THE CONVERSATION

1. Robin Pilger Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

   To this wrestling fan, it seems about right.

2. David C. Nelson Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

   Why not? If we’re going to have a booster as athletic director, why not one as the face of the program?

3. Jay Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

   It always seems to come back to wrestling.

   Jay
   DSN

4. Robin Pilger Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

   You say that like its a bad thing.

5. Curtis Sexton Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

   No, Jay, it always comes back to athletics and sportsmen. I believe that Phil Knight is a U of O graduate, athlete and sportsman. I have never witnessed or read anything other than that. I regard Phil Knight in a completely different arena of life than a booster, insurance businessman, millionaire, and athletic director? However, David Nelson’s point is well taken.

6. Shaun Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

   Waaa wrestling waaa. Babies

7. Jay Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

   Robin, I don’t say it like it’s a bad thing. I’m more amused than anything.

   While I think wrestling supporters are not my biggest fans, I also think they pay more attention to this blog than most.

   I also made that remark because I was tempted to predict the response from wrestling supporters in my original post.

   Jay
   DSN

8. Chris Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

   Well at least we didn’t get “Cowbells” like Mississippi State.

9. tim Says:

   June 17th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

   Yeah so what if he is
   Phil has always bled GREEN and YELLOW
   He’s a Duck through and through
   I never heard any Wrestling fans complaining when he donated money to Autzen or the Business school
   Any University in the nation would love to have him as a supporter!!!
   Go Ducks

10. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    So, Jay, how would you characterize the wrestling supports’ response to your post?

11. Jay Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Expected. And it’s getting a little predictable, too.

    Jay
    DSN

12. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    Let me ask this. Jay. Before July 13, 2007, was the University of Oregon family united in harmonious accord, with not a discouraging word spoken?

    I recall a controversy an number of years ago that put Phil Knight and David Frohamayer on opposite sides of an issue, at least for a year. It had something to do with the university’s joining a coalition that decried American manufacturers who moved domestic jobs overseas, to be performed by low-paid, non-union workers who enjoyed few workplace protections.

    More recently, I remember some consternation over hiring an athletic director who hadn’t completed his degree, and I don’t think there was some wrestling versus non-wrestling line of demarcation in that debate–at least until the dropout dropped wrestling.

    When Mr. Knight gave his $100 million, weren’t there members of the university community who expressed the view that some of that money could have been put to better purposes? I don’t recall a wrestling position on this issue, except that we wished Uncle Phil had thrown a morsel our way.

    Just yesterday, your blog carried several articles about a young man in Southern California who was supposedly offered a football scholarship, but then had it revoked. Are there Ducks on both sides of this issue, the kid’s and the coaches’? Tell me, what is the wrestling angle to this story?

    Sorry, Jay, but paging up to the top of this thread, I see nothing overtly “predictable” about the response of wrestling supporters. Yes, many of us have a reason these days to question the university and athletic administration. So do others.

    Is it your position that we wrestling supporters are the only ones who haven’t found our way to that big circle where our fellow Ducks have joined hands to sing Coumbaya?

13. Dave Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    Jay

    I look at it like this. For relationships to work both sides have to be honest. The wrestling and UofO do not have a relationship built on honesty. What would you do if you had been lied to and had something you really cared about taken away? Phil donates all this money and has his influence on every major decision in the athletic department, which is why he is the face of UofO. I just wished he would use that influence to save wrestling and have an athletic department that rivals the Big Ten schools like Michigan

14. Jay Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Daves -

    My comment was a simple observation. Whenever something comes out in the media about Phil Knight (or Pat Kilkenny, for that matter), the wrestling supporter is going to have something to say about it. That’s all.

    And that’s not a bad thing.

    It just seems to me at this point in time, wrestling supporters have wrestling on the brain. So, everything coming out of the university comes back to wrestling.

    Jay
    DSN

15. Dave Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    I believe if given another chance wrestling supporters will be leading the charge on fundraising and supporting the athletic department. The key will be getting another opportunity. I find it interesting that you have all these people who want to be apart of the process but the power to be’s do not want this group nor their support.

16. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    “. . .wrestling supporters have wrestling on the brain.”

    How did baseball supporters see things in the immediate aftermath of 1981? Are you old enough to remember?

    I recall being part of a phone bank when Bill Byrne established a Duck Athletic Fund satellite office in Portland. We telephoned inactive Duck Donors, asking them to resume contributing.

    Those who demurred had various reasons, except for those who identified themselves as baseball partisans. They all cited one reason for not contributing.

    Do you suppose Mel Krause and his crowd may have had baseball on the brain for 27 years? If so, do you begrudge them?

17. ? Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

    Don’t you guys have a Heisman trophy winner or something to vote for. The “face” should be an athlete right.

18. Jay Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Scott -

    I’m going to guess you’re a Beaver fan.

    Phil Knight was an athlete at Oregon.

    Now, having a runner as the Face of the Program (in terms of football) is something we can discuss.

    Jay
    DSN (& BSN)

19. Roseanna Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    This was predictable.
    My thought is that, since it’s ESPN and East Coast media doing the choosing, this is a dig at Nike. The vote choice has nothing to do with the UO football program. If you look at the comments on the links Jay provided, you’ll see that most picked ‘the Pick’, Bellotti or players that were iconic in the program. That ESPN picked Phil inspite of that, to me, shows an agenda.

    I’m beginning to think that the reason Oregon doesn’t get as much decent face time on GameDay etc is because of Phil. They love to dish on the Nike uniforms, the PK treatment center and ’state of the art facilities’. And if that’s true and as more facilities and happenings roll online, they’ll certainly have even more things to focus on besides players and coaches winning games.

    And let’s face it, Uncle Phil’s public persona reeks of ‘odd emperor duck’ and what Sports-Center guy, given the opportunity with their sardonic wits, isn’t gonna take a potshot at someone like him… no matter who it is.

    Until Phil isn’t ‘the face of the program’, Oregon will continue to get media disrespect.

20. Jay Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Roseanna -

    I think you’re exactly right here. The selection of Phil Knight basically says that the football venue and players are not iconic enough to qualify as the Face of the Program.

    Jay
    DSN

21. Roseanna Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    So Jay…if what you say is true, and I’m not disagreeing at all, then I think we as Duck fans better step back and review this before we get too ‘off’ into how great and mighty we think we’ve become compared to the rest of the nation’s view. We might know we’re ‘good enough’, but if they don’t and they count so much, it doesn’t matter.

    My vote would have been for Bellotti although I would have preferred the collage idea that others suggested. One thing MB has never been is a braggart. As much as any coach I can remember, he’s tried to stay within the season, his players and what the moment gives.

    So to reframe this a bit, some say this isn’t a rebuilding year and expect the team to ‘just reload’. Fans want to know we’re at that sort of iconic point and others (meaning poll voters) don’t necessarily see it that way at all. What if reloading doesn’t happen and we have a 7-5 season? Shock? Anger? Calls for the coach’s head?

    Seems to me as fans with all this donor mania, we’ve been setting ourselves up for a potential fall while not remembering that all teams go in cycles no matter how many $$ or star recruits you have behind it.

22. Lo Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    I for one am proud to have Phil Knight as the “face” of our program. He is “Mr. Duck”, and has contributed more to the athletic department and academics than most of us have ever dreamed of giving. I am proud of our Nike roots and believe that without Nike and Phil, we would be average at everything (academics included) at best. As for Roseanna’s comments regarding east coast bias and not enough media coverage, we received more media coverage last year with two Game Day’s in Eugene and numerous articles on every major sports website and newspaper than any team on the west coast. We are the envy of the Pac 10. Most every comment I heard had nothing but respect for Mike Bellotti. The magnifying glass is on our program more than ever before and there is much envy for the type of facilities and programs that we present. A million thank you’s to Phil is not enough!

23. Dave Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    We would have to go back to Dan Fouts and Ahmad Rashad to find a Duck who really impacted the NFL. Oops Gary Zimmerman slipped my mind. UofO no matter what they think is not a big time football program. Uncle Phil can throw all the money he wants and you will still not recruit enough 5 star athletes to compete year in and out with the USC, Michigan, LSU, and other real football powers. Eugene like Corvallis is not going to recruit those big time recruits.

