# OT: Knight to donate $100 million to UO for new basketball arena



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

http://www.registerguard.com/rgn/index.php/sports_updates/more/knight_to_give_major_gift_to_uo/

:yay: :clap: :clap2: 

-Pop


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Well they better build it so the backboard will shake when the fans jump up and down near it, or it just won't be the same. :biggrin:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

The link isn't working for me. I assume this is Phil Knight of Nike?


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Nice, he'll give away 100 million for a basketball arena, but won't pay his workers more than 2 dollars an hour.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> http://www.registerguard.com/rgn/index.php/sports_updates/more/knight_to_give_major_gift_to_uo/
> 
> -Pop


On the one hand, I'm glad to see someone being so generous to a state school.

On the other hand, what a waste of a lot of money that could be geared towards something more substantial at a state school. A $200 million dollar arena...unbelievable. 

Oh well, Uncle Phil is just proving why he's one of the best owners in college sports.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> The link isn't working for me. I assume this is Phil Knight of Nike?


Yeah, the link is getting slammed..same one.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wow, if this is true it just goes to show that UO can only truly compete when they have daddy Phil Bucks paying for things.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)




----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Nice, he'll give away 100 million for a basketball arena, but won't pay his workers more than 2 dollars an hour.


Nike workers are payed very well. 

Nike, like Columbia Sportswear and other successful athletic apparel companies don't actually own the plants their products are made at. Some of the companies that manufacture Nike or other companies products pay workers a low salary in US dollars, but its usually a very livable wage in the those countries.

That's just the way the world economy functions, Nike is no different than other companies.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

Draco said:


> Nike workers are payed very well.
> 
> Nike, like Columbia Sportswear and other successful athletic apparel companies don't actually own the plants their products are made at. Some of the companies that manufacture Nike or other companies products pay workers a low salary in US dollars, but its usually a very livable wage in the those countries.
> 
> That's just the way the world economy functions, Nike is no different than other companies.


Below subsistence levels aren't considered livable. If you need to work excessive (illegal) amounts of overtime to achieve a livable wage, that's not the same thing.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Hap said:


> wow, if this is true it just goes to show that UO can only truly compete when they have daddy Phil Bucks paying for things.


In UO's defense, it is one of only a handful of universities in the country that requires its athletic programs to be 100% self-supporting. Considering the level that UO is able to compete at in both major and minor sports, I'd consider that quite surprising. Considering the relative scarcity of deep-pocketed donors in Oregon (and the years-long freeze between Knight and UO), I'd call the university's ability to keep from subsidizing athletics, and avoid just watching every sport go into the tank, nothing short of extraordinary. And no, I didn't go to UO.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Hap said:


> wow, if this is true it just goes to show that UO can only truly compete when they have daddy Phil Bucks paying for things.


Beavers fans are sensitive when basketball is mentioned, as they have not had a division 1 program for the last ten years or so......:biggrin:


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Now they just need to fire Ernie and get a real coach.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

ebott said:


> Now they just need to fire Ernie and get a real coach.




Yeah... that needs to happen.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SLAM said:


> Below subsistence levels aren't considered livable. If you need to work excessive (illegal) amounts of overtime to achieve a livable wage, that's not the same thing.


Of course not. You're stating a truism.

That doesn't mean that Nike should make its contractors pay more, though.

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> Beavers fans are sensitive when basketball is mentioned, as they have not had a division 1 program for the last ten years or so......:biggrin:


Duck fans are sensitive when it comes to baseball because they REALLY havent had a division 1 program for several years while the Beavs are bringing home National Championship's. :biggrin: 

Cool of Daddy Duck to take care of his boys once again. The new stadium looks to be really nice and hopefully it will help the Ducks hoops program continue to be successful.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2984161

Beavers are renovating Gill Coliseum. Their sales pitch for donations is that Gill is a part of OSU history and they want to keep it that way. Which makes sense and I'm glad they are doing it, but I also took that as they know there is no way they'd be able to raise enough $$$ to build a completely new arena. I was at OSU when Brent Barry was there, he was fun to watch at old Gill.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Bull****. Nike has sweatshops in Vietnam, and they don't even pay their workers a living wage and make them work extremly long hours. There are also rampant reports of sexual abuse. Nike has refused for years to clean up it's act over there.

Ya, praise Phil Knight the multi-billionare. I'm glad that piece of **** didn't buy the Blazers.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> Bull****. Nike has sweatshops in Vietnam, and they don't even pay their workers a living wage and make them work extremly long hours. There are also rampant reports of sexual abuse. Nike has refused for years to clean up it's act over there.
> 
> Ya, praise Phil Knight the multi-billionare. I'm glad that piece of **** didn't buy the Blazers.


Can someone tell me who we can put certain posters on "ignore" so you dont have to read their jibberish?

Nevermind, I figured it out. It's in our "User CP" options.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

B_&_B said:


> Duck fans are sensitive when it comes to baseball because they REALLY havent had a division 1 program for several years while the Beavs are bringing home National Championship's. :biggrin:
> 
> Cool of Daddy Duck to take care of his boys once again. The new stadium looks to be really nice and hopefully it will help the Ducks hoops program continue to be successful.
> 
> ...


I think B & B stands for Beaver Baseball. Go Dux!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I think B & B stands for Beaver Baseball. Go Dux!


I think HispanicCausinPanic stands for Barrett's Personal Massage Boy. :biggrin:


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Bull****. Nike has sweatshops in Vietnam, and they don't even pay their workers a living wage and make them work extremly long hours. There are also rampant reports of sexual abuse. Nike has refused for years to clean up it's act over there.
> 
> Ya, praise Phil Knight the multi-billionare. I'm glad that piece of **** didn't buy the Blazers.


Nike can't own any sweatshops because they don't own a single shop their products are produced at. Those are all outsourced to other companies and other governments. The reality is this is the cheapest way to manufacture items, and consumers have demanded lower costs as opposed to "made in USA" and "made for livable wage" products.

Nike earns $.09 for every $1.00 they sell. Why should they have to pay more than their competitors who buy items from the same exact shops?

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve working conditions in other countries, but singling out Nike as the reason there are problems is ludicrous. If you take Nike out of the world, worker conditions, outsourcing, and demand for the lowest price don't change a bit.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Beavers fans are sensitive when basketball is mentioned, as they have not had a division 1 program for the last ten years or so......:biggrin:



I think it's closer to 15+ years now. Since Payton left basically.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> I think HispanicCausinPanic stands for Barrett's Personal Message Boy. :biggrin:


you spelled massage wrong.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> you spelled massage wrong.


