstrated its capacity to raise its own money, build a new facility and meet Title IX compliance where I sensed that Kilkenny could have easily reversed his decision and saved face. I would have been happy to write his press release stating: “It is my great pleasure to announce that the UO, working with the dedicated alumni of SOW, have found a way to save wrestling at the UO. The conditions that made the pending elimination of wrestling unavoidable are no longer in effect. The UO deeply regrets cutting any sport, especially one with such a rich history of success and connection to our state. We are thrilled that we are now able to save it. We look forward to working with SOW and the great wrestling community of Oregon to re-launch this program and see that it prospers for years to come.”

    That never happened, and I often wondered what the downside was for Kilkenny to let wrestling pay its own way and/or give it more time to fully endow itself? My conclusion was that there were other personal agenda at play.

    It’s possible that wrestling may eventually be better off as a club sport. Considering the shabby treatment it and other Olympic sports get from the NCAA and athletic directors across the nation, endowing strong club programs could be a better model for promoting the sport. I think the UO may end up going this way. But the orchestrated demise of varsity wrestling still feels wrong, and I’m greatly motivated to preserve it for what it offers and what it represents. Wrestling will find ways to persevere in other arenas, but in some ways I feel like we are further diminished by its elimination at the UO.

58. Curtis Sexton Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Most legal disputes are settled before going to court. Very few “suits” reach a judge or jury. Declaring your disagreement in court documents and filings gives both sides of a dispute the opportunity to reach for common ground. This is especially true in a case like this which is not about greed and/or grabbing for a big pay day. If what the wrestling community believes can be documented as said and done action, the U of O Athletic Administration can gain PR by cutting their loses, reinstate wrestling, keep hidden some of their missteps and move forward as an athletic community - helping student athletes grow and learn.

59. Richard Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Do they even realize how much good PR they will get by re-instating the program? These wrestlers and the community will not hold a grudge against them if ther reverse their decision and allow of to endow our program to ensure its existance forever.

    I would personally drive 5hrs out of my way and shake these people’s hands and thank them. Now multiply this by the thousands and put it on TV and write some stories about it.

60. Jay Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

    Richard -

    If the UO wanted good PR, they would have reinstated the program a long time ago.

    When it comes to PR, the UO has some issues.

    Jay
    DSN

61. Richard Says:

    June 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    True, but better late than never.

62. truth seeker Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 8:03 am

    What is this? A Nike wrestling commercial! Weird how Oregon can’t support the sport that its’ #1 generous benefactor is promoting and trying to make a buck.check it out…

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=3slThq7pNlU&feature=related

63. Zachary Vishanoff Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 9:39 am

    That is a super interesting point -I see it this way:Nike wants UO as its edgy and nimble(a kind of sports marketing delta force/scientific research operation). Football trips to China and olympic trials forever and a new partnership “Center of Sports Excellence”mission. The arena architects being Nike’s show the “legacy “will be to UO will be remade into the Nike World Campus from the inside out. This will allow phil to spend more time here because it will feel like the more lavish home base world campus Also the Nike architect (TVA)has never built an arena. Just build it ‘ with quid pro quo pros! Also, when considering the axe wrestling decision you are not dealing with logic it is more like groupthink or consultant based policy(consensus) . I think that this delusional and twisted disconnect in Nike ethos will be why someday Nike will Enron itself into oblivion. Do you realize what would happen if this ad got good detailed national coverage with a split screen with interviews with our awesome and evicted wrestlers.Imagine people in China and their reactions watching Nike do this at UO next to the ad around the trials coverage. I think they could lose alot of cool quick. Just do it -call the editors. Political knockout!!! I think it is coming.

64. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 9:50 am

    Whoa, Truth. When did this spot come out?

    I’m not too wild about it. Usually Nike does a better job of capturing the authenticity of sport. The controlled motion of the athletes here feels very staged. It also looks like they chose actions that offered better hero shots of their shoes. Nothing here is very dynamic or emotive. The music is sketchy, too. Obviously, they didn’t hire Guy Ritchie to direct this, as they did for their new “Take It to the Next Level” soccer ads.

