Is Jim O’Fallon the only UO professor willing to work with “the most reprehensible organization God ever created”?

(Jim O’Fallon, former UO law professor and longtime Duck “Faculty Athletics Rep” to the NCAA)

That’s former running back Jim Brown’s view of the NCAA. He adds “Total exploitation. The kind of money they make, the kind of life they live, it’s embarrassing.”

So, maybe it’s not surprising to hear at last night’s faculty parties that President Gottfredson is having trouble finding a professor with the necessary shamelessness to replace Duck NCAA Faculty Athletics Representative Jim O’Fallon (Law).

O’Fallon has spent years on the NCAA’s Infractions Committee, taking away student-athlete’s scholarships for egregious violations like getting free BBQ, some medical care, or – god forbid – free textbooks. All while keeping his mouth shut about sham athlete only courses, the millions going to the coaches and NCAA bosses, and felonious bowl game organizers.

But O’Fallon is now way past his sell-by date, and in an effort to find a replacement President Gottfredson has apparently promised that the new FAR can skip those pesky Senate IAC meetings where they might get asked embarrassing questions by the faculty. There’s also the usual away game junket payments, generous stipend and teaching/research releases, and no review for 5 years. It’s heartening to hear that despite these greasy emoluments there are still no UO faculty willing to step into O’Fallon’s shoes.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Is Jim O’Fallon the only UO professor willing to work with “the most reprehensible organization God ever created”?

  1. chuck says:

    Wow, what a toad, and you gotta ask what kind of PERS sinecure this guy is getting, care of taxpayers.

  2. Repulsed says:

    Ya know, I’m not surprised. As one of the million people “nominated” for this job, and thus asked about my willingness to be considered, I can say this: it’s a ludicrous position. Leaving aside the politics, just on the face of it, the job description requires vastly more than .5 FTE of work. The admin needs someone who can still reasonably be classified as active faculty; but there’s no way to maintain even half a teaching load and anything like a research agenda while performing this job. And then there’s the slimy politics…

    • Anonymous says:

      Another person asked for my interest. Honestly, the thought of being dragged over the coals for five years on UOM was a big factor in my disinterest.

      • Anon 2 says:

        Mike G has organized the search so that the “winner” will not be able to claim they have faculty support, much less a mandate from the Senate to do anything about athletics. There’s no upside to this job.

        • chuck says:

          What is so ridiculous regarding 2A regs is that they’re coming down on textbooks, and the occasional tee shirts and hamburgers that recruits may get on a visit, but have any of yass seen the swag they receive at a bowl game? Watches, rings, clothes, and if it’s a BCS hookup, then the booty can run into the thousands.

          Granted, it’s been 30 years since I attended a CFB game, but I don’t remember anyone handing the students anything, other than what we paid for. So how the hell does the 2A justify these petty missteps, but encourage the massive amount of money spent on bowl nonsense?

        • Management 101 says:

          Margie brought Bill into the Senate Exec, where by most accounts he’s been a productive and helpful member.

          MG should have done the same – appoint some of the most outspoken critics to the FAR search committee. As insiders they’d have much more trouble complaining about the process and outcome. And faculty considering the job would know that they’d come in with a base of support beyond JH and the AD.

          This is not rocket science, it’s Intro to Management 101. Or as Don Corleone said, “keep your friends close – and your enemies closer”.

  3. Uncle Bernie's Accountant says:

    He’s a lawyer — many lawyers will do anything for $$$.

  4. honest Uncle Bernie says:

    uh, I am Uncle Bernie, and I want to make it clear that whatever I might think about this issue — I really don’t have much of an opinion — I have no connection with the person who posted as “Uncle Bernie’s Accountant.”

    I am flattered that someone would want to pose as a provider of financial services to me. But might it not be better to come up with your own independent screen persona? And avoid giving even the impression of an association that does not exist?

  5. Rob Illig says:

    Ed: Deleted on the grounds it’s probably not really from Rob Illig.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.