Weird, I edited it 1 min. before you posted this.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

B_&_B said:


> Weird, I edited it 1 min. before you posted this.


he hit the "quote" button before you edited.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> Duck fans are sensitive when it comes to baseball because they REALLY havent had a division 1 program for several years while the Beavs are bringing home National Championship's.


I would rather have a competitive basketball team then a competitive baseball team. What the Beaver baseball team has done is remarkable but baseball is really a third rate sport in the NCAA.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> I would rather have a competitive basketball team then a competitive baseball team. What the Beaver baseball team has done is remarkable but baseball is really a third rate sport in the NCAA.


The Beavs didn't just compete -- they won it all two years running and they did it with style. I agree with you if you're saying you'd rather see a basketball team make the sweet 16 versus a baseball making the field of 16. Back-to-back championship in baseball is much bigger and a lot more fun than doing okay in the big dance.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

For your info, I'm HAP's MASSAGE boy! And don't hate on me just 'cause my Dux are going to have a better baseball team then your Beavs in a couple years. (and cooler uniforms) And yes I do bring MB his messages! What do you do for him, bring him coffee in his orange little Beaver coffee cup?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> I would rather have a competitive basketball team then a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP baseball team. What the Beaver baseball team has done is remarkable but baseball is really a third rate sport in the NCAA.


Your post needed to be edited. And I now disagree. :biggrin:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> And don't hate on me just 'cause my Dux are going to have a better baseball team then your Beavs in a couple years. (and cooler uniforms)


:lol: 
:lol: 
:lol: 

and after being the laughing stock of college football with those current uni's, I'm scared to see what they'll do with the baseball uni's. Maybe plaid socks with checkerboard batting helmets? I will give your boys credit, they do have the best helmets in college football.

and I'm still laughing that you really think your baseball team will be better in a couple of years.

:lol: 
:lol:
:lol: 

It's gonna take them a couple of years to even be competitive in the Pac 10... then another 4-5 years if not more to have a shot at the CWS.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> And don't hate on me just 'cause my Dux are going to have a better baseball team then your Beavs in a couple years. (and cooler uniforms)


Yeah, I can't wait to see what green rhinestoned finery the preppy Ducks show up in a couple years down the road. My favorite is when they add black to their outfits, in an effort to make themselves look tougher.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Maybe they will even let my boys hit off the tee for the first year!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Maybe they will even let my boys hit off the tee for the first year!


Nice! :lol: :biggrin:


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Draco said:


> Nike workers are payed very well.




ahhh, sorry, but this could not be further from the truth. This holds true both domestically and internationally, and through sub-contractors. I am a former employee of Nike and can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt that people do not stay at Nike if they want to earn a living. I have no bone to pick, I like the product, enjoyed my time there ,and have friends there to this day...but the money is horrific, and Columbia Sportswear? It is worse.

As for sweatshops, sub-contracted by Nike, adidas, Gap, and a plethora of other companies, the conditions would shock you, even in there "new rules" regimes. These people are incredibly abused.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> As for sweatshops, sub-contracted by Nike, adidas, Gap, and a plethora of other companies, the conditions would shock you, even in there "new rules" regimes. These people are incredibly abused.


If its so bad, then why do they choose to work there? Nobody is forcing them to work there are they? Do you really expect them to get paid the same amount a worker here in America would make doing the same job? These country's have a much different standard of living than we do.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> For your info, I'm HAP's MASSAGE boy! And don't hate on me just 'cause my Dux are going to have a better baseball team then your Beavs in a couple years. (and cooler uniforms) And yes I do bring MB his messages! What do you do for him, bring him coffee in his orange little Beaver coffee cup?


A better baseball team in a couple years? I know you are a Duck grad (I assume) but have some sense. It's going to take a long time for the Ducks to even be competitive in the Pac 10, let alone the best in state. The Beavers have a HUGE lead in the grand scheme of things (baseball wise).


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

B_&_B said:


> If its so bad, then why do they choose to work there? Nobody is forcing them to work there are they? Do you really expect them to get paid the same amount a worker here in America would make doing the same job? These country's have a much different standard of living than we do.


Well, you nailed it. The quality of life there is poor. It means a great deal to these people to put food on the table and to have a roof over their heads. Things we take for granted. No, I don't expect them to earn what a US employee does, and understand if that was the case then the product would be made here. 

That said, the working conditions are atrocious. The level of verbal abuse is staggering , and physical and pyschological abuse are also common place. I have studied with watchdog groups at length for my past graduate work. 

So, in a nutshell, yes these people are paid a decent wage for their region. No, I do not expect them to be paid what a US employee is. Yes, standard of living is different...that does not excuse physical, psychological and verbal abuse does it? 

Think what you want, and I know what I know. I am not telling you to boycott Nike, Adidas, Gap, or any other company. Still, the fact remains.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I have seen the colors of jealousy, and they are orange and black.

Maybe if people would just buy some more chip dip, you could finally finish building all the new seats that the fanbase can't fill anyway.

-Pop


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

SodaPopinski said:


> Maybe if people would just buy some more chip dip, you could finally finish building all the new seats that the fanbase can't fill anyway.-Pop


There you go again with your empty seat thing about Reser. Do you have anything else worthwhile to say?
Oh wait lets see the Ducks are 0-4 in the last Bowl appearances since 2002.
And the Beavers have been 3-1 in that same time period. Whats going on there........
At least the Beaver Baseball stands will be more filled than your Ducks.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Nate Dogg said:


> There you go again with your empty seat thing about Reser. Do you have anything else worthwhile to say?


I just find it funny that they are "raising Reser" when they don't even have the demand to add more seating. At least when Oregon expanded Autzen, they had crazy demand for more seats. Aren't there more important things OS should be spending their money on than adding a bunch of empty seats to a glorified high school stadium?

Pat Casey is working his *** off and the baseball team is having unprecedented success, yet they can't secure the money to improve their baseball facilities (yes, I know they've started, but they don't have all the funding in place). I'm sure the baseball team is stoked to see all that unnecessary money going into Reser when they're holding bake sales and selling beef jerky to try to expand the baseball stadium. I guess on the bright side, Ben Siegert will have a bunch of room in the stands to keep his sheep.



> At least the Beaver Baseball stands will be more filled than your Ducks.


Really? Do you have concrete proof of that? Because there are hard numbers that Oregon football has been outdrawing OS football for a long time and will for a long time to come.

