Pretty sure he could easily pay for the best coach in college football along with as much NIL money as needed to compete nationally with the change in his couch cushions. You're right though. The Nike connection does help. Immensely.
it does matter....when PK first started donating it was to academic programs again, the first money that went to the AD was to the Moshovsky Practice Facility. That building was 'opened for business' in the fall of 1998 the only donation to the UofO from Knight I could find before that was a 27M gift to renovate and expand the library. PK only donated half of the 16M cost of the practice facility; the university raised the other 50%.
If ya'll wanna continue to argue about Phil Knight and donations to Oregon, there is a lovely Oregon Ducks thread you can discuss in.
Did you put the kiddie pool down over there? If there isn't a water source nearby ducks will poop on everything. But they prefer to poo in water.
Knight paid to renovate Hayward field in 1990. But the original point brought up is Knight and Nike were a massive advantage the University of Oregon had the last few decades that Oregon State and others just don't have, not to mention USC/UW/Cal/etc schools that had historically been way more successful than UofO. Look at these amounts of donations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_and_the_University_of_Oregon Goes from 50 million to 1 billion in donations, extravagant buildings and Nike designers. Obviously this Nike connection with flashy attire is a huge advantage to recruit 18/19 year old kids. Those uniforms are just one example - Nike is the name to promote athletes and get them endorsement deals bigger than their pro contracts. Its a huge draw. Not saying there aren't other things UofO has done well - but the #1 thing for the last 3 decades is being the spoiled trust fund beneficiary of Nike/Phil Knight. Congrats.
I can't find any mention of a 1990 renovation of Hayward Field. The only thing I could fine was a change from 440 yards to 400M and a reconditioning of the east grandstand in 1988. But that sure wouldn't result in any bowl games I've said several times that PK has made a big difference for the UofO over the last 20 years. And you're kind of exaggerating the number of decades PK has been floating donations to the UofO. By the way, the majority of his donations have gone to academics, not the athletic department. He gave 400M to Stanford as well....as if they needed more in their endowment fund (the fund was 36.3B in 2022) but the main point I made is that the UofO football program had moved into the upper tiers of NCAA football before Knight's largess made any kind of substantial impact. That article you cited said he had only contributed 50M by 2000...and 27M of that was donated for the renovation and expansion of the library. I know Knight only contributed half of the cost of the practice facility...8M. Not sure where the other 15M went, but odds are some went to academics. So then, somewhere between 8-20M by 2000. That's not major money, even at that time. And by 2000, Oregon had been in 9 bowl games in 12 years Knight's main focus for the AD has been in facilities. He didn't pay the salaries of any coaches and he didn't fund NIL until the last year or so, and even that, I've been told, has been exaggerated. Supposedly, he's not a fan of NIL. He in his 80's and is a traditionalist. and it's not like Knight hasn't sent some money OSU's direction: https://www.oregonlive.com/behindbeaversbeat/2006/08/how_bout_that_phil_knight.html ************************************************* Oregon also has been doing it pretty much on their own:
So, getting back to the Beavers... https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-penalty-oregon-washington-state/75365449007/ The Beavs/Cougs agreed to the poaching fee when they scheduled football games with the MWC, but now they've decided that the fees are "unlawful, unenforceable and a violation of antitrust law." Come on--how can you legitimately complain about something you willingly agreed to? Now they are claiming that the MWC had WSU/OSU over a barrel, that they agreed to these poaching fees under duress because they were a "disadvantaged and desperate conference." I'm more than a little disappointed in this.
I'm not disappointed at all. The court will decide if it's legit or not. And if they side in our favor it saves the PAC a ton of $$ and will help us get more/better schools to join.
We're you in the room for the negotiations with Pac2 and MWC? Are you an attorney that reviewed their agreements? I suspect your not in a position to judge if the Beavers did or did not have integrity on this. I think it's fine to question this move or be concerned it lacks integrity, just don't think any of us have any of the information to pass that judgement. Maybe details will come out in litigation and that will be known.