    But I digress…the point is, I guess, that it’s surprising to see Nike making a wrestling spot; and maybe a tad ironic, considering Phil has yet to even offer an opinion about the demise of his alma mater’s wrestling team. I expect that the wrestling community (nationwide) will have something to say soon to Phil and Nike about this.

65. Brian Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 11:10 am

    I used have a Nike poster that said “whimps need not apply” showing two wrestlers, one throwing the other in a suplay. I gave it to a kid I coached. It was a pretty cool poster. I know Nike had NCAA champ and Olympian Cary Kolat has a Nike shoe. http://www.footlocker.com/sitemap/Wrestling/Men_s/Shoes/Split_Sole/Nike_Men_s_Kolat_2K4___Black_White___Wrestling_Shoes.html Phil Knight has the means to save this sport nation wide.

66. truth seeker Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am

    I think it is a few yrs old, and I agree, hardly shows the realistic wrestling. But anyway, it does usethe sport to try and capitalize on something. Not a very well done commercial, but at least interesting. Another thing is this past fall, Nike was planning on doing some promos for Bejing 08 with some Olympic Sport athletes. There are a few within the sport of wrestkling that are at a very high level and have Olympic aspirations. They were preliminarily scheduled to shoot some video for the spots. Then suddenely the spots and filming involving said wrestlers was cancelled. Interesting, coincedence maybe, maybe not. The process did unfold somewhat close and on the heels of the UO program being disbanded.

67. UO Wrestler Alumni Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    The more I hear about this, I’m convinced that this was a Phil Knight decision.

    Did someone from the UO Wrestling community do something to piss off Phil Knight? All it would take would be for Phil to call Pat Kilkenny and Just Do It, and it would be done. Period.

68. truth seeker Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    You are right, a phone call would do it. Dont need his money, fancy uniforms, etc. If he told Pat to reinstate it, consider it done. I have heard the Bowerman family is/was not happy about the wrestling program being dropped, by the way.

69. UO Wrestler Alumni Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Didn’t Phil Knight and the Bowerman’s have a falling out? Maybe I was hearing things.

    In any case, where did you hear about the Bowerman’s not being happy abou the decsion?

70. Richard Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

    As much power as Knight has over the UO, it would really only take his one phone call stating “re-instate them,” and it would happen.

    What it comes down too with Nike is that they make a crappy shoe and no one bought them. Why spend $60-$100 on a pair of Nike wrestling shoes that are no good by the end of the season, when I can buy a pair of Asics or Adidas that last forever. I still have my pair of wrestling shoes from HS and wore them for like 10 yrs before I had to retire them. They were Asics and cost me $30.

    I also read at one time the very first pair of Nike’s worn at the Olympics was by a wrestler. Interesting if true.

    Here’s something else I found that’s interesting. I know some on here have mentioned how everyone on campus is against us and dislikes wrestling. this is from a recent article from Ducks Attack:

    “A student poll conducted by the foundation shows that the overwhelming majority of students at the university wanted wrestling to stay a at the UO.”

71. UO Wrestler Alumni Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    The funny thing about all of this, is that we probably will never know why the Athletic Department is so determined to cut wrestling.

    It could be as simple as the Mayor of Beaverton’s (who Phil is at war with) son wrestled and Phil wanted to get back at him. PLEASE KNOW THIS ISN’T TRUE!!!! I DON’T WANT TO START A RUMOR, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE.

    I’ve seen weird things happen to people when they have the power of money. They think they are immune to everything, even when people like the UO Wrestling Team want to find the truth about why the program is being cut.

72. Brian Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    A good article from arizona I just read. http://www.splicetoday.com/sports/an-endangered-athletic-species

73. Richard Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    Outstanding article Brian. Thanks for posting.

    You have to be a wrestler to even know what we speak about sometimes. I got those questions all the time when I was in HS.

    “Why do you do that to yourself?” Because I wanted to win and be successful. If cutting out junkfood, working out all the time, running, lifting and competing is all I needed to do, then I was going to do it. Its called sacrifice, dedication, courage, honor, ect. Something a lot of people are missing out on.

74. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 11th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Getting back to the subject of wrestling’s problems over the last decade:

    Yes, wrestling did not take care of business. The head coach, who has been conspicuously absent from the process since the season ended, did not have a good relationship with a number of the alumni–especially those of the Finley era. I’m aware of some complaints, but nothing involving violations of NCAA regulations or even anything non-regulatory which is that serious.