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

you know you've already lost when you A: bring up a years old "sheep" reference and B: refer to the stadium as "dip" and C: talk about empty seats.

there might be less fans in the games (capacity wise) but 3-1 in the last 4 bowls is more impressive than "capacity" and 0-4 in the last 4 bowl games.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

My hope of the Beavers finally breaking the home team winning the Civil War streak just took a huge hit.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2984696


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> My hope of the Beavers finally breaking the home team winning the Civil War streak just took a huge hit.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2984696


I dont think they had much of a chance regardless. It's a home game for the Ducks, and that all but guarantees a home win for them.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

Hap said:


> you know you've already lost when you A: bring up a years old "sheep" reference and B: refer to the stadium as "dip" and C: talk about empty seats.
> 
> there might be less fans in the games (capacity wise) but 3-1 in the last 4 bowls is more impressive than "capacity" and 0-4 in the last 4 bowl games.


I've found that Duck fans tend to clam up when you bring up their proclivity toward strap-ons:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vikings/2005-05-11-smith-drug-kit_x.htm


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> My hope of the Beavers finally breaking the home team winning the Civil War streak just took a huge hit.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2984696


No worries. I think he'll be back before the season is over. Maybe even for the Utah game.

It just means Brandon Powers and Anthony Wheat-Brown will have to step up their game. Actually, this good be a blessing in disguise. If those two start to really take their game up a notch, then Stroughter comes back...that could be a very nice 3 receiver combo by the end of the season.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Fork said:


> No worries. I think he'll be back before the season is over. Maybe even for the Utah game.
> 
> It just means Brandon Powers and Anthony Wheat-Brown will have to step up their game. Actually, this good be a blessing in disguise. If those two start to really take their game up a notch, then Stroughter comes back...that could be a very nice 3 receiver combo by the end of the season.


True. I hope you are right.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> I just find it funny that they are "raising Reser" when they don't even have the demand to add more seating. At least when Oregon expanded Autzen, they had crazy demand for more seats. Aren't there more important things OS should be spending their money on than adding a bunch of empty seats to a glorified high school stadium?


A glorified high school stadium with the biggest replay screen in the Pac-10.

Part of the idea of expanding Reser isn't just to bring on more seats with the expectations of filling them immediately. Part of it is to attract even higher level opponents. In order to avoid always being forced to go on the road to play some big name schools you need to have a big enough stadium to draw them here. That way they get guaranteed cash and viola. Of course, I'd expect a *uck grad to know that as they have a marginally interesting business program.



> Pat Casey is working his *** off and the baseball team is having unprecedented success, yet they can't secure the money to improve their baseball facilities (yes, I know they've started, but they don't have all the funding in place). I'm sure the baseball team is stoked to see all that unnecessary money going into Reser when they're holding bake sales and selling beef jerky to try to expand the baseball stadium.


They're going full bore, what more do you want? We don't have $100 million dollar donors sitting around. I don't even think Reser has $100 million total net worth (the man, not the company). You see, we at OSU tend to actually earn what we have, it isn't just presented on a silver platter. The stadium is actually being upgraded in phases. If you don't know the meaning of that term, I'd suggest looking it up in a dictionary.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Hap said:


> you know you've already lost when you A: bring up a years old "sheep" reference and B: refer to the stadium as "dip" and C: talk about empty seats.
> 
> there might be less fans in the games (capacity wise) but 3-1 in the last 4 bowls is more impressive than "capacity" and 0-4 in the last 4 bowl games.


Out of those four bowl games, I was embarrassed by the performance last year and by the performance in the Seattle Bowl. However, the other two games (last second field goal by Minnesota in El Paso and a hard-luck loss to Oklahoma where the Sooner linebacker made a fantastic leap on an interception of Brady Leaf when the Ducks were driving for the victory) were fine performances that I don't think any fan would hang their head over.

By the way - nice job "conveniently" omitting 2005 and just saying "last four bowl games", considering the Beavers didn't even get into a bowl game that year. I'd say losing a bowl game is more impressive than not getting invited to one. Your other victories included a win over a 5-loss, unranked Missouri team, a win over the least successful bowl team in recent memory in Notre Dame (hasn't won a bowl game since 1994), and a win over a completely irrelevant New Mexico team.

-Pop


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> A glorified high school stadium with the biggest replay screen in the Pac-10.


Big deal. A giant video screen. Yawn.



> Part of the idea of expanding Reser isn't just to bring on more seats with the expectations of filling them immediately. Part of it is to attract even higher level opponents. In order to avoid always being forced to go on the road to play some big name schools you need to have a big enough stadium to draw them here. That way they get guaranteed cash and viola. Of course, I'd expect a *uck grad to know that as they have a marginally interesting business program.


I guess, but shouldn't you at least be able to fill a stadium with the second smallest capacity in the conference? Very few schools in any of the BCS conferences would have any trouble filling a stadium that size. Attracting higher-profile opponents makes sense, but it still doesn't explain why OSU has such a hard time getting significant interest from their own fan base. As hap pointed out, the program has had a bit of success in recent memory.



> You see, we at OSU tend to actually earn what we have, it isn't just presented on a silver platter. The stadium is actually being upgraded in phases. If you don't know the meaning of that term, I'd suggest looking it up in a dictionary.


So Oregon didn't "earn" what they have? They should make apologies for producing graduates with the earning power of a Phil Knight, or a Pat Kilkenny, or a Randy Pape', or a Ken O'Neil? My guess is that Bob DeCarolis wouldn't turn down a 9 figure donation to the OSU athletic department. And my second guess is that Beaver fan wouldn't be playing the "we don't deserve this money" card, either. So cool it with the "holier than thou" routine. Oregon's athletic department doesn't conduct business any different than any other school in the NCAA when it comes to appeasing donors and taking in money from wealthy alumni. It just happens that Oregon boasts one of the country's wealthiest alumni in Phil Knight.

Jealousy presents itself in so many ways. One of the silliest is the "Oh, I'm so above that type of stuff." Riiiiiight.

-Pop


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

SodaPopinski said:


> Out of those four bowl games, I was embarrassed by the performance last year and by the performance in the Seattle Bowl.
> -Pop


Good thing the refs gave the Ducks the Oklahoma game to make the team bowl eligible; otherwise, you wouldn't have even had the opportunity to be embarrassed in Vegas.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> By the way - nice job "conveniently" omitting 2005 and just saying "last four bowl games", considering the Beavers didn't even get into a bowl game that year. I'd say losing a bowl game is more impressive than not getting invited to one. Your other victories included a win over a 5-loss, unranked Missouri team, a win over the least successful bowl team in recent memory in Notre Dame (hasn't won a bowl game since 1994), and a win over a completely irrelevant New Mexico team.
> 
> -Pop


You do remember that the Ducks missed the 2004 Bowl Season, right? So if we were to say the last 4 bowl seasons, both would be at 3 bowl games, of which OSU is 3-0, and UO is 0-3.

