Did Dana Altman stiff Duck’s Bol Bol on the customary emoluments?

Say it ain’t so!

The Daily Emerald’s Michael Tobin reports that UO General Counsel Reed is not investigating, but he is interested in going to LA to meet Michael Avenatti and receive more information from him. But not to investigate. UNLV is investigating, but Reed is just probing the situation.

I hope Mr. Avenatti and Mr. Reed will resolve their semantic differences and provide the public with documentation showing that the Duck’s $3.5M Dana Altman did indeed provide Mr. Bol Bol with the customary emoluments that a Duck basketball player should reasonably expect as compensation for their service:

“Now the question is, did Bol Bol receive this money or not, what has the university done to look into it and what’s the university’s explanation for these payments?” Avenatti told the Emerald. “This really isn’t complicated. The only reason that it becomes complicated is if the university is trying to cover it up.” …

“I’m going to be frank – this smacks of a coverup,” Avenatti wrote in a May 18 email to Reed. “If you haven’t opened an investigation, why not? What have you opened – a probe, an inquiry? Why the word-smithing?”

Reed responded the same day, writing: “I have taken care not to characterize your conduct. I would appreciate it if you would similarly refrain. I am, however, interested in facts. If you have facts to share, I would appreciate the chance to receive them. Let me know if you have further evidence.”

Reed also told Avenatti that he could be in Los Angeles on May 30 or 31, saying that, at the time of writing the email, he was still interested in meeting Avenatti and receiving more information that what Avenatti had previously shared on social media.

Avenatti declined to share information with Reed.

“Let me know when and if the University gets serious about getting to the truth by hiring an unbiased third-party to lead a real investigation,” Avenatti wrote.

In an interview with the Emerald, Avenatti said that the UO is “playing games” and that the question of whether UO opened an investigation comes down to semantics.

“So is there an inquiry? Is there a probe? Is there an investigation? I mean this is ludicrous; they’re acting like they don’t want to know the truth,” Avenatti said. …

Avenatti claims Nike paid Dana Altman’s Bol Bol

Which is good, because someone should pay college basketball players, and apparently Dana Altman refuses to give them a cut of his bloated salary and bonuses. Jeff Manning and Brad Schmidt have the story in the Oregonian here:

Earlier this week, Avenatti accused Nike of paying “large sums” to Bol, a California Supreme alumni and prized recruit who is joined the Oregon program in 2018. The Ducks, a Cinderella story in the NCAA March Madness tournament, tip off against Virginia at 6:59 p.m. Thursday. But Bol, who is injured, has been watching from the sidelines.

Oregon coach Dana Altman told The Oregonian/OregonLive on Tuesday that he didn’t have any information about the allegation against Bol. Altman said he had “no reason” to believe the accusation against Bol was accurate and a university spokeswoman echoed that sentiment.

“We are unaware of any evidence that would support these allegations,” Molly Blancett said in a statement. “Diligent inquiry last summer into the amateur status of our student-athletes revealed no indication of improper payments made to any student-athletes or their families.”

Board of Trustees holds emergency meeting to discuss budget crisis

Just kidding, of course they won’t meet about that. This is about our greedy basketball coaches.

Two days after President Schill announced that UO is facing an $11M budget crisis which will likely lead to layoffs for instructors and OAs, our Board’s executive committee will be phoning it in on Thursday at 1PM, to give fat raises to Dana Altman and Kelly Graves. Full packet with contracts here.

New contract for Dana Altman will not play well in Salem budget talks

Talk about bad timing. UO’s lobbyists are at work in Salem, trying to get UO a bigger share of the state budget. If they fail, UO will have to cut staff, limit hiring, and/or raise in-state tuition.

The legislature is already asking why a university with such an expensive athletics program can’t pay the academic side’s costs without a bigger state subsidy or raising tuition. This news is not going to help:

The University of Oregon has agreed to terms with head coach Dana Altman on a contract extension, athletic director Rob Mullens announced on Thursday:

According to the school, Altman and Oregon are finalizing a deal that would run through the 2025-26 season.

“Dana and Reva Altman are an important part of our community, and we are thrilled at the opportunity to continue to build on the tremendous success we have had over Dana’s nine years as the head coach at Oregon,” Mullens said. “We are thankful for Dana’s commitment to the Ducks, and we look forward to the continued strong performance of our men’s basketball program as well as Dana assuming his rightful place in the Hall of Fame in the future.”

“Important part of our community?”

I assume Mullens means the community of greedy Duck coaches. Mullens, Cristobal, Altman and the other coaches, with a total payroll of ~$23M, gave a total of $50 to the Oregon Community Fund Drive last year:

They’d have to serve fentanyl before I’d watch Dana Altman coach a game

With basketball and event revenue running less than a third of Pat Kilkenny’s liars budget, the Ducks now want a liquor license for Knight Arena, because drunk football fans are just not enough:

But hey, maybe the OLCC will do a better job protecting free speech than UO’s General Counsel Kevin Reed.

Thanks to an anonymous reader for the tip.

Dana Altman can’t fill Knight Arena, even at $2 a seat

Altman’s original contract with UO paid him a bonus if ticket sales went above $4M. He failed, so AD Rob Mullens just rolled this into his base pay, then gave him another raise, then in 2017 still more. Last year Altman brought in $2.6M in ticket sales but cost $2.8M just in base salary and a new “retention payment”. Starting in April that increases to $3M.

So how’s he doing?