    Hank will tell you that wrestling has never figured out how to promote itself. The same old story, told over and over again, is about sacrifice, hard work, and determination. Wrestling never discovered with other sports did long ago–that you promote individuals: players, coaches, and the teams that they constitute. The public gets tired of how hard you work; they want to be entertained, and for you to win.

    What general sports fan can name an amateur wrestler, other than Dan Gable? The public gets tired of how hard you work; they want to be entertained, and for you to win.

    Yes, Oregon wrestling was insular for a long time until this happened. Ron Finley used to speak before fraternity groups, civic clubs, and anybody who would listen. One time he brought the mats out to Valley River Center and had a wrestling exhibition right out in the middle of the mall amidst all of the Christmas shoppers. It paid off several times a year. When I was Ron’s wrestling SID in the mid-70s, we had a couple of crowds in excess of 4,000 in McArthur Court each year–one for Oregon State and another for a big-time opponent such as Oklahoma State or Iowa State.

    When July 13 happened, many of us asked for an alumni list. None existed! The current coaching staff had been in place for 10 years and never bothered to track down and ask their lettermen for help in any kind of organized way. Now we letterman’s contact roster, but it has taken some doing.

    But it’s not just wrestling’s fault. As someone else suggested, no major sports coaching staff would have been allowed to have only three winning seasons in ten years–and none in the last six– and still survive. (Okay, the UO had a lot of patience with Rich Brooks, but there were some extenuating circumstances.)

    Bill Moos was asleep at the switch regarding wrestling. Or maybe he didn’t care. Perhaps it’s easier to let an under-performing minor sports coach if you don’t’ have a scandal and stay within your budget. When few care about a sport, nobody calls for the coach’s head when he doesn’t win. The AD feels no compulsion to go through the tumultuous process of firing a coach and hiring his replacement.

    However, I know of a former UO athletic director, now at Texas A&M, who rides herd on the non-revenue sports coaches as much as he does on football and basketball. Bill Byrne has changed several because they weren’t winning.

    Getting back to Moos, he gave the wrestling room to the football team for a training facility and personally promised a number of wrestlers, the the coaching staff, that there would be one in the new arena. They didn’t raise a stink, first because they knew they’d lose, but also because they realized the football team–and the athletic department it supports–needed that space for a training room probably more than they needed that particular wrestling room.

    But what consequence is there for going back on that promise? Certainly Moos’ successor felt no duty to live up to the promises of his predecessor.

    I’ve come to Oregon three times from my home in Texas over the past year to promote the Save Oregon Wrestling campaign. Every group of lettermen I talk to say the same thing:

    If we’re given a reprieve, and somehow get wrestling back, we’re never going to take it for granted again. You’ll see the most involved group of lettermen and friends of any sport at Oregon.

75. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 12:02 am

    As the youngest head coach in the state at what would now be a 6A high school, I didn’t fully appreciate that the most important work I needed to do to build my program was outside of the wrestling room. I wasn’t stupid and I wasn’t lazy, but I thought I had more to give to my athletes and that training them would eventually build success. If only that were so. Championship high school wrestling teams are built in kid’s clubs and middle schools and assemblies and classrooms and homes and newsrooms and everywhere else in the community. Promotion is the key. The minute you stop selling is the moment when your program starts dying. I came to understand this fairly quickly, but I didn’t believe it in my bones with the driving conviction that was necessary until I was years out of the game.

    I look around at the wrestling community and I see lots of guys who know how to work hard, but fewer seem interested in selling the story of wrestling. This is critical. The Oregon wrestling team was dying from neglect long before Kilkenny put a bullet in it. We didn’t promote it. We didn’t support it. We didn’t cherish it.

    Chances are, if you’re a wrestling person reading this blog, you’re probably pretty engaged and motivated. You’re an active ambassador for the sport. And chances are, you know many more wrestling people who aren’t. We need everyone.

    If wrestling wins this injunction and gets a new lease on life, everyone is going to have to pitch in to make this go. David Nelson mentioned the motivated group of UO alumni and friends that have come together to fight for reinstatement, but the fortunes of this team truly depend on all of us. Wrestlers need to be avid wrestling fans. We can’t assume that someone else is going provide the support. We all need to keep fighting for what we love. If we don’t, most assuredly, they will take it all away from us again.

