6 Responses to Duck Athletic Department threats: Price elasticity, NCAA, and professors?

  1. Thom Aquinas says:
    07/24/2015 at 6:30 pm

    complacency… who could they mean?

    • tweetie says:
      07/25/2015 at 12:02 pm

      Who? The fan base who thinks UO has arrived. Just ask ’em!
      The 2012 football season was Kelly’s last year as head coach and fans had, and still have, the idea that UO Football would never again suffer a decline like UW or WSU; or that OSU won’t be their perpetual doormat.
      It’s smooth sailin’ from here, don’t ya know!

  2. Dog says:
    07/25/2015 at 10:38 am

    Good example of UOmatters being a journalist. It’s one thing to continue to use heresay, anecdotes, and other kinds of blog farts to paint a perception or distort reality but actual documentation that specifically lists Academic Professors as THREATS to the Athletic Mission because of “constant harassment” really illuminates a siege mentality and a very deep divide that is significantly deeper than the natural (divided by river – read report) divide.

    The fact that this is now appearing, in black and white, in a planning document certainly is a) disturbing b) unwarranted and c) strongly suggests that this unit sees its self as all powerful.

    Members of the UO academic community should be concerned that you could be formally designated as a threat by some unit.

    While I am sure that various JH babble-meetings regularly toss out various names as threats, inconveniences, problems, troublesome assholes, etc – I seriously doubt that those descriptors are ever used with actual real names in meeting minutes.

    Good find UOmatters!

    • uomatters says:
      07/25/2015 at 2:06 pm

      Thanks. It’s odd how Dana Altman didn’t make their “Bowl of Duck Threats” list. I’ll keep looking, maybe he’s on the 2015 version.

  3. Observer says:
    07/26/2015 at 2:29 am

    Interesting that the line is (under Football Performance), “Financial forecasts project continued high level performance.” In other words, “Our finances are based on the requirement that the team will continue to win.” In other words, if they lose, we’re toast. So presumably they feel every urgency to plow more money into making the team win.