By Jay Jones, June 23, 2008

Last week, ESPN.com concluded releasing their selections for the “Face of the Program” feature on college football.

As noted right here on Duck Sport News, Phil Knight was named Oregon’s “Face of the Program”. And noted on Beaver Sports News, Terry Baker was selected as the “Face of the Program” for Oregon State.

Since posting those entries,several DSN and BSN visitors requested that we put together a list of all of the Pac-10 “Face of the Program” selections.

So, here you go.

Arizona: John “Button” Salmon - Salmon’s “Bear Down” is Arizona’s “Win one for the Gipper.” This one goes back a ways. When I think of Arizona football, I think of “Desert Swarm”. And I also think of a season-ending injuries at the hands of that defense.

Arizona State: Pat Tillman - Pat Tillman has transcended the sport, and become an American hero.

Cal: “The Play” - An iconic play. The downside to this is that Cal has not had a player rise to that kind of transcended level.

Oregon: Phil Knight - So, who stands out on this list? Or should I say doesn’t belong? Phil Knight has done a lot of good things for the University of Oregon. But his selection as the “Face of the Program” is a swipe at Oregon’s history, its accomplishments on the field, and Autzen Stadium. Or were they saying that Oregon really doesn’t have anything emblematic enough to be considered the “Face of the Program”?

Oregon State: Terry Baker - Good choice. Heisman Trophy winner. Although, this selection is reaching back into history pretty far.

Stanford: Jim Plunkett - Won the Heisman Trophy in 1970 over Notre Dame’s Joe Theisman. That’s good enough for me (That orange man turned me down for an autograph.).

UCLA: The Rose Bowl - An iconic venue. But Bruins’ fans think that ESPN missed the boat on this one. And I agree. Again, what does this say about their play on the field? Even though Troy Aikman started off at Oklahoma, he did his damage at UCLA, and with America’s Team, the Dallas Cowboys. How ’bout them ESPN boys!

USC: Tailback U - Five Heisman Trophy winners at the tailback position. USC was named the “Face of the Program” representing the decade of the 2000s.

UW: Don James - “Dawgfather” is about right, with all the good, and bad, that implies.

WSU: Mel Hein - Talk about the way-back machine. An All-American in 1930. 1930! The Great Depression. Speakeasies. Flappers. Call me a young whipper-snapper, but “Jumping Jehosaphat”! Couldn’t they have selected Drew Bledsoe and called it good?

Hmmm…So, what “Face of the Program” doesn’t belong? I’ll give you a hint: Barry Sanders was named the “Face of the Program” for Oklahoma State, not T. Boone Pickens.

Get all your sports news on the Oregon Ducks at DuckSportsNews.com.
Innappropriate comment? Let us know.
Spam filters are set on high. Please be patient for your comments to be posted.

Jay, here.

I’m a little late to the party with this one. Fashionably late. And I can consume only so much media. But I’m late, nevertheless.

A little over a week ago, University of Oregon Athletics Directory Pat Kilkenny was on The Morning Sports Page with Kenny & Katy on 95.5 FM “The Game” in Portland.

In the course of their conversation, Kenny, Katy, and Mr. Kilkenny covered a cavalcade of curious content. Try saying that three times fast!

Here are the highlights:

- Competitive Cheerleading/Team Stunts & Gymnastics

- Parking situation at Autzen Stadium for football games

- Basketball arena update

- ESPN story on Phil Knight and Pat Kilkenny

- Balancing the job the media attention as Athletics Director

- Phil Knight’s influence at the University of Oregon

- How does the job as AD match up against previous jobs?

And here’s the link to the entire interview.

Even though baseball wasn’t really covered in the interview, I might as well bring it up. Why? Because I think all of you wrestling fans out there are going to tee up Mr. Kilkenny’s responses and swing for the fences.

I’m almost tempted to write up a generic wrestling response myself because I can see the comments already.

So, wrestling fans, do I need to set up a separate comments page just for you guys? Or is there enough space here?

Get all your sports news on the Oregon Ducks at DuckSportsNews.com.
Innappropriate comment? Let us know.
Spam filters are on a high setting. Please be patient for your comments to be posted.

The New York Post just did a story on Phil Knight a few days ago and his cashing in his stocks for Nike and making 1.05 billion dollars in little over a month.