Im not sure i see your point in bringing up 2005, when I could bring up 2004.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Hap said:


> You do remember that the Ducks missed the 2004 Bowl Season, right? So if we were to say the last 4 bowl seasons, both would be at 3 bowl games, of which OSU is 3-0, and UO is 0-3.
> 
> Im not sure i see your point in bringing up 2005, when I could bring up 2004.


Well tie my shoes and call me stupid, you are dead on. I must have eliminated that season from my memory. Yep - I did.

Touche'. I'll give you a rep for me being a dumb-*** with that aspect of my argument.

-Pop


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Big deal. A giant video screen. Yawn.


But just a minute ago we were a high school stadium. I guess you don't like the truth.



> I guess, but shouldn't you at least be able to fill a stadium with the second smallest capacity in the conference? Very few schools in any of the BCS conferences would have any trouble filling a stadium that size.


I guess we just have better things to do. Where are you getting seating capacities by the way? I'm glad you can admit our success even in the midst of your dismal failures.



> So Oregon didn't "earn" what they have? They should make apologies for producing graduates with the earning power of a Phil Knight, or a Pat Kilkenny, or a Randy Pape', or a Ken O'Neil? And my second guess is that Beaver fan wouldn't be playing the "we don't deserve this money" card, either. So cool it with the "holier than thou" routine.


No, actually they didn't. My point was that OSU doesn't have a big name donor who just grants $100 million dollars straight out. We have to earn it from each and every low and mid-range donor. Even Reser's money didn't cover that much. Perhaps you could also point out where I said they needed to apologize, or that you "didn't deserve this money" comment. I didn't. But then, I'd expect that from a UofDoh grad defensive about what they know to be the proverbial silver spoon being given them. Perhaps if they had spent more money on education rather than sports during your tenure there...



> Jealousy presents itself in so many ways. One of the silliest is the "Oh, I'm so above that type of stuff." Riiiiiight.


You're right. .But I didn't allude to any of that in my post so I'm not really sure where you are going with that. Guilt presents itself in so many ways. One of the silliest is the knee-jerk defensive stuff.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Out of those four bowl games, I was embarrassed by the performance last year and by the performance in the Seattle Bowl...
> 
> I'd say losing a bowl game is more impressive than not getting invited to one.


I'd rather not get invited to one if the alternative is the Seattle Bowl...

:lol:


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> No, actually they didn't. My point was that OSU doesn't have a big name donor who just grants $100 million dollars straight out. We have to earn it from each and every low and mid-range donor.


Please explain what you mean by "we have to earn it" which is suggesting Oregon didn't "earn" the donation. Why? Just because it was a large donation? Did Stanford not "earn" the $106 million donation Phil Knight gave to their graduate school last year? Did Oklahoma State athletics not earn the $165 million donation from Boone Pickens? Did North Dakota athletics not earn the $100 million donation from Ralph Engelstad? Your logic on this point makes absolutely no sense.



> But then, I'd expect that from a UofDoh grad defensive about what they know to be the proverbial silver spoon being given them. Perhaps if they had spent more money on education rather than sports during your tenure there...


Ah - the cyber-insult. Truly the weapon of an educated man. Well played.



> You're right. .But I didn't allude to any of that in my post so I'm not really sure where you are going with that. Guilt presents itself in so many ways. One of the silliest is the knee-jerk defensive stuff.


The implication when you say that Oregon State has to "earn their donations" is that Oregon just lucked into the money like they won the lottery or something. So if Bob DeCarolis goes and schmoozes with wealthy OSU alumni and gets a $5 million donation here and a $7.6 million donation there, how is that different than Pat Kilkenny schmoozing with Phil Knight and getting a $100 million donation. Just because it's more means it isn't "earned"? I know you're a smart guy (hell - you're a Cubs fan:clap2: ), so I'm guessing you don't really think dollar amounts define how much you truly "earn," so I can only assume that you see something ethically wrong with Oregon taking $100 million from one donor. Therefore, I'm further assuming you're saying Oregon State is sooooo above that. Please feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding your comments.

-Pop


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

> But then, I'd expect that from a UofDoh grad defensive about what they know to be the proverbial silver spoon being given them. *Perhaps if they had spent more money on education rather than sports during your tenure there... *


When a donation is earmarked by the donor for a specific purpose it's illegal to spend that money on anything else...If a donor wants the University to decide how to spend it then they would make the donation to the University general fund.

You must really hate Stanford...damn them and their 400+ million dollar donation from HP.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Anyone know if Payton ever paid up?



> October 23, 2005
> 
> Page 6 of 7 --Payton also has yet to deliver on his commitment to donate $3 million to his alma mater, Oregon State University. He made the pledge to great fanfare in January 2002.
> 
> ...


http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/articles/2005/10/23/not_giving_it_their_all/?page=6


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

no he didn't, and I believe it was more of a urban legend that he actually said he'd do it.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> no he didn't, and I believe it was more of a urban legend that he actually said he'd do it.


Well it would be nice if guys like Ocho Cinco, Houshmanzzzzzadah, Barnett, Payton, and B.Barry etc. would all send a nice check to OSU.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

Duck fans like to play up the UO facilities -- it happens all the time -- which is fine. They also usually find a way to slam OSU in the process (which has happened in this chain.) As an OSU fan, it's a little hard to take when the bulk (admittedly not all) of the donations come from essentially one donor. It's a little like winning the lottery and making fun of everyone else for not winning the lottery. We got it, ya got Daddy Warbucks in your pocket. 

While OSU wouldn't turn down a similar deep pocketed donor, there's something to be said that we're all a part of the building process and that Reser is slowly, but surely becoming something to be proud of. Might not be as fast or quite as shiny, but I suspect we feel a little more ownership in it. Quite possibly this makes us a little snitty when our trust-fund brethren dis us and our new house.

Edit: By the way, Pop, it hurts me that you're a Cub fan and a Duck fan. See the light and come to the orange and black. We'll make room for ya.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

other Nike news:
http://www.katu.com/news/business/9285041.html


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

mobes23 said:


> Duck fans like to play up the UO facilities -- it happens all the time -- which is fine. They also usually find a way to slam OSU in the process (which has happened in this chain.) As an OSU fan, it's a little hard to take when the bulk (admittedly not all) of the donations come from essentially one donor. It's a little like winning the lottery and making fun of everyone else for not winning the lottery. We got it, ya got Daddy Warbucks in your pocket.
> 
> While OSU wouldn't turn down a similar deep pocketed donor, there's something to be said that we're all a part of the building process and that Reser is slowly, but surely becoming something to be proud of. Might not be as fast or quite as shiny, but I suspect we feel a little more ownership in it. Quite possibly this makes us a little snitty when our trust-fund brethren dis us and our new house.
> 
> Edit: By the way, Pop, it hurts me that you're a Cub fan and a Duck fan. See the light and come to the orange and black. We'll make room for ya.


:cheers: 

repped ya!


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

mobes23 said:


> Edit: By the way, Pop, it hurts me that you're a Cub fan and a Duck fan. See the light and come to the orange and black. We'll make room for ya.


If it makes you feel better, I'm a Bears fan and a Broncos fan - so I don the orange every once in a while. But never for the Beavers - that's blasphemy.

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

B_&_B said:


> Well it would be nice if guys like Ocho Cinco, Houshmanzzzzzadah, Barnett, Payton, and B.Barry etc. would all send a nice check to OSU.


screw sending it to OSU..send the checks to me!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> no he didn't, and I believe it was more of a urban legend that he actually said he'd do it.


It was absolutely NOT an urban legend. 

"When we got all the quotes and all that stuff, I just decided $3 million would be a good, generous offer. I wasn’t thinking about giving the most." - Gary Payton

I mean, you can't really argue with a direct quote, can you?


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

B_&_B said:


> Well it would be nice if guys like Ocho Cinco, Houshmanzzzzzadah, Barnett, Payton, and B.Barry etc. would all send a nice check to OSU.


There's a running back on the Rams who should also be on that list. Possibly front and center.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> When a donation is earmarked by the donor for a specific purpose it's illegal to spend that money on anything else...If a donor wants the University to decide how to spend it then they would make the donation to the University general fund.
> 
> You must really hate Stanford...damn them and their 400+ million dollar donation from HP.


I understand how the donation process works and where it is earmarked for...I just said there are better things to spend it on. Especially since I pay for part of UofO to exist (which I'd love to have the option to cancel on my taxes).

I don't hate Stanford. I don't hate UofO for their donation. Never said that. Come on, SA, I figure you would be the last person to resort to those tactics.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Please explain what you mean by "we have to earn it" which is suggesting Oregon didn't "earn" the donation. Why?


Let me use an example. Two teenagers. One gets a car given to him by his parents for just being their snot-nosed, do-everything, bow-at-their-whim, pray-for-their-mercy kid. The other goes out, gets a job, saves his money, and buys a car. Did the first kid earn their car? Of course not. In fact, most people would consider the first kid lucky to have gotten the car and perhaps spoiled, if not an egotistical mess of a human who is probably suffering some serious psychological issues. But, again, these are just examples. :biggrin:



> Ah - the cyber-insult. Truly the weapon of an educated man. Well played.


 Well then you'd rank right up there my friend. If ranting and raving on an Internet board made money, you'd be right there with Uncle Phil and own your own college sports team! Perhaps competitive cheerleading?

I've never said OSU is above anything except the UofO. I really can't change facts. 

Remind me again of the purpose of a state school of higher education and the requirements for those seeking an executive position - like, say, athletic director?


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> Let me use an example. Two teenagers. One gets a car given to him by his parents for just being their snot-nosed, do-everything, bow-at-their-whim, pray-for-their-mercy kid. The other goes out, gets a job, saves his money, and buys a car. Did the first kid earn their car? Of course not. In fact, most people would consider the first kid lucky to have gotten the car and perhaps spoiled, if not an egotistical mess of a human who is probably suffering some serious psychological issues. But, again, these are just examples. :biggrin:


Apples and oranges. You are completely ignoring the fact that Phil Knight believes he owes a debt of gratitude to the institution where he earned his education. And if he - like many other wealthy alumni across the country - chooses to say "thank you" to that institution by donating money to help that school be more successful in a particular field, that's his perogative. The spoiled teenager analogy is flawed - perhaps if that teenager in your example was partially responsible for the financial success of the parents, it would make more sense.

I hope for your sake some OSU alumni doesn't go on to earn incredible wealth and then decide to bestow a large sum of money to the athletic department, because you're setting yourself up to be one hell of a hypocrite.

-Pop


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> I understand how the donation process works and where it is earmarked for...I just said there are better things to spend it on. Especially since I pay for part of UofO to exist (which I'd love to have the option to cancel on my taxes).


Sure their are better things to spend it on....but that doesn't change the fact that you can't do it and that it's totally worthless to complain about it. 

To Knights credit he did fund the new UO Law School building before the basketball stadium. 



> I don't hate Stanford. I don't hate UofO for their donation. Never said that. Come on, SA, I figure you would be the last person to resort to those tactics.


noted...poor choice of words on my part....maybe "resent" would be a more appropriate descriptor.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

By the way - I just had a funny thought. It appears the new arena will be named for Phil Knight.

Any chance they'd name it Knight Court?










:lol: 

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

iirc, Phil gives a chunk of change to OSU often too. Not as much, but I believe he gives to both.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> To Knights credit he did fund the new UO Law School building before the basketball stadium.


Shoot, I missed that memo. Creating more lawyers is now a good thing?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> iirc, Phil gives a chunk of change to OSU often too. Not as much, but I believe he gives to both.


I don't think so, Hap. Only to Pat Casey's salary...

As to Pop and SA..I guess you can judge whatever viewpoints I have about the donation however you want (even if you are wrong) - but it is so fun to wind you both up. Unfortunately SA's a little easier to wind up on the political side, so.....


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> I don't think so, Hap. Only to Pat Casey's salary...
> 
> As to Pop and SA..I guess you can judge whatever viewpoints I have about the donation however you want (even if you are wrong) - but it is so fun to wind you both up. Unfortunately SA's a little easier to wind up on the political side, so.....


honestly I am not sure what your "viewpoints" are because they don't make any sense to me.....

You want the money to be better spent...yet you acknowledge that this isn't possible....I am confused...:whoknows: Having a say in how your tax dollars are spent makes sense...having a say in how P. Knights dollars are spent doesn't.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

If OSU had a major booster that spent the money like Phil Knight, I doubt OSU fans would be complaining. In that regard, I think OSU fans are a little envious of the money UO has. 