24. Roseanna Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    Ah yes…I had my violin waiting for the ‘two GameDays last year’ comment and the whole schmoozing shebang. Good on ya..right on cue!

    But compare that with all the other goofiness of years past. When the teams had been on fire in a certain week, we waited a couple hours and then heard about the new uni combinations.

    Last year is history, and not likely to repeat right away no matter how much propaganda you throw at it. THIS year tells us exactly what last year bought us in terms of media content. My guess? We’re back to the same old thing for the time being.

25. Dave Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    The intent of my previous post was not to fire up the Duck football fans. Just trying to point out the truth. I am sure fans are going to get on here and try to spin how the Ducks are a national power in football but no matter how it is spun they are a second teir program when it comes to the big boys. Phil money and influence has put them to the top of the second level but I do not see them ever getting to that top level with Eugene as their recruiting home. That being said I like Eugene but do not see getting enough five star recruits to compete year in and year out.

26. Roseanna Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Dave…while I agree that UO won’t get alot of five star recruits, I think coaching is the difference and becomes the most important factor. Because of coaching, we’ve done very well with lesser star players.

    I think if it hadn’t been for Bellotti being the coach he is (and his various staff) and making some significant adjustments along the way, we would NOT be where we are now. All this star, donor and facilities shizz that gets promoted is just nonsense when it comes to game time. This isn’t to say I’ve agreed with all coaching appts. I think some areas can still be refined. Still…it’s been good.

    But I think this brings up a larger problem that UO has engendered. With the mega-donors has arisen the idea that ‘if we just have the right high star venue’ we’ll get the best players and we’ll then top our conference. Done deal. Simplistic Kevin Costner thinking rampant in a sports culture that has believed it’s own advertising and thinks it’s all just that easy.

    In the past year+ with Kilkenny as AD, we’ve seen this idea grow that ‘WE ARE, UO’. First it’s baseball (and don’t get me wrong…I LOVE baseball)..and it’s *ahem* competitive cheer…and it’s NOT wrestling. Then it’s a basketball pavilion and not a lowly arena. Oh..add the elite athlete student complex. And because ‘WE ARE, UO’ now people will come, pay and imbibe the jazz. Right.

    Someone might also remind the powerful that this is OREGON…land of the very independent and often rebellious to any dictated cause.

    I think they’ve bitten off way too much right now and especially in a time of rapidly increasing economic hardship for average fans…assuming that UO sports are still going to be viable for ‘the average fan’. And if you’re correct, maybe too much in the long haul as well. We’ll see.

27. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    I think Autzen is a better symbol of Oregon football, but I consider Phil to be the face of Oregon athletics. There’s good reason for this, and it’s not all negative.

    The UO has been Nike branded. Sometimes this is pretty cool, sometimes it’s kind of crass. Beyond gear and apparel, you’ve got Nike’s stamp on some of UO’s marketing, and many of their displays look like they came straight out of Nike Image Design. The guys at ESPN are very hip to this. By the way, ESPN has been using Wieden + Kennedy as their ad agency for around 15 years, so ESPN and Nike have W+K in common.

    Nike is a global power. Having the Phil Knight’s benevolent support is a huge boon to Oregon in almost every way. Oregon athletics–football, especially–have become national players since Knight came to the party. It’s not lost on the East Coast media that little Oregon has stepped up, thanks to Phil. It’s only natural that they would consider Phil to be the greatest factor in our success.

    So, we look like Nike, are funded by Nike’s founder, and we have even adopted Nike’s push-the-envelope style (what critics often call arrogance). This is the cause of a significant amount of jealous envy. It certainly doesn’t go down well with many fans of traditional powers, who are finding the sledding much tougher in this new age of parity.