The 70-year-old Nike founder has done hundreds of separate stock sales since mid-April, collecting $1.05 billion - well ahead of his $780 million cash-out of shares in 2007. That’s the year he placed 14th in Vanity Fair’s ranking of windfalls made by the rich from selling stock or family empires.

With that new cash flow going to Knight’s bank accounts will Oregon see even more money come their way?

What will the critics of the University taking the money say about this?

Times are going to sure get interesting in the future with all the building going on on campus. Knight has made mention multiple times he would like the UO to have an indoor track and field facility and he would do everything in his power to get one. Well I am sure 1 Billion can go a long ways to getting that built.

Theres lots of options for Knight to donate to when it comes to sports but I am sure the UO will also see a nice spike in money donated to the academic side as well. Dorms are needed to be refurbished and even rebuilt along with more updating on some of the older school buildings.

Matt

Ducks Sports News Blogger

Ducks Attack Editor

[UPDATE, 5/5/2008, 10:00 pm: If you'd like to hear John Canzano, Rachel Bachman, and Brent Hunsberger talk about this series, just click here. You'll need to go about halfway through the MP3 to hear this segment.  Is it worth it?  Yeah, it's worth it.  And it's worth it alone to hear Canzano explain why he thinks academics has suffered because of Phil Knight's donations to Oregon athletics.  Do I need to explain why that's preposterous?  Well,  OK.  It's preposterous because while academics is suffering, athletics would be suffering just as much without Phil Knight's donations.  And that seems to be John Canzano's idea of a "healthy relationship". Also, see if you can catch the swipe at The Register-Guard.  And if you want to listen to the second hour, just click here.]

Jay, here.

On a cool Saturday evening, a rather curious news item came across our desks here at Duck Sports News: an interview The Register-Guard had conducted with Phil Knight intended for publication on Sunday.

The headline read, “KNIGHT HOLDS COURT”.

As the first line in the story states, Phil Knight wanted to talk.

But I asked myself, “Why?”

Why would Phil Knight want to talk? Why The Register-Guard? Why now?

After reading the article, the interview struck me as a public relations move. That’s not a bad thing. It just seemed like Mr. Knight was trying to get out ahead of something. He was feeling the heat. But what had happened?

Well, we found out what that something was Sunday in The Oregonian. Why would Phil Knight want to talk to Ron Bellamy and The Register-Guard? Because he wasn’t talking to anyone at The Oregonian.

And, honestly, I can’t blame him.

In case you missed it, here’s a brief recap of The Oregonian’s stories on Phil Knight, Nike, and the University of Oregon.

“Statement from Phil Knight”

Recap: The Oregonian requested an interview with Phil Knight, but he declined and issued a short statement.

Bottom-line: The Knights have been successful and wanted to give back to the University of Oregon through their gifts.

“Band out of step with Nike’s offbeat uniforms“

Recap: The band uniforms designed five years ago by Nike through a gift from the Knights were ill-suited for a marching band.

Bottom-line: If this story had been a television show on Spike or on the old FOX, it might have been called, “When Good Donations Go Bad”. OK. We get it. The uniforms were terrible. And they still are. I’m not even sure what Oregon has now is a uniform in any traditional sense. We all know that. But the story starts off, “Five year ago…”. In terms of relevance, that might as well have been, “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.”

“Knight’s access to UO sports is a fan’s dream”

Recap: As Oregon’s top donor, Phil Knight enjoys rare access to University of Oregon athletics.

Bottom-line: Duh. Reading like a laundry list of the privileges Phil Knight enjoys at the University of Oregon, the tone of the story makes you think he’s done something wrong. When in fact, he hasn’t. While this article notes that NCAA rules restrict booster contact with recruits, the writers paint a picture that Phil Knight is exploiting the gray area of boosters’ access to players or coaches.

“The biggest man on campus”

Recap: Phil Knight’s financial influence has transformed University of Oregon athletics.

Bottom-line: When printed out, this story is seven pages long. So, I’m not going to get into a point-by-point critique of the article. I’ll leave that up to the message boards. But as many have already stated on those very same boards, “What’s new here?’. As far as I can tell, not a whole lot.

“UO ‘gets’ Knight — he just gets”

Recap: John Canzano opines that the problem with the Phil Knight-Oregon dynamic is not Phil Knight’s fault, but a failure on the part of the University of Oregon’s administration.

Bottom-line: Canzano’s take is that Phil Knight has acted like a petulant child at times and should have been told “no” on several occasions.

