forums

OT: Interesting read on Nike & Oregon.

Advertisement
If not for Phil Knight that school would be currently relevant as Oregon State or Washington st..

Some schools in the south would kill for Phil Knight guaranteed revenue
 
I don't know why OP is getting down-voted for sharing an interesting story, without either endorsing or rejecting anything at all.

The bottom line is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything comes with a price. Etc, etc. These cliches are cliches because they are inherent, inevitable life truths (at least, 99% of the time).

I don't understand why people get surprised or act shocked when they learn that for most every upside, there is also a downside. Yes, when you attract more out of state students, paying a higher tuition rate per student, then the college has more money to spend on faculty, facilities, and operations. And yes, this also means that the percentage of in-state students would also logically HAVE to go down, it's simple math. But those in-state students also benefit from the higher tuition rates that their out of state cohorts are paying. For every benefit, there is a price/cost. This understanding is the foundation for an entire field of study called "Economics".

I don't know Phil Knight and haven't researched him, but everything in this world costs money. That's why they call it money. Oregon has benefited tremendously from the money that he has given them. Anybody putting on their shocked face when learning that a Billion dollars of "donations" comes with some strings attached needs to grow the fvck up.
 
Last edited:
g8rh8rMD said:
I don't know why OP is getting down-voted for sharing an interesting story. The bottom line is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything comes with a price. Etc, etc. These cliches are cliches because they are inherent, inevitable life truths.

I don't understand why people get surprised or act shocked when they learn that for most every upside, there is also a downside. Yes, when you attract more out of state students, paying a higher tuition rate per student, then the college has more money to spend on faculty, facilities, and operations. And yes, this also means that the percentage of in-state students would also logically HAVE to go down, it's simple math. But those in-state students also benefit from the higher tuition rates that their out of state cohorts are paying.

I don't know Phil Knight and haven't researched him, but everything in this world costs money. That's why they call it money. Oregon has benefited tremendously from the money that he has given them. Anybody putting on their shocked face when learning that a Billion dollars of "donations" comes with some strings attached needs to grow the fvck up.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I wasn't shocked. I would have been shocked had this not been happening to be honest.
 
Advertisement
Yet giving a player $100 is a NCAA violation but a donor buying and selling the coaches and the entire university is ok. Amazing what is right and wrong these days.
 
2FNFST4U said:
Yet giving a player $100 is a NCAA violation but a donor buying and selling the coaches and the entire university is ok. Amazing what is right and wrong these days.
Click to expand...

What you mention, and this case in specific, is actually a good reason for why a player taking money should be a violation. University Administrators and Coaches are supposed to be highly responsible individuals with years of experience and qualifications built up over the course of years of education and work, who understand how the world works and are entrusted with the best interests of various and often conflicting constituencies. They have oversight and rules governing how they are supposed to behave and are supposed to know better than to do just whatever they feel like at any given moment.

17 year old kids are not yet equipped, both because of lack of experience and lack of physical development of their brains, to handle decisions such as turning over their lives to someone in return for money, which in many cases is piddly amounts in relation to their true earning potential. Hence, an argument for the system of student-athlete amateurism.

I am not taking nor arguing for any side of this debate, merely pointing out that it's not as simple as it is often characterized. The same could be said for most controversial topics today. Unfortunately, tweets and catchphrases get all the attention.
 
Back
Top