In 2004, UO’s Athletics Task Force Report called for the Duck athletic department to start making payments to help with UO’s academic mission. It never happened. In fact, a few years later Frohnmayer, Kilkenny, and Knight made a series of secret agreements that left the academic side holding the bag for millions in new athletics costs. After these agreements became public, Richard Lariviere stopped letting AD Rob Mullens make the claim that the Ducks weren’t subsidized by the athletic side.
But, apparently as one of his last acts, Mike Gottfredson ordered Ann Wiens (his chief speechwriter, strategic communicator, editor of the Oregon Quarterly alumni magazine, and author of this classic bit of puffery) to bring this, and several other questionable claims back from the grave:
Here’s a good read right before we head into the meat of football season:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshfreedman/2013/12/23/subsidized-saturdays-the-tax-free-world-of-college-football/
UO athletics is just making their sales pitch before the start of the new capital campaign.
So if athletics is self supporting how is it then that the parking department for the university is having to pay for the parking garage at the matt knight arena and athletics is allowed to use that parking garage and several other lots on campus without having to pay a penny to the university while athletics reaps all the money made from charging for parking during athletic events? just how is it that money paid to the parking department by students is being used to fund an athletic parking structure? who pays the lady that works in the parking garage? is that paid for by athletics or by the parking department?
“Quality of campus life.” #chortle
One must question the value that Big Money Sports, and the UO’s new role as a farm team for the NFL, brings to the University mission.
Even if the academic side does not subsidize athletics, what is the function of Big Money Sports if it does not subsidize the University’s primary mission–academic education?
Here, Frohn and minions drove UO into a spiral of mediocrity in academics, while emphasizing athletics as a service to Big Money Sports.
Meanwhile, Stanford’s magazine arrived in today’s mail.
Here’s what’s on the cover:
“For decades, success in athletics without compromising academics has been a key part of Stanford’s identity. Now, as forces gather to professionalize college sports, that identity is under threat. CAN SPORTS BE SAVED?”
Read the story online, titled “Game Changer”
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=72888
Sure, the Senate has the opportunity to deal with this again in October. But, will they?