76. Brian Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 6:32 am

    I just read the Oregonian sports this morning. Top of the page was the NCAA track tournament with a photo in the back. 8,841 fans showed up for the first day. That is less than half the amount of fans that show up for one session for the wrestling championships. It’s very difficult to promote your sport when it’s pretty much ignored by the press. The USA today gave about an inch of ink to the wrestling championships the Monday after the tournament. The Oregonian hardly covered the tournament at all with Oregon, and Oregon State wrestlers competing in it. Oregon State could win a championship, and the press out here wouldn’t think it would be a big deal. It’s all about the ‘Big Dance” that time of year. I remeber when Shane Webster won his title and the Oregonian barely noticed until they were flooded with emails about his story. They initially gave more ink to a woman BB player in Tennesee that slamed dunk a ball twice in one game.

77. Richard Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    Definately, Brian. The press is as much to blame for lack of exposure as anyone else. The press acts like wrestlers don’t buy newspapers. The R-G is absolutely non-existant when is comes to writing about wrestling. And they always claim there is non interest in the Eugene area. However, with a little research(about 2 minutes worth) they would know that Hank Turner of Churchill wrestled for the state title this year, and Thurston’s Joe Gardner won the state title. Heaven forbid they actually write about athletes from Eugene and interrupt coverage of the NCAA tournament in which UO lost in the first round. Get your priorities straight news people and quit being so lazy.

78. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Folks, take this from a former sports information director. The press covers what it thinks its readers want to read.

    I recall long conversations with Ron Finley so many years ago that I don’t want to let you know–in the days when I was a young student assistant in the Duck athletic news bureau (SID office).

    We plotted strategies to increase press coverage of Duck wrestling. One of our more harebrained schemes, which fortunately we left at the discussion table, was to get our families involved with square dancing–supposedly R-G sports editor Blaine Newnham was a big square dancing nut.

    Finally we figured it out: The best way to get the media to notice was to get the fans to notice first, not the other way around. How?

    Produce winning teams, invite big-name schools to McArthur Court, and beat them. Easier said than done, right?

    Does anybody think we’d be in this situation if we at Oregon had the winning tradition in wrestling that Oregon State has?

    If we had an athletic director that changed coaching staffs when the current staff has only three winning seasons in ten and has had six straight losing ones?

    Psssst: I think it’s about time we stop ignoring the elephant in the room.

79. Brian Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Can the press figure out that more people attend the NCAA wrestling tournament than the NCAA track meet? Can the press figure out on their own how many people show up for the state tournament?

80. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    I’d be happy if the press simply printed the correct results in a timely manner. But I don’t expect the media to promote our sport. That’s on us. And I don’t expect the media to allot page inches or placement based on meet attendance. While I think 90K people in St. Louis is wonderful and representative of the passion that exists for NCAA wrestling championships, that doesn’t automatically make it a big story back here in Oregon. NASCAR draws googolplex numbers in other parts of the country, but it doesn’t make the front pages where I live. The press will start covering wrestling when there are compelling athletes and local success, and enough of their readership wakes up in the morning and wants to know who won the wrestling meet last night. Between now and then, we need to make the news ourselves and give folks a reason to care. We’ve got a great sport that is packaged very badly. The often-touted virtues of our sport make it a most worthy activity to participate in, but are poorer arguments for capturing the fascination of the greater non-wrestling public. We need some charismatic individuals to step forward. Where is wrestling’s Prefontaine?

    PS–Track lags behind NCAA wrestling across the country, but it’s a bigger deal here.

81. Richard Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    And do you think this would’ve happened in Dale Thomas was still alive? He would’ve ben right there in the trenches with Fin doing whatever it takes.

    You can’t ignore the fact that nearly 100,000 people show up to watch the NCAA’s. If it were in a bigger venue I can almost imagine it being in the 150,000-200,000 range.

    I’d also like to know how much coverage Thurston got when it won the state title in 2002? Especially when they knocked off the unbeatable Hermiston who had won every major tournament that year and was ranked like #10 in the Nation.

    Hell, how much notice did these newspapers give Roseburg? They were the #20 ranked team in the nation this past season.

    Has any team in OR besides girls basketball ever been ranked that high in anything? There have been more nationally ranked teams from the state of OR than any of the big 3, probably with the exception of Oregon City girls b-ball.

82. Robin Pilger Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 9:46 pm

    Jay wrote, “The reason that I believe filing a lawsuit is not seen as a character move is because I equate that notion to a wrestler winning a match on a technicality.”

    I think a better analogy would be that filing a lawsuit is like getting a referee to officiate the match.

83. Richard Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    You make a good point Hank. I would say now, our Pre has to be Ben Askren. He’s a showman on the mat, has a great personality off the mat and refuses to admit to defeat.

    Remember the NCAA’s his senior year when they had all the finalists make comments before each match to the effect of “Now watch me try and win my first NCAA title.” Everyone pretty much says the same comment. Askren comes up and says “Now watch me win my 2nd NCAA title.”

    Between his Afro fan club and he confidence on the mat, I would say he’s our Pre, right now as he makes his way for the Olympics.

    However, most outside our sport don’t havea clue who he is since the papers simply refuse to report on it. They’d rather report on 30pt losses.

    As a former reporter, I made sure every week, every sport was evenly reported about. All box scores were accurate, and all dual meets scores were posted. Why? Because it was my job. My boss didn’t have to tell me and no one had to call me and beg for coverage because it was already being done. And I covered 5 teams by myself in all sports.

    The promotion of our sport shouldn’t have to be all on our shoulders. The papers have to know their bias and get off their butts and offer a little help. We’ve had more press since the sport was cut than before. Something’s wrong with that.

84. Jay Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

    Robin -

    I dare not even ask this question. But I can’t help myself.

    OK. Let’s say that the judge is the referee in this match.

    Will wrestling supporters accept his ruling if he rules for the UO? Or will wrestlers protest (appeal) that decision?

    There’s no doubt wrestlers have a “no quit” attitude. But if a judge in court, like a referee in a match, rules against the wrestling team, how will wrestlers react?

    I know wrestlers won’t quit. But I’m just wondering when wrestlers can quit. Or should.

    If a wrestler loses a match, does that wrestler accept defeat or do they protest a call, or point, until their very last breath? And if you’re the winner, what do you think of that other wrestler continuing to protest even though they lost?

    Jay
    DSN

85. Steve Hart Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    David, going on an elephant hunt can be a sticky wicket, as we have spoken about on a couple of occasions. Losing the program is a tragedy. Keeping it, without a change in the leadership, would be a waste of time.

    Ron Finley would not have allowed this to happen. He always had some new gimmick up his sleeve to keep the team in the public eye. We wrestled in a crackerbox workout room and drove old vans on long road trips. While everyone else was partying after the Saturday football loss, we spent the weekend cleaning the stadium. Assistant coaches had to wait for summer wrestling camp money to see any pay. Our training facilities consisted of a small free weight room and Pre’s Trail (insert Rocky III Mr. ‘T’ workout clip here). After the gymnastics team got axed, we were constantly aware that we could be next, and we gladly sacrificed the frills to keep the program.

    Oh yeah, we were good on the mat, too, bringing in nationally ranked teams and sending many of them home with another Pit beating. A quality program is more difficult to eliminate, as is a likable coach who makes every effort to be humble and appreciative. Ron and I disagreed often, but he was, and obviously still is, the heart and soul of Oregon wrestling.

    It’s possible that all of this effort is too little, too late, but I don’t think all is lost. Henry, you know that I feel that NCAA wrestling is a lost cause and that the future of collegiate wrestling lies in club sports. That position does not lessen the sting of this unnecessary action. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Dick Harter turned things around. Rich Brooks turned things around. Why must wrestling suffer in silence? Cal State Bakersfield saved their program with a lawsuit. Perhaps we can too.

    By the way, David, were you the SID spokesman that, when looking for a speaker for a local fundraiser, uttered the famous words “If you can’t get Dick Enright, get Dick Harter.”?

86. Richard Says:

    June 12th, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    Wrestlers are taught that when they lose, to come back the next time even stronger than ever and more prepared. We would expect no less from a defeated opponent.

    We probably won’t accept anything but re-instatement of the program, but what’s wrong with that. Sure we’ll be upset and may even protest even more, but that comes with the never quit attitude. If everyone just quit the first time they lost at everything, we’d never have any real competition.

    But here a question? What does the UO have to lose if they lose the court case and are forced to re-instate? It won’t change the fact that the UO wrestlers will still fund their program and the college will get a new facility for free. It won’t affect them one bit. Maybe their lack of integrity, but we all knew that before the court battle.

87. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 13th, 2008 at 12:26 am

    Robin may have a different answer, but I believe there comes a point in legal disputes and wrestling matches alike where the process is fully adjudicated. It takes much longer to reach this point in the legal system. But when we arrive at this point, I suspect we will accept the verdict and move on–in the event we lose. Does this mean we don’t appeal? I think it depends on the disposition of the ruling. But for the purpose of your analogy, I think the appeals process also counts as a continuation of the match. By the way, occasionally there are protested matches that are re-wrestled in world championships. Also, we’ve had two Olympic team members go to court to protest Olympic challenge matches, with both athletes who sued eventually winning team spots and winning Olympic medals. The last was Matt Lindland, from our state, in 2000. (By the way, I think both of those cases were absurd.)

    As I’ve stated earlier, I don’t think this is a character issue, but if you want to call it that, we can just add this to our list of disagreements. I fully expected to get a lot of blow-back from loyal Ducks fans about this law suit, but so far it seems like not that many are up in arms. In fact, I’ve been more surprised to see new support for wrestling from people like Schroeder and your friends at AtQ. In fact, judging by what I’ve seen so far across the internet and other media, wrestlers are still seen as more sympathetic and the UO as the bully. This could change.

    Either way, it could be a very long battle, and leadership will likely change before final rulings are made. We’re sailing into uncharted territory. We’re a highly motivated and resourceful lot. I also think we’re rational and fair-minded. It’s hard for me to imagine us being defiantly litigious if we receive a fair hearing and lose. It’s not hard for me to imagine us getting up off the canvas, dusting ourselves off and launching a new strategy to win reinstatement. We’re famous for that.

88. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 13th, 2008 at 3:06 am

    One other thing, Jay. If UO loses in Marion County Circuit Court — or even if the judge grants that temporary restraining order — can we expect the athletic department to run to a state court of appeals in an effort to overturn the judge?

    Would you be as critical of a Kilkenny’s appeal as you apparently would be of the wrestlers’?

89. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 13th, 2008 at 3:19 am

    Steve Hart: “Losing the program is a tragedy. Keeping it, without a change in the leadership, would be a waste of time.”

    I decided to finally proclaim that the emperor was naked because Coach K. seems to have departed the battlefield. Even one of his wrestlers wondered aloud the other day, “where’s coach?”

    I resisted that tack previously because I saw no wisdom in withholding support from the struggle because a portion of the wrestling alumni had a beef with the present team leadership. Coaches can always be changed.

    The real underachiever with regard to Oregon wrestling wasn’t Kearney, nor was it Kilkenny. It was Moos, who let the situation get this bad. Rick Bay or Bill Byrne, perhaps even Norv Ritchie, would never have allowed six consecutive losing seasons, national champ or no national champ.

    As for the quote, as I approach the onset of old-age dementia, I have some difficulty recalling the puerile statements of my youth. Dean Dixon reminded me of the time, at the Pac-10 tournament in Corvallis, when I had him autograph a picture of himself as Dean ‘Legs’ Dixon for subsequent presentation to Len Kauffman’s wife.

    She had been quite vocal about his leg-riding wrestling style, shouting “He’s paralyzed from waist up.”

    According to Dean, I presented it to her and she proceeded to tear it up. I had forgotten that.

    So if I’m the one who uttered that quote, I’ll be glad to take credit for it.

90. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 13th, 2008 at 3:44 am

    (Note to Jay: I wrote the previous version of this post at 4 a.m., my time. Could you substitute this corrected copy? Apologies if this causes you a bit of trouble.)

    Jay: “Will wrestling supporters accept his ruling if he rules for the UO? Or will wrestlers protest (appeal) that decision?”

    It’s not so much a matter of appeal, Jay.