    I think the Kilkenny/Frohnmayer/Knight stuff is a lesser consideration for most fans, but the media is very aware of it. Also, for the UO to be associated so closely with Nike can create the perception that Nike’s values and Oregon’s are the same. That’s not the best image for the UO all of the time. It can also go the other way, and reflect poorly on Nike–especially if Knight is seen as improperly orchestrating things behind the scenes. And it won’t do Phil or Nike any good if it’s discovered that Phil’s green lighting of the baseball for wrestling swap was less about baseball than it was opening up a slot to bring in men’s soccer in the near future. Soccer is very important to Nike. One hates to think that this could all be greedy self interest. No, that wouldn’t be good.

    Phil is one of the most powerful people in all of sports and entertainment. No other UO alum is as famous. (And Phil is not someone who seeks attention.) Not even Pre.

    Phil is certainly the face of UO athletics, but Nike branding aside, Autzen is more identified with Oregon football. It was that crazy-joyous, super-charged and quintessentially unique, NW atmosphere that drew Game Day to Eugene twice last season.

28. Roseanna Says:

    June 17th, 2008 at 10:52 pm

    Well Hank…I’m sorry and not surprised to hear that ESPN has Wiedan and Kennedy in common. Wiedan ‘distinguished’ himself last week at the J School commencement by encouraging those ’students who still needed to finish courses to consider dating their professor’. Good ethics for the UO to associate with, yes?

    “Nike is a global power. Having the Phil Knight’s benevolent support is a huge boon to Oregon in almost every way….etc and so forth that I won’t re-quote” Hank…I’ve read your previous UO related posts. Get a grip because you’re selling out what you’ve previously posted.

    “(And Phil is not someone who seeks attention.)” Hank…attention is what Phil IS ALL ABOUT. That you don’t think he’s into this shows you how clever his gimmicks have been. Wake up, Hank!

    In the end, I think branding on this level is going to be found as idealistic baloney, especially as times get economically more difficult. People that are brand believers are caught in nonsensical portrayals. It’s fine if time and money allows. If they do not?

29. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 12:31 am

    Attention all critical readers of my posts:

    It’s been posited that I am selling out my previously stated positions on this blog. I’m unaware of any change in my opinion regarding Knight, or much else. (Not that opinions should be immutable.) If you disagree, please specify the contradiction. In the meantime, I’d like to clarify my position to avoid future confusion.

    I believe:

    The UO has benefitted greatly from the generosity of Phil Knight.

    I’m grateful for what he’s given.

    The fear of loss of Knight’s crucial support has meant that the UO seeks his opinion/approval about almost every major AD decision.

    Phil and the UO pretend this isn’t the case, because they both know how improper this relationship has become.

    None of this negates the prominent association that Knight has with the UO in the public’s perception.

    As for my statement that Knight does not seek attention, I meant it in the sense that he does not personally hog the spotlight. He’s not Mark Cuban or Jerry Jones or David Stern. His personal style is somewhat demure, deflecting of praise, and even reclusive at times. He DOES seek attention for Nike and Oregon–in a big way. Good for him.

    Any complaints I may have about the way his influence has inadvertently corrupted certain aspects of the Casanova Center, or contributed to the growing college football arms race that could eventually bankrupt college athletics, in no way negates the fact that the UO has greatly prospered thanks to him.

    I think the UO is lucky to have Phil. With stronger UO leadership enforcing proper boundaries, Phil’s contributions to the UO could be entirely positive.

30. Brian Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 7:10 am

    A few years ago I would say Pre was the face of Oregon athletics. An athlete with heart, and the soul of a champion. Now I would say indoor waterfalls, Xbox’s, plasma TV’s, and garish football uniforms for pampered golden boy athletes is the face of Oregon athletics. Maybe the new cheer squad will be the face when they defeat Maryland for the championship. The only two D1 schools in the country with a team.

31. Brian Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 8:27 am

    Talk about the football arms race. Did you read the Canzano commentary this morning? Not that I’m suprised that Oregon didn’t keep their promise to a kid. It’s the 7 devensive coaches that shocked me. 7 coaches for 11 players? Okay I know there are reserves that need coaching too, but 7 coaches just for the defense. What the hell?!! How many AD’s work at Oregon? Coaches and administrators have it made with the sweat, blood, and broken bones of young people. They can even break promises to them, and still get paid big bucks.