Duck coach Dana Altman tells UO GC Kevin Reed he was played by player

This guy always looks so angry. You’d think he’s trying to get appointed to the Supreme Court. At least this time it’s not about his unpaid student-athletes protesting for #blacklivesmatter. The Oregonian has the latest info on the University of Oregon’s second highest paid employee:

By Brad Schmidt and Jeff Manning | The Oregonian/OregonLive

University of Oregon basketball coach Dana Altman and assistant Tony Stubblefield denied offering any payments to land a top basketball recruit last year and contend their Nike-backed program got played to drive up the black-market price for Brian Bowen Jr., according to newly released documents stemming from an internal university investigation.

Altman and Stubblefield told the university’s top attorney in October that a middle-man for the Bowen family used a trip to Eugene to leverage more money from Adidas to ensure the five-star recruit played for one of its flagship programs, the University of Louisville.

“We were never going to get him,” Stubblefield told University of Oregon General Counsel Kevin Reed, according to a summary of facts from the investigation released to The Oregonian/OregonLive on Friday. “The kid wasn’t making the decisions.” …

Yeah, that must make it harder, when the kid you’re trying to exploit is getting advice from an adult.

And here’s an earlier Oregonian story on GC Reed’s lackadaisical earlier investigation of the possibility Altman and Stubblefield were attempting to violate the NCAA cartel’s rules and slip their players a little something on the side:

I wish Altman and his assistants the best of luck in avoiding any difficult questions about reconciling the above with this statement in the latest report:

Oregon entered the competition for Brian “Tugs” Bowen Jr. in the spring of 2017. Christian Dawkins, a longtime friend of the family and an aspiring agent, did much of the talking for the Bowen family.

Stubblefield told Reed on Oct. 3 that he spoke with Dawkins on the phone 15 to 20 times. Dawkins’ phone logs, introduced as evidence at the trial, showed those conversations totaled about two hours.

Good for Dana Altman! Federal prosecutors say Oregon, Creighton basketball programs may have paid recruits

Finally! I for one have been disturbed by the fact that he hasn’t come up in this investigation earlier. Surely a successful recruiter and coach like Dana Altman has figured out a way to pass at least a dribble of the millions UO pays him on to his volunteer “student-athletes”. Surely Oregon isn’t the only school where greedy coaches are able to keep all the NCAA cartel’s profits for themselves!

While the latest report is far from conclusive proof that Altman has been doing the right thing and sharing with his players, the latest news is good. Jeff Manning has the story in the Oregonian here:

Federal prosecutors in the basketball corruption trial that began Monday in New York reportedly told prospective jurors that 12 colleges could come up during the proceedings — the University of Oregon among them.

As first reported by Yahoo Sports, prosecutors wanted to disqualify any potential juror whose allegiance to a school might make them less than impartial. An Oregon-based Adidas executive and two others are accused of paying talented prep players to steer them to certain universities. …

But wait, there’s more. Oregonian reporter James Crepea:

The attorney for Adidas executive Jim Gatto claimed Oregon offered “an astronomical amount of money” in its recruitment of Brian Bowen before he signed with Louisville.

Gatto’s attorney, Casey Donnelly, made the remark, according to numerous reporters, during her opening statement in his trial, which began in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday. …

A federal Title IX investigation of Dana Altman’s basketball player rape allegations would have helped UO enrollment

That’s the surprising implication of an event study by former UO economics professor Jason Lindo (now at Texas A&M), et al:

Since 2011, when the landmark “Dear Colleague” letter declared that the Department of Education (DoE) would use equal-access requirements of federal law to remediate sexual assault on college campuses, 458 investigations have been opened. This letter was withdrawn in 2017 and it remains uncertain how the DoE will handle the issue in the future. We examine the effects of the investigations arising from the 2011 policy change on university outcomes. We find that applications and enrollment increase in response to Title IX investigations, for both males and females. We find little evidence of effects on degree completion or donations.

The estimated application increases are large:

Specifically, our estimates indicate that female FYFT enrollment is increased by 3.6 percent one year after enrollment could plausibly be affected (significant at the ten percent level) and 4.7 percent two years after enrollment could plausibly be affected (significant at the five percent level).

… In Table 3, we present the results of our analysis of the effects on undergraduate male enrollment. These results indicate that male enrollment is also increased by OCR Title IX investigations, again driven by FTFY students. Moreover, they suggest that the effects are larger and more immediate for males than females. Specifically, our estimates indicate that male FYFT enrollment is increased by 4.2 percent in the first-year enrollment could plausibly be affected, 5.6 percent the following year, and 7.4 percent the following year. All of these estimates are significant at the five percent level.

Why? Read the paper for some speculation.


We find no evidence that federal Title IX investigations negatively affect students’ interest in a school. Indeed, we find that they increase applications for admission from both males and females. Moreover, they increase freshman enrollment for both males and females, though this increase is immediate for males and only shows up one to two years later for females. This pattern of results is consistent with the idea that salience effects generated by Title IX investigations dominate the effects of the negative publicity associated with the investigations. An important implication of our results is that federal investigations and campus reviews of how sexual assault allegations are handled do not affect university applications and enrollments. We can neither offer assessment of the procedural improvements these reviews might elicit, nor any recourse they provide to petitioners. However, our findings should reassure college administrators that efforts to improve processes for reviewing accusations of sexual assault and providing remedy to victims does not come at the expense of broader university goals.

Despite the best efforts of Mike Gottfredson and Rob Mullens, the Altman allegations became public in April 2014, and despite the best efforts of UO faculty such as Jennifer Freyd and Carol Stabile, the Department of Education never investigated them. UO’s Freshman enrollment numbers: