...and ended up writing a treatise.

So I see all the debate "raging" round Phil Knight's donations and so-called ownership of the Ducks athletic program.  We're Nike U.  The football team is soft because of the amenities in the locker room.  We're shallow and money grubbing and making backroom deals for a new arena, all because of Phil.  

The Oregonian certainly came down on one side of it this week by rehashing a ton of facts that we've already read and putting them in to one body of work. It could have been a "special section" expose' like the Seattle Times piece on Husky football players if it had been new material; Instead, it was a summary of pieces you can already find in their archives.  

Still, the facts remain: Phil Knight has his hands all over Oregon athletics.  That's true.  My main problem has to do with the accusatory tone taken by the pieces and all the other detractors out there.  

Here's what I don't get about it: this really shouldn't be a public debate.  We all know that the athletic department is self sustaining.  It may be part of a public system that is supposedly government-run (even though the government only provides maybe 10% of funds for the Oregon University System) but the fact that it's self-financed essentially makes it a private entity.  

To my knowledge, none of the Oregon Athletic Department's big building projects are taxpayer-funded, even the arena.  Correct me in the comments if I'm wrong.  (For clarification to all you angry Beaver fans, the arena bonds are state-backed, not state-funded; the bonds will be sold to other entities as investments, with the state only on the hook if the University with its nice, secure $100 million legacy fund were to default on the debt. I'm sure the state would help you out too if you had a $100 million slush fund.)  All the Oregon projects are privately funded by donations, advertising, media deals, and ticket sales.  The fact that they're "public" boils down to semantics.  

I look at the Ducks athletic department as a business.  It's run that way, certainly.  Look who we brought in to succeed Moos as AD--probably the second-most successful businessman to come out of UO, next to Uncle Phil. All these people who slander college athletics for becoming too much of a money machine and then criticize boosters for having their hands in the program just can't have it both ways.  I embrace the money machine, and maybe that's where I differ from all those who hate on the Ducks.  Still, the genie came out of the bottle a long time ago---it's time for them to grow up and admit that college athletics is run as a business now, and not an academic venture as it was early last century.

So, to get back to Phil, what's the big deal here?  He helps fund what is essentially (but not literally, due to politics) a private entity that is associated with the University of Oregon.  How is this bad?  I'd say it's more of a crime that the government tries to call Knight's/Kilkenny's organization a public entity, despite the fact that they take no public funds.

Here's more of a crime: all the public universities out there who support their athletics with their general funds, which are partly comprised of taxpayer dollars (albeit that paltry 10% mentioned earlier).  If they can't run their sports and entertainment organizations properly, we shouldn't be paying for them, right?