new book: University of NIKE
- Thread starter TZCoug84
- Start date
The review is interesting as follows
The dramatic expose of how the University of Oregon sold its soul to Nike, and what that means for the future of our public institutions and our society.
In the mid-1990s, facing severe cuts to its public funding, the University of Oregon—like so many colleges across the country—was desperate for cash. Luckily, the Oregon Ducks’ 1995 Rose Bowl berth caught the attention of the school’s wealthiest alumnus: Nike founder Phil Knight, who was seeking new marketing angles at the collegiate level. And so the University of Nike was born: Knight has so far donated more than half a billion dollars to the school in exchange for high-visibility branding opportunities.
But as journalist Joshua Hunt shows in University of Nike, Oregon has paid dearly for the veneer of financial prosperity and athletic success that has come with this brand partnering.
Hunt uncovers efforts to conceal university records, buried sexual assault allegations against university athletes, and cases of corporate overreach into academics and campus life—all revealing a university being run like a business, with America’s favorite “Shoe Dog” calling the shots. Nike money has shaped everything from Pac-10 television deals to the way the game is played, from the landscape of the campus to the type of student the university hopes to attract.
More alarming still, Hunt finds other schools taking a page from Oregon’s playbook. Never before have our public institutions for research and higher learning been so thoroughly and openly under the sway of private interests, and never before has the blueprint for funding American higher education been more fraught with ethical, legal, and academic dilemmas.
Encompassing more than just sports and the academy, University of Nike is a riveting story of our times.
The dramatic expose of how the University of Oregon sold its soul to Nike, and what that means for the future of our public institutions and our society.
In the mid-1990s, facing severe cuts to its public funding, the University of Oregon—like so many colleges across the country—was desperate for cash. Luckily, the Oregon Ducks’ 1995 Rose Bowl berth caught the attention of the school’s wealthiest alumnus: Nike founder Phil Knight, who was seeking new marketing angles at the collegiate level. And so the University of Nike was born: Knight has so far donated more than half a billion dollars to the school in exchange for high-visibility branding opportunities.
But as journalist Joshua Hunt shows in University of Nike, Oregon has paid dearly for the veneer of financial prosperity and athletic success that has come with this brand partnering.
Hunt uncovers efforts to conceal university records, buried sexual assault allegations against university athletes, and cases of corporate overreach into academics and campus life—all revealing a university being run like a business, with America’s favorite “Shoe Dog” calling the shots. Nike money has shaped everything from Pac-10 television deals to the way the game is played, from the landscape of the campus to the type of student the university hopes to attract.
More alarming still, Hunt finds other schools taking a page from Oregon’s playbook. Never before have our public institutions for research and higher learning been so thoroughly and openly under the sway of private interests, and never before has the blueprint for funding American higher education been more fraught with ethical, legal, and academic dilemmas.
Encompassing more than just sports and the academy, University of Nike is a riveting story of our times.
Thanks for the head's up. You can get it (just did) for 19.03 on Amazon. Should be good. Love sport's business.
I hope this isn't just more "there's no such thing as bad publicity." If the accounts in this book are true, and I believe they very likely are, consequences "should" happen. But as long as Nike stays politically correct and floats enough advertising dollars around, nothing will.
Serious question: is it really true that Legendary Predator Phil Knight was circling like a shark looking for vulnerable universities, and conveniently nearby Oregon fell prey as a result of a cash shortfall, and spent the next 2 decades being used and abused by PK & Nike? Or is it much less sinister? Sounds like a fairly standard junior college sociology line as currently situated, but someone can change my mind.
The way you've framed your question isn't a good way to claim that is a serious one.
I'm not quite sure what Chip is getting at, but I have 2 comments.
First, Phil isn't a predator - Oregyn knew what he was and they didn't say no. Ever.
Second, I doubt that the book, while probably a great read, will tell the public anything they don't already know if they cared. Kind of like the books on the POTUS. Yeah he was/is completely morally and ethically bankrupt. Thanks for putting it in print. In other breaking news, Allies beat Axis in WW II.
I will also read it, eventually. I tend to wait a while and pick up a used copy.
You’re right. So the serious question is: does anybody really believe that Oregon fell prey to a circling PK/Nike against its will? That seems to be the entire premise of this book, which is then an invitation to join one in the echo chamber of imaginary history. If that’s the basis for this tale and we know it’s a fabrication, little point in adding it to your cart.
Having said that, perhaps there is more to the story someone can add.
I have Oregon friends who say that Prof's at UO are not happy with what Oregon has become. They hate the fact that the tail wags the dog there, ALWAYS.
They should be happy with Oregon's academic ratings having improved, quite likely in large part due to the increased attention/applications (which leads to better applicants and greater selectivity) from good athletics teams and the direct investments Uncle Phil has made around campus.
Imagine if this guy caught you smoking your first joint at 19. "The dramatic expose of how 425 sold his soul to drugs, and what that means for the future of his family and our society."
Really just sounds like (a) it's not true and (b) it doesn't "mean" anything for the future of anything.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm no Uncle Phil fan. I look forward to the time when the money stops flowing to Oregon. This seems, though, like hyped-up BS written by some promotions guy at a publishing house to promote a stupid book that has a couple pages worth of interesting, albeit flawed, content by some idiot trying to make a story out of some discontentment with an influential donor and then dozens or hundreds of pages of filler. They had to aggrandize the narrative to make it more than it is.
So a billionaire expects to exert, and does exert, some influence in exchange for donating more than 500 million dollars. The corporation owned by the donor benefits from the athletic success, too. Shocker. Most of these idiots complaining don't know how good they have it to be on the receiving end of all of that largesse.
I just relayed a review about the book. I'm not responsible for the quality of it's contents. Please don't get worked up about someone's review of the book.
Yes but that is not new. Ran into an old U of O football player during a game there a couple of years ago. By the end of his senior year he was on track to graduate. Only needed a couple of classes. Signed up for those two. Part way through the class the professor told him that he was going to flunk him. "Why?" "You are a football player and I don't like football players." Complained to the administration and athletic department to no avail. Sure enough he was flunked and failed to graduate. Went home to the Bay Area and eventually got his degree from Berkeley. This was during the pre-Knight and pre-success days.
There are always a number of profs, particularly in the liberal arts, who despise athletics. Not politically correct and, in their view, fills the college with blockheads who do not fit their expectation of what a student should be. Never mind whether that is true or not. Athletes are not a protected class and one is free to express their bias and prejudge them at their liberty. Every school has a segment of the faculty which looks down on those who are earning their way through school via athletic scholarships. I would not exclude WSU from the list.
If the U of O has sold its soul to that devilish Phil Knight then that is on the U of O, not Knight. I wish that we had a "sugar daddy" pouring funds into Pullman. We could happily accept the money without lowering our ethical bar. If I were fabulously wealthy and gifted one of the posters with a million dollars to play with, would their moral behavior change? Probably not and if it did then that would be on them, not me.
Similar threads