32. John Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Phil Knight as face of the program is like having Donald Trump as the Face of New York City.

    Too bad he is overshadowing Pre by writing checks instead of setting records in athletic competition

33. Jay Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 8:44 am

    Real quickly…The Face of the Program refers to the football program. So, while Pre might qualify for the Face of the UO, I don’t think he played football.

    Jay
    DSN

34. Brian Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 9:01 am

    Oh, I thought it was for the athletic deparment. Sorry. Definately the Xboxes, and other crap is the face of Oregon football.

35. Roseanna Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am

    Hank…thanks for the statement to my ‘posited comments’. I do more clearly understand your position now and disagree on several points although there’s no reason to take time and space to discuss these in detail.

    What I will say is this: UO has allowed itself to be used and dictated to by a mega donor at it’s expense which has the potential to get really ugly down the road. At that point we can analyze whether Oregon has been lucky and just how greatly it prospered beyond the $$ signs.

    When he announces a new gift one day to one of the Schools within UO and dictates what research will be done and what not, and which professors are hired and ah…eased out, possibly people will start to look more seriously at the precedents being set and stop trying to pad it with praise up front.

    And in closing, because I’m moving on from this subject, that he seeks attention for the UO and ‘good on him for it’? Well…he’s now the face of the program. How good is this really?

36. Dave Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 11:19 am

    Roseanna
    I commend you for the insightful thinking of what this relationship can potentially lead to in the future. I think you and Hank agree more than either of you would admit. One thing that comes to my mind is that Phil donates 100 million but how much “free advertising and exposure is he getting in return for being the face of Oregon football? I am guessing he is getting a really good investment on his donated money.

37. Hank Hosfield Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am

    It’s a mixed bag, Roseanna. Initially, and on the surface, Knight’s gifts have been like manna from heaven for the UO. But the precedent being set and the control ceded to him are not good. And for what it’s worth, I’d prefer that something else were the face of UO football/athletics.

38. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    I find it absolutely amazing that the correspondents here who have been chided for having “wrestling on the brain” can pry themselves loose from their single-minded obsession to engage in the the exchange that has developed over the past dozen posts.

    Perhaps the university that educated Ken Kesey also succeeded with several other devotees of his sport.

39. Tim Larson Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    David C. Nelson reminds me more and more of the John Gooman character in The Big Lebowski who tied in vietnam to just about every situation. Wrestling is not a pac-10 sport and needed to be eliminated.

40. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    Some thirty years ago, our professors taught us to win arguments based on the facts, not by attacking our interlocutors.

    Of course, I attended the University of Oregon, not its reincarnation as Nike U.

41. Roseanna Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    David C….. I think this is the most disturbing part of communication within society today. People are apparently not able to discuss or debate or even disagree without attack. I find it highly disturbing. And more than that, it’s insidious. It’s usually ends up being so personal, generally speaking, and taken as personal that one can find themselves easily drawn in.

    My god…if, if …IF we could just talk openly with each other about our concerns and complaints, whether we agreed or not and with a greater sense of charity, how much easier it could be.

    Ultimately, I think people are growing far too selfish. It’s about ‘me and mine’. If I’m not a wrestler, who cares about them. Not until it touches my gem football program do I cry foul. It’s about ME, baby. All that makes me sick.

    Well…a day’s dawning, each night on the news. Community is becoming increasingly more important.

42. Dave Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    Amazing how we have some real deep thinkers on this discussion and some real block heads. I hopefully fall in the first category.lol Hopefully, we are all not so ingrained in our ways that we cannot look at other points of view on all topics and maybe change our point as we evolve as an adult. I know, I look at college wrestling, football, and the rest of college athletics in a different light in the past year due to the happening at UofO. After hearing from others such has Hank, Dave, Roseanna, and even you Jay I feel like I have a better grasp on this. That being said I am sure my thoughts will change after reading other thoughts in the future. Have a good evening all no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

    PS if your not on my side get your butt over here.lol

43. Jay Says:

    June 18th, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Dave -

    Thanks for the compliment…I think.