Oh, and Knight has given money to OSU before.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

B_&_B said:


> :cheers:
> 
> repped ya!


Thanks, B&B! It was a little embarrassing how excited I got because it was my first official rep. Good stuff to have more than 2 points.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> I don't think so, Hap. Only to Pat Casey's salary...


I knew it was something.


----------



## BengalDuck (Jun 19, 2004)

NIKE/Knight also has a box at Reser, as well.

Oregon State's Reser Stadium cost almsot $50 million for phase one, but about half of that was from state (yes, the near-bankrupt state of Oregon) funding. Unlike Oregon, OSU is not self-sufficient. Theri fudning projects take money from the state government (via bonds) as well as monies from the general education funds. 

So spare me this whole "We all have a little bit more pride because we all donate a little." Yes, and you all borrow a lot, too.

The new Mac Court (~$200 million), an indoor T&F facility (~$75 million), a baseball stadium (~$25 million), and eventually phase two of Autzen Stadium (the South side... ~$75 million) are all big, expensive athletic facility projects that UO aims to build. Additionally, other facilities (Say, Howe Field the softball field) will be updated, and Hayward Field is under construction right now. Knight's $100 million is not just for the basketball arena, it's an endowment to create more money to accomplish all of this.


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

I thought this was public already... I knew this was going to happen for a few months but didn't want to spill the beans.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

BengalDuck said:


> So spare me this whole "We all have a little bit more pride because we all donate a little." Yes, and you all borrow a lot, too.
> 
> The new Mac Court (~$200 million), an indoor T&F facility (~$75 million), a baseball stadium (~$25 million), and eventually phase two of Autzen Stadium (the South side... ~$75 million) are all big, expensive athletic facility projects that UO aims to build. Additionally, other facilities (Say, Howe Field the softball field) will be updated, and Hayward Field is under construction right now. Knight's $100 million is not just for the basketball arena, it's an endowment to create more money to accomplish all of this.


Boy howdy, you validated everything I had to say earlier and then some. Yes, the OSU athletic budget is NOT self sufficient. We got that. Most university's aren't and they aren't by a long shot. Not ideal, but that's the way things are. U of O won the Nike lottery and theirs is. Fine. It does not mean their athletic dept is better managed or has better fans (other than the one biggie.) Since OSU does not have the one big guy who pays for stadiums, we feel the weight more on our shoulders . . . and we DO donate. Do you think all of the OSU improvements come from taxpayers? In alternate reality world, where Knight didn't go to U of O and all his donations (and work that highlights U of O) never happened, what does U of O look like today. Think your little laundry list looks like that?

By the way, we're not trying to get on a high horse, we're just thinking it would be nice if you'd hop off yours every now and then.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

Exactly, I agree with mobes23. I just merely stated (in other posts) that the Beaver football program has been taking strides with their expansion and wins in the last 5 years and Soda Pops, just wants to diss OSU about filling Reser, UO better facilties, etc. Can't Soda Pop get off his high horse and just admit that OSU has done well with Football and Baseball (in the last 5 years).
Um also remember Soda Pop, its the NCAA committee who decides who OSU or UofO plays in bowl games. So stop dissing OSU if you think they play weaker teams (conferences)in Bowls. Its obvious that UO doesn't have luck either and seem to either get slaughtered or loses by a few points. Being a pessimistic person concistantly towards OSU doesn't help your support toward the state of oregon. This just shows you are a bitter hermit and just want to be a better person than everyone else and that you must prove it in your posts.
Oh, and the Beavers are the garbage of the pac-10. I forgot to state that too.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> honestly I am not sure what your "viewpoints" are because they don't make any sense to me.....
> 
> You want the money to be better spent...yet you acknowledge that this isn't possible....I am confused...:whoknows: Having a say in how your tax dollars are spent makes sense...having a say in how P. Knights dollars are spent doesn't.


- Money could be better spent. I'm not blaming UofO for that. I'm talking about your owner. My tax dollars is a unrelated dig at having to pay for *uckie school.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

mobes23 said:


> There's a running back on the Rams who should also be on that list. Possibly front and center.


Dang, major brain fart on that one! :biggrin: I love S.Jackson, but hate the Rams!


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> - Money could be better spent. I'm not blaming UofO for that. I'm talking about your owner. My tax dollars is a unrelated dig at having to pay for *uckie school.


Funny - you make so many digs at people who have a UO education - but the only person I hear *****ing about having to pay taxes for higher education is a Beaver. Well, with that fantastic OSU education, shouldn't money not be an issue?

FWIW - Oregon has a self-sustaining athletic department, so they don't take taxpayers' money to pay for athletics. OSU does. I don't care - I happily pay taxes to help kids further their future and possibly have a positive contribution to this state in the future. But it kind of throws a spear right through the heart of your complaint when the school you so vehemently despise is less of a drain on public resources than the one you love.

-Pop


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

SodaPopinski said:


> Funny - you make so many digs at people who have a UO education - but the only person I hear *****ing about having to pay taxes for higher education is a Beaver. Well, with that fantastic OSU education, shouldn't money not be an issue?


I'm guessing Yak is talking about a purely instinctual feeling . . . the idea of supporting the rival school in any way, shape or form might seem wrong. *BUT*, it's pretty hard to dis higher education and state-funded schools are obviously a good thing. 

You just hope that the high school kids that aren't yet worldly are able to see past the U of O fluff and go to the better university in Corvallis. :rock:


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mobes23 said:


> I'm guessing Yak is talking about a purely instinctual feeling . . . the idea of supporting the rival school in any way, shape or form might seem wrong.


Ding ding ding ding!

It's tough not to dig on Soda, on the one hand he's a *uck but on the other hand he's a Cubs fan.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> Your post needed to be edited. And I now disagree. :biggrin:



Yea, that NCAA baseball championship sure is close to getting the media coverage that March Madness and the BCS bowl series get.......:biggrin:


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

mobes23 said:


> I'm guessing Yak is talking about a purely instinctual feeling . . . the idea of supporting the rival school in any way, shape or form might seem wrong.


Classic little brother syndrome. 



> You just hope that the high school kids that aren't yet worldly are able to see past the U of O fluff and go to the better university in Corvallis. :rock:


If by "U of O fluff" you mean "actual rankings done by respected publications," I'd hope kids don't look past that. On the other hand, if they want to go to a engineering/science school, OSU is the place for them - no doubt. UO can't compare there.