I believe very strongly in not going back on an agreement. As it stands, I have enough information to have an opinion. I can't conceive of any information that could come out that would change my stance.
did you happen to catch what the OSU president and AD said in front of the emergency session of the legislature called by their supporters in the legislature? It was a ridiculous display of OSU playing victim card after victim card. They, of course, had nothing to do with their situation. It was all the fault of the UofO. The OSU president asked the lawmakers to block the UofO from going to the Big-10. She demanded the legislature force the UofO to plug the 40M hole in OSU's athletic budget. She even suggested that the UofO should foot the bill for OSU athletic scholarships for an unspecified number of years it was so insane and pathetic that not only did the UofO officials walk out of the session before it was over, so did several of the legislators. Reportedly, there was a whole lot of WTF? behind the scenes by those legislators. playing the victim is OSU's go-to move and it was their move long before the Pac-12 collapsed. OSU playing the victim of the UofO is the reason OHSU is not part of the UofO anymore. the irony is that the money that OSU has to pay to the MWC, the money that OSU is contesting they owe...is the money that came from the same type of exit fees and agreements signed by the 10 departing Pac-12 teams. The Pac-2 wouldn't have the money to destroy the MWC otherwise and let's be clear: the MWC was more than willing to accept OSU/WSU as full members, They made that offer. OSU/WSU could have joined the conference and kept 100-120M each. But because they had that cash, they made a calculated decision to destroy the MWC using the leverage of that cash. And you can bet they are using that cash to pay the law firm
Chatting with an OSU-alum coworker, his defense of the suit is that the CougarBeavs told the MWC at the time that those types of penalty fees aren't valid, and that they agreed to them anyway fully intending to challenge them. IMO, that's not really a great defense.
I'm inclined to call bullshit on that defense. I followed this pretty closely and I don't recall any mention of Pac-2 resistance to the raiding fees. Sounds like a justification after the fact my guess about what happened: The Pac-2 needed a scheduling agreement and the MWC was the only viable option. The Pac-2 opened discussions with the MWC. The MWC suggested that the Pac-2 simply join the MWC. The Pac-2 declined and said they wanted to keep the PAC brand alive. The MWC said OK but realized that if OSU/WSU were determined to keep the PAC alive, the flagship MWC programs would be the most logical targets for Pac-X expansion. So they proposed a bargain: they'd give the Pac-2 a scheduling agreement on the condition that if the Pac-2 did raid the MWC for the most attractive teams, the raid would come at a price. 'We give you a scheduling agreement; you give us some security against a future move against our conference'. The Pac-2 then signed that contract. And, if they truly signed that contract wit the intention of later challenging in court, that's a bad faith situation I'm not seeing the basis for a lawsuit but I'm not a greedy lawyer. OSU/WSU DID NOT have to sign a scheduling agreement with the MWC. They could have patch-worked their schedules together for the 2024-2025 seasons, then raided the MWC without any penalty. and again, the irony is that the Pac-2 has the financial leverage to raid the MWC because of the exit fees and contracts agreed to by the 10 departing Pac-12 members. Money from the same types of agreements that the Pac-2 is apparently going to fight paying the MWC
more on the failed attempt to attract AAC schools: https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter and:
If UNLV is out they should try to get Hawaii football only and then a non football school, Gonzaga would've been great but whoever else they can. Hawaii would be super fun to visit every other year for road games, so thats my favorite. Only need one school, so can hold out for awhile as this is August 2026 it needs to start. Maybe UNLV comes back to the table though, never know if this could just be a bargaining power play.
Sac State would be funny, yeah if they really can't get an 8th school then I guess take whoever you can last minute in 2026. Maybe it could be a temporary member for just two years or something.
Hawaii would not be a full member because it doesn't meet the minimum requirements for Division 1 or FBS (16 for Div 1; or 14 for FBS men's and women's intercollegiate sports). So, adding Hawaii for football would still leave the Pac-X with 7 FBS schools. It's also a MWC member and might coast the Pac-7 nearly 30M in exit fees that's not to say Hawaii wouldn't be a good add for football. I'm sure most Pac-X teams wouldn't mind a visit to O'ahu in October/November. It would also allow the Pac-9 to schedule 8 conference games