    Jay
    DSN

44. Bob Says:

    June 19th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Tim Larson,
    I’m not sure where you get your “facts” regarding wrestling being a Pac 10 sport. Take a look at the Pac 10 website. I respect your opinion, but don’t pass it off as fact.

45. Robin Pilger Says:

    June 19th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Bob,

    Go the the Pac10 web site. See the icons for the schools toward the top. Now go to the wrestling page and look at the list of school wresting in the Pac10. Do you see a disconnect there?

    Now what is interesting is that Pac10 wants to put together a TV network just like the Big10. Only problem is the Big10 is much more of “real” sports conference with more of its core school offering more of the core sports. I have read on the web (so it must be true) that the Pac10 is going to be a lot more…directive about the sports its members offer so they can be competitive with the Big10 Network. Wrestling is on the list of those sports. (For some reason, hockey is not.) I doubt this TV deal would be enough to get six or seven school to add wrestling but it is one more factor in the mix.

46. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 19th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    Bob: For the past 20 years, the Pac-10 Conference, as configured for wrestling, has pitted ten schools: 4 from the traditional Pac-10 and 6 others from the West Coast that have strong wrestling programs.

    This has been just fine for the past two decades, but as the athletic department cobbles together new excuses for dropping wrestling — now that the primary Title IX excuse has been shredded — our athletic administrators are falling back on conference affiliation “problems.”

    As it stands, the reconstituted Pac-10 wrestling conference sends the top three finishers at each weight class to the NCAA tournament. In addition, a variable number of “wild cards,” wrestlers who finished lower than third in the conference tournament, also go to the nationals.

    This gives the Pac-10 a much better competitive environment than, for example, the Big 12–which despite the membership of strong, traditional wrestling schools, has only five members participate in its conference tournament.

    As I said before, this has worked for 20 years. It’s now a problem only because Oregon wants an excuse to drop wrestling.

47. Roseanna Says:

    June 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Call me crazy here, but I think Bob knows that wrestling is a Pac-10 sport and that’s why he brought up the website. I think he was responding to Tim Larson that said it wasn’t a Pac-10 sport. At least that’s the way I read his post.

48. Roseanna Says:

    June 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Jay… I saw the link earlier about The Rose Bowl being the face of UCLA’s program. Is there a list anywhere of all the ‘faces of the programs’ for the Pac-10?

49. Jay Says:

    June 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Roseanna -

    You’re a step ahead of me. I’ll be putting that together very soon.

    Thanks,
    Jay
    DSN

50. Roseanna Says:

    June 19th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Uh-oh! I have that happen with another blog as well. Sorry…I’ll add a day+ to my thoughts! lol.. :)

51. David C. Nelson Says:

    June 20th, 2008 at 2:50 am

    Rosanna,

    My comments weren’t aimed at Bob. I know he’s supportive. While the lawyers prepare for July 7, I’m arguing in the court of public opinion. I’m rather sure the University won’t argue Title IX in court, but instead will advance other equally spurious reasons in support of its “prerogative” to drop a sport it wishes to eliminate. Sometimes you have to say things more than once in order to get concept to stick. After all, we still have Ducks out there who seem to believe, because Kilkenny & Co. said so, that it was a baseball or wrestling dichotomy.

52. Curtis Sexton Says:

    June 20th, 2008 at 10:26 am

    According to the US Supreme Court, wrestling is part of “the Curriculum” of the University. Changing the curriculum when it serves the mission of the University and hundreds of Oregon’s high schools (while educating thousands of students), is no simple act to be set in motion by misinformation, blatantly false accusations, and shifting rationale.

53. Zachary Vishanoff Says:

    June 20th, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    The real face of the UO quack attack sports agenda should be the Creature from the Black Lagoon . That critter in the classic film was so UO as it would sneak up behind unsuspecting victims with that disgusting hissing noise.(eminent domain and roboduck like webfooted attacks on UO neighbors and property owners) No doubt about it-that webfooted horror accurately depicts the godfather governance program here at Nike U. May the wrestling program wrestle the beast and throw it back into the toxic swamp from which it crawled.

Join The Conversation