-Pop


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

SodaPopinski said:


> If by "U of O fluff" you mean "actual rankings done by respected publications," I'd hope kids don't look past that. On the other hand, if they want to go to a engineering/science school, OSU is the place for them - no doubt. UO can't compare there.
> 
> -Pop


Can I be the big brother? I was the little brother growing up and I'd like to move past that.

Ya know, as an indication of how little depth I sometimes have, as I typed 'fluff' I was specifically thinking of the outfits your football team wears. I'd call 'em uniforms, but "outfits" seems more accurate. There's other fluff I could point to, but that's what crossed my mind. Can't really defend myself on that point. 

C'mon Pop, switch to the better side -- unleash your orange and black mojo. As a Bears fan, you CAN'T feel good about being a Duck. The green/yellow color scheme and holier-than-thou state of mind of duckdom is pure Packer. In your heart of hearts, you know it's true. Put your soul at ease, come to Beaver Nation. It's time. Orange. Black. Yes.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

mobes23 said:


> Ya know, as an indication of how little depth I sometimes have, as I typed 'fluff' I was specifically thinking of the outfits your football team wears. I'd call 'em uniforms, but "outfits" seems more accurate.


You obviously haven't seen the new OSU Beavers' uniforms. Which apparently come equipped with training bras stretched over them.










-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

neither school, currently, can really say that one is better than other other. Both academically or sports wise. And definitely not when it comes to uniforms for their football teams. Eeesh...talk about ugly mo-fos for both sides.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> You obviously haven't seen the new OSU Beavers' uniforms. Which apparently come equipped with training bras stretched over them.
> 
> 
> 
> -Pop


Another tragic gift from Uncle Phil's team of mental midgets. I'll be extremely happy when either:

A) Someone other than Nike designs our uniforms or
B) Someone sober at Nike designs our uniforms.

Those things are horrendous.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

yakbladder said:


> Another tragic gift from Uncle Phil's team of mental midgets. I'll be extremely happy when either:
> 
> A) Someone other than Nike designs our uniforms or
> B) Someone sober at Nike designs our uniforms.
> ...


A conspiracy by Nike to make us look dorky -- that's low. We should add this to the poll in the OT thread.

Bad on the Beavs: using a couple linemen to model the new "outfits". I'm a huge fan of linemen, but they're better photographed hunkering down/knocking people around.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mobes23 said:


> A conspiracy by Nike to make us look dorky -- that's low. We should add this to the poll in the OT thread.
> 
> Bad on the Beavs: using a couple linemen to model the new "outfits". I'm a huge fan of linemen, but they're better photographed hunkering down/knocking people around.


The guy on the far left is Bernard, the guy on the far right is former Beaver Sammy Stroughter. The guy second in on the right is a linebacker.


----------



## mobes23 (Jun 29, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> The guy on the far right is Bernard, the guy on the far right is former Beaver Sammy Stroughter. The guy second in on the right is a linebacker.


Right on -- it's the two linemen in the all-whites I'm talking about.


----------



## Mral (Jul 5, 2007)

I didn't think that Knight would donate until they got a coaching change cuz he was unhappy with kent??? Maybe the AD change was enough for him to dig deep in his pockets.


----------



## ilPadrino (May 23, 2003)

Ernie Kent has been one of the most successful basketball coaches in U of O history and has had some impressive success in the NCAA Tournament. Compare what Ernie has done in the NCAA Tournament to what other, more heralded, coaches in the Pacific Northwest have done....Mark Few, for example. Ernie also continues to bring in impressive recruits from across the country, even with less than ideal facilities backing up his recruiting efforts. Anyone that doubts Ernie's ability to recruit or coach in the NCAA Tournament is obviously not paying attention....the results speak for themselves.

Particularly after the great run last season, the cries from Ernie bashers ring more hollow than ever.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

The great tournament run? The Ducks just rode Porter's hot shooting... my problem with Kent is that his teams always live and die by the 3, and I'm not sure that will ever change. Maybe this new big man recruit will help, but I remain skeptical. Ernie isn't a bad coach, but he's also not a great one. With Mike Montgomery available, I'm wondering if it's bad for the Ducks in the long term that Ernie is staying.


----------



## ilPadrino (May 23, 2003)

#10 said:


> The great tournament run? The Ducks just rode Porter's hot shooting...


Uhhhh, yeah, that is how teams advance in the tournament.....by playing well. Ernie recruited Porter, his system allowed Porter to thrive and the program reaped the benefits of it. If other teams had brought Porter into their program and allowed him to play in a system where he would thrive as a true freshman, they might have gone further in the tournament. They didn't.....Ernie did. Again, the results speak for themselves. Ernie has a more impressive record of success in the NCAA Tournament than several more highly thought of coaches, including Mark Few. I like using Few as an example since he was one of the popular choices amongst the Ernie bashers to replace Ernie.



> With Mike Montgomery available, I'm wondering if it's bad for the Ducks in the long term that Ernie is staying.


You really think that Mike Montgomery would have recruited players to Oregon as well as Ernie has during his tenure? He seems more like the type that would have been complaining about the subpar facilities and used it as an excuse for not being able to compete with the big boys (sound familiar?). There is no doubt in my mind that Ernie is easily a more prolific recruiter than Montgomery, all things being equal. The Ducks have never had a basketball coach that came anywhere close to bringing in the caliber of recruits that Ernie has, and he has done it with subpar facilities to back him up, not to mention the typcial recruiting handicaps Oregon has to deal with. Ernie is a Duck through and through, he is passionate about the program and it shows. The Oregon basketball program has had more success during Ernie's watch than it had any business having, all things considered. That is pretty much undebatable.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

#10 said:


> my problem with Kent is that his teams always live and die by the 3, and I'm not sure that will ever change. Maybe this new big man recruit will help, but I remain skeptical.


Maybe finally having an option down low might change his approach? Ya think? 

Coaches (even mediocre ones) play to their team's strengths and stategize to hide their weaknesses. Here's guessing the Oregon game plan changes if Dunigan is as advertised.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

ilPadrino said:


> Uhhhh, yeah, that is how teams advance in the tournament.....by playing well. Ernie recruited Porter, his system allowed Porter to thrive and the program reaped the benefits of it. If other teams had brought Porter into their program and allowed him to play in a system where he would thrive as a true freshman, they might have gone further in the tournament. They didn't.....Ernie did. Again, the results speak for themselves. Ernie has a more impressive record of success in the NCAA Tournament than several more highly thought of coaches, including Mark Few. I like using Few as an example since he was one of the popular choices amongst the Ernie bashers to replace Ernie.