Truthfully, it would be great to have the time, and the resources, to analyze all of these pieces. But I’m not really inclined to do that. And I think you would be completely disinterested in reading anything close to that. Plus, what would be point?

And that’s the bottom-line for all of these stories: what’s the point? More specifically, what’s the problem The Oregonian is investigating? There’s got to be a problem they’re trying to address, right? If there is, I’m not sure The Oregonian could easily summarize the singular problem they are investigating.

Before I go any further, I want to explain why I’m referring to The Oregonian as a monolithic entity. Even though my friends in the print media deny a groupthink mentality exists in the newsrooms of large newspapers, I’ve been around enough broadcast newsrooms to know that it does exist in the media. And maybe the term “groupthink” is too evocative of a mob, or even zombie-like, mentality. Perhaps, a more appropriate word would be “culture”.

I think there is a decidedly anti-University of Oregon, anti-Phil Knight, anti-Nike “culture” that exists at The Oregonian. Just as I think there is a pro-University of Oregon culture that exists at The Register-Guard. I also think that FOX News is more conservative and CNN is more liberal. To deny the existence of “cultures” within any of these entities is to deny the obvious, and the very human.

So, why does The Oregonian’s culture have a problem with the Knight-Oregon relationship. I don’t think you have to look any further than John Canzano’s most recent blog and the comments that follow.

In the comments, Wheaton4prez makes a simple request:

Please, somebody be specific and state what they think the loss or crime is here. It’s starting to sound like a spooky, fire-side story meant to scare children.

As he does on occasion, Canzano responds:

Thanks for the post. If you’re a Ducks’ fan you may love what Knight has done for the university, but it’s risky business because the university has given up control and sacrificed academics for athletics. Employees are in tough positions… nobody in green can criticize Knight… a donor has influence over personnel matters… and Knight’s building are being approved outside a university planning process. This is all problematic. Just take the guy’s donations, and keep your autonomy, and if he can’t live with that, don’t take it.

Again, I could go through this tidy summation of Canzano’s beef with the Phil Knight-Oregon alliance and address each one of his points. But I’m not going to do that either. However, Insominduck did a nice job of addressing at least one of Canzano’s points in another comment:

Since Phil has been involved as a high level donor the following have occurred (most due to his generosity)

New Law School
New Library
New Business School
$15 million to create endowed chairs and professorships
New Practice Facility
New Training Facility
New Student Center for Athletes
Remodeled Autzen
New Basketball Arena coming
not to mention other donations he’s made that aren’t public

What I want to address is Canzano’s very last line:

Just take the guy’s donations, and keep your autonomy, and if he can’t live with that, don’t take it.

Where would Oregon be without Phil Knight’s donations? Just look to one of The Oregonian’s articles:

“I’d hate to see where that school would be without his support and without the growth that they have demonstrated over the last decade,” said David Carter, a USC sports business professor and consultant. “They’re certainly among the elite nationally. Without that input, they would conceivably be an also-ran.

As Canzano notes, where have all of the Knights’ donations gotten the U of O? Not very far. Actually, on par with Oregon State. So, again, where would Oregon be without those donations?

Wherever Oregon would be, I think John Canzano would prefer Oregon was there with their autonomy intact, without the donations.

That’s great, John. Where would that leave Oregonians, the University of Oregon, Ducks fans, students, and the athletes? Better or worse off? Without a doubt, they all would be worse off. But they would have their autonomy. And that’s worth it, John? Really? And is that really the solution to the perceived problem of Phil Knight and Oregon? Don’t take the money?

If Phil Knight’s influence is a problem, what’s the alternative? I think it’s pretty clear. The alternative is that the University denies Phil Knight’s requests and he denies Oregon his donations.

While I think Phil Knight could live with an autonomous Oregon, I don’t think Oregon could survive being autonomous from Phil Knight. Then, I ask, who would have the heat on them?

And that, Duck fans, would be truly problematic.

If you would like to look at The Oregonian’s Cold War lead-up to this past weekend’s Hot War against Phil Knight, take a look at these stories. However, this is not an exhaustive list. This does not include all of John Canzano or Steve Duin’s columns and blogs.

April 26 | UO plans underground parking for new arena

April 16 | Favored companies new to the game

March 22 | UO seeks fast track for builder of arena

Feb. 24 | Goodbye, MacCourt; hello, questions and higher ticket prices

Feb. 23 | Legislature approves UO arena

Feb. 22 | Legislative committee approves UO basketball arena project

Feb. 21 | Arena finds support in Salem

Feb. 18 | Analyst: UO arena will drain long-term fund but should still get OK

Feb. 17 | Panel to hear public on arena

Feb. 15 | UO arena’s big jump: ticket prices

Feb. 14 | Steve Duin: Obsessive secrecy in Duckville

Feb. 13 | UO’s $12 million offer

Feb. 13 | USC’s all-cash arena

Feb. 9 | UO arena key to $100 million gift

Feb. 9 | ‘Buried’ report sees less revenue

Feb. 4 | UO sports arena: Creative financing or a dubious IOU?

Jan. 23 | Oregon arena idea includes ode to Mac Court

Jan. 22 | New-look arena

Jan. 22 | A misdirection of Oregon’s priorities (commentary)

Jan. 18 | State finance hearing or sports talk radio? (commentary)

Jan. 18 | UO arena closer to final OK

Jan. 17 | Proposed UO arena: Get out the checkbook

Jan. 13 | Steve Duin: Risk, rewards and Oregon’s new arena

Jan. 10 | Arena wouldn’t use academic funds, UO says

Jan. 9 | UO arena projections criticized

Dec. 18, 2007 | Prices, fees for new UO arena cited in report

Nov. 28, 2007 | Oregon swaps suites for feeling

Jay, here.

Over the past forty-eight hours, the University of Oregon’s Athletics Department has been blitzed by the media concerning the relationship between the University and Phil Knight, highlighting the tension between athletics and academics.

In The Register-Guard on Saturday, there were two stories concerning gifts made to the university by Mr. Knight. “UO agrees to donor’s strict guidelines for athletic center” addresses the strings attached to the construction, donation, and operation of the new Academic Learning Center for Student Athletes. And “Rules changed after prior UO project caught officials by surprise” details the new rules for major work on university property instituted after the 2006 Casanova Center remodeling project.

On Sunday morning, ESPN profiled the influence of Mr. Knight on the university on “Outside the Lines”.

The end of one of The Register-Guard’s articles sums up this conflict pretty well. Terry Ruprecht, campus academic facilities officer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said this:

“It rankles me to no end that somehow athletics manages to bring in these wealthy donors that build these palaces for the athletics folks,” Illinois’ Ruprecht said. “We’ve got huge portions of this institution going wanting, and yet the athletics people get all this money. It really is aggravating.”

Ruprecht’s comments have me asking two questions. Well, there is a third one. But I’ll save that one for later.

1. Is the University of Oregon better or worse off because of Phil and Penny Knight’s donations?

2. If Phil and Penny Knight could not make donations to the University of Oregon Athletics Department, would those donations go towards academic programs?

They’re simple questions.

You might want to complicate the answers. But there’s no need to. There are very simple, easy, and right answers. Don’t over-think these questions.

Let’s look at the first question. The correct answer is that the University of Oregon is better off because of the Knights’ gifts. If you don’t think it is (You’re kidding, right?), try to imagine the University of Oregon experience without those donations? Not pretty.

Now, onto the second question. And I love this question. I’ve known several people to pose this question to academic-types at the university and they’ve gotten it wrong every single time.

I’ve got two dollars I want to donate to the University of Oregon Athletics Department. But University of Oregon faculty members want to curb athletics excess. In their infinite wisdom, the university adopts a rule that donors can only donate one dollar to athletics and one dollar to academics. I donate my dollar to athletics, but I’ve still got an extra dollar that I intended to donate to the university and the Athletics Department. Since I can’t donate any more to athletics, am I going to donate that remaining dollar to an academic program on campus? The answer is…No. If I wanted to donate to an academic program, I would have donated to an academic program at the very beginning. Just because I don’t, or can’t, donate to athletics, does not mean that I will donate to academic programs.

So, this leads me to back to Mr. Ruprecht’s comments:

“It rankles me to no end that somehow athletics manages to bring in these wealthy donors that build these palaces for the athletics folks…”

In that “rankling”, it seems to me that faculty at the University of Oregon would prefer donors not donate to athletics if those donations are not at least equaled in their giving to academic programs. Basically, if they can’t get those donor dollars, they don’t want anyone getting them.

And that has me asking my third, and final, question.

3. Why is the percentage of athletic donations increasing in relation to colleges’ overall donations?

Oregon faculty, it seems to me that’s a you problem, not an athletics department problem. And instead of blitzing each other, you might want to remember that you play for the same team.