    Your question assumes the premise that there’s only one legal argument for keeping wrestling at UO. There are several. I expect that if the judge rules against the wrestlers on the first argument– the one we think has the strongest chance for getting the temporary injunction — that they’ll accept the fact that there will be no team next year, but will fight on until all legal avenues have been exhausted. The Marion County case could go on for years if discovery and subsequent trial occurs.

    (Actually, the more interesting legal arguments would occur if EIA wins in federal court in Virginia, regarding the James Madison case. If that goes our way, you might see us claiming that Title IX does not allow the U of O to drop wrestling. That would certainly be standing the original reasoning on its head.)

    How you accept such a strategy of submitting subsequent arguments to the court is entirely up to you. You can continue to call it playing for a win on a technicality, which says a lot about how you view the courts in our system of governance.

    (Could I be so bold as to guess your position on yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo? Habeas Corpus has been part of our system since it entered English common law in the 12th century, but some still see claiming basic rights as winning on a technicality.)

    I remind all, once again, that the UO athletic department, despites its claims of fiscal independence from the university, is still part of a stage agency — one that accepts state and federal funds — and thus can’t expect the autonomy Mr. Kilkenny had in running his private business.

    If the athletic department were indeed sovereign, as some would like it to be, it wouldn’t have to worry about Title IX of the U.S. Code, would it?

91. Brian Says:

    June 13th, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Is there a way to survey the donors of Duck athletics, and ask then where would they want their money spent. If I was a donor I would rather have my money going to a sport that serves a lot of Oregon kids, rather than tennis that serves European kids. Does tennis draw many fans? Oh wait, tennis is Rene Baumgartners baby. It’s what the AD’s want, not what the public wants.

92. UO Wrestler Alumni Says:

    June 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am

    Weeeeeee Heeeeeeee Heeeeeeee!

    I’m back on line. High in Nobility!!!!

    Weeeeee Heeeeeeee Heeeeeeee!

    Yes, us wrestlers do have a sense of humor!

93. Richard Says:

    June 13th, 2008 at 9:54 am

    The thing I find interesting is how people at the DAF encouraged potential “wrestling only” donors to just donate to the general fund instead because they wouldn’t get certain donor priviledges if they ear marked it for one team.

94. Robin Pilger Says:

    June 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    Jay, I cannot speak for all fans but I definitely would feel a lot more accepting about UO wrestling being cut knowing it went through proper procedures. I have been a ref in multiple sports and I have a fixation on doing things by the book. I drive the speed limit, signal my lane changes and make full stops at all stop signs.

    Kilkenny’s appointment has been irregular from the beginning, including the appointment. He does not meet the basic requirements for the job and his experience in the private sector does little to make up for those deficiencies. His appoint runs counter to the NCAA’s efforts to limit boosters influence. Both his and President Frohnmayer’s short-timer outlook smack of corner-cutting by people who care more about results than process. (See the arena funding and land use issues.)

    Wrestling is a victim of one of those cut corners. Kilkenny saw is as an easy target to fix a non-existent problem (created by not doing the homework needed to add a baseball team.) At this point, what they are asking for is due process.

    If forced to follow university bylaws, would the athletic department just go through the motions and fabricate some rationale for cutting the wresting team? Maybe. But I have heard through back channels that there are many in the dept. that think cutting wrestling was a mistake and would welcome the chance to correct it.

    You are mistaken if you think the wrestlers will be a bunch of sore losers. One of the very core values wrestling teaches is how to take defeat with dignity. No other sport, declares defeat in such a public way. You shake hands with your opponent and the referee holds there by your hand as he raises your opponent’s hand. Then you all turn together so the refer can repeat the gesture to the other side of the arena. Kids from junior high on up learn to deal with defeat in a very real way. But they also go to work the next day on how to win the next time.

    If the SOW suit is unsuccessful, I doubt they will sue UO again. They make their case against the federal government and challenge Title IX directly. (I for one cannot understand how a law designed to create gender equity in American education is being used to remove college opportunities for the under-represented gender on our campuses.) Another option would be to take their money to another college more receptive to their goals.

95. Richard Says:

    June 14th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    Save Oregon Wrestling gets a plug on NBC’s website. Outstanding!

Join The Conversation