Well, I don't consider 'playing well' to be relying on a true freshman to shoot well above his season averages. That's just lucky, and it isn't a recipe for future success. And I'm not sure the odd tournament 'success' is really that useful in judging coaches when it's a hot hand can change everything.


> You really think that Mike Montgomery would have recruited players to Oregon as well as Ernie has during his tenure? He seems more like the type that would have been complaining about the subpar facilities and used it as an excuse for not being able to compete with the big boys (sound familiar?). There is no doubt in my mind that Ernie is easily a more prolific recruiter than Montgomery, all things being equal.


Given Stanford's academic requirements, I think Montgomery had an equally if not more difficult time recruiting there than he would've had in Eugene. Stanford were also much more consistent than the Ducks, which I take to mean Montgomery got more out of his players.


> The Ducks have never had a basketball coach that came anywhere close to bringing in the caliber of recruits that Ernie has, and he has done it with subpar facilities to back him up, not to mention the typcial recruiting handicaps Oregon has to deal with. Ernie is a Duck through and through, he is passionate about the program and it shows. The Oregon basketball program has had more success during Ernie's watch than it had any business having, all things considered. That is pretty much undebatable.


Agreed. That doesn't necessarily make him the absolute best choice going forward, though. There are still better coaches around.



STOMP said:


> Maybe finally having an option down low might change his approach? Ya think?


Forgive me if I'm skeptical, but I've heard this all before.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

#10 said:


> Forgive me if I'm skeptical, but I've heard this all before.


Really? Remind me of the other time(s) the Ernie led Ducks had a Big with 1/10th the hype that Dunigan has because it must have slipped my mind. To my recollection, current Duck Maarty Leunen is by far the best Big that they've had under EK. Sizewise he's a 3/4 tweener and certainly no post threat. The best low post player they've had in EK's era is probably Malik, and he's a 6'5 slasher. 

If you're really hanging out with Duck fans who've been contending that their team has had quality low post options that truely would get tiresome... because they haven't. 

STOMP


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Really? Remind me of the other time(s) the Ernie led Ducks had a Big with 1/10th the hype that Dunigan has because it must have slipped my mind. To my recollection, current Duck Maarty Leunen is by far the best Big that they've had under EK. Sizewise he's a 3/4 tweener and certainly no post threat. The best low post player they've had in EK's era is probably Malik, and he's a 6'5 slasher.
> STOMP


No, the Ducks haven't had any big with Dunigan's hype, but I remember hearing good things about Platt, Schafer, Ivan Johnson, etc.


> If you're really hanging out with Duck fans who've been contending that their team has had quality low post options that truely would get tiresome... because they haven't.


Everyone knows that. I'm saying is that solid big man prospects have come in and done absolutely nothing under Kent, which will hold the Ducks back as long as it continues to be true. If Dunigan breaks the trend then I'll be the first to praise Kent, and acknowledge him as a very good coach for the Ducks. Until then... I'm not getting my hopes up.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

#10 said:


> No, the Ducks haven't had any big with Dunigan's hype, but I remember hearing good things about Platt, Schafer, Ivan Johnson, etc.
> 
> Everyone knows that. I'm saying is that solid big man prospects have come in and done absolutely nothing under Kent, which will hold the Ducks back as long as it continues to be true. If Dunigan breaks the trend then I'll be the first to praise Kent, and acknowledge him as a very good coach for the Ducks. Until then... I'm not getting my hopes up.


well of course schools aren't going to bad mouth their new recruits right after they sign, so some level of BS/hype is to be expected of any signing by any school. None of the guys you listed were solid big man prospects in the eyes of talent evaluators though. Calling them average PAC-10 prospects might have even been stretching matters. Solid??? I wish. That coach Kent wasn't able to make diamonds out of those lumps of coal didn't surprise (or really disappoint) me as I had low expectations of them.

And if Dunigan is everything he's hyped to be (and hopefully more), I think that may reflect more on this being a great get for Ernie the recruiter more then show his value with X's and O's. Hopefully with the new stadium in the works the Duckies will continue to draw the interest of top talent regardless of who is pacing the sidelines.

btw... UO is supposively in line for another top Chicago HS prospect Big, Josh Crittle.

STOMP


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/110480.html


> It's the final rankings for the class of 2003. The centers have one truly elite player at the top, and then some who have a chance to be very good centers on the college level...
> 
> 1) David Padgett, 6-10 Reno (Nev.) High
> 2) Liam Hughes, 7-0 Modesto (Calif.) Modesto Christian
> ...


http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/75890.html


> 4. Oregon
> 
> Ray Schafer, 6-10 C Wasilla (Alaska) High
> Mitch Platt, 6-9 C Henderson (Nev.) Green Valley
> ...


http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/67081.html


> Shafer, ranked the #3 center on the west coast in the senior class, has a great deal of potential. He is a very good athlete, runs very well, and has a body that looks like it could put on good weight.


That site quite clearly thought that Platt and Schafer were at least "solid" prospects.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> That site quite clearly thought that Platt and Schafer were at least "solid" prospects.


I guess I take any/everything from scout with a huge grain of salt as they are only on target when the hype they extend to nearly everyone proves true. If I do look at that site, the first thing I look at is which the other schools are supposed to be interested and who has reportedly offered a scholarship. Interestingly enough, both Schafer and Platt (according to your link/scout the 3rd and 4th best center prospects of 2003) were interested in WACC mediorehouse San Diego State, but tellingly neither one generated an offer. In fact, the only reported offer that scout had either receiving (besides Oregon) was Platt from Bobby Knight at Texas Tech. So even assuming that at least Platt was a sought after prospect from D1 schools and that he had some upside, dude was never thought of as the low post threat you're craving (he operates from the high post) and has had multiple foot surgeries that have certainly derailed whatever college career he might have enjoyed... and this is Ernie's fault IYO? Is he just a jinx coach until proven otherwise by the cruel spin the bottle/luck of injuries? 

Neither the Platt or Schafer signings peaked much interest for any Duck fans I chat with, yet Dunigan seems to have. Maybe it's because he has generated much much more interest from other legit programs or maybe thats just the results of being a legit prospect? Sort of a chicken or the egg question??? or maybe it's something else. Anyhoo, schools that scout has reported Dunigan offers include national champ Florida and Final 4 participant Georgetown... http://oregon.scout.com/a.z?s=128&p=8&c=1&nid=2299875

That passes my sniff test of a legit prospect. Assuming that, I'm hoping for health and expecting more.

STOMP


----------

