|
|
Post by wetrodentia on Sept 25, 2023 14:19:33 GMT -8
If you could ask a rep from uo one question regarding its decision to join the Big 10 in relation to the impact on i.e. their athletes, our athletic program, and the state of Oregon, what would that question be? Asking for a friend. I've read a lot of good insights. Fire away.
|
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009 
|
Post by bill82 on Sept 25, 2023 14:58:48 GMT -8
I'm curious about Phil Knight"s input. Or any outside influence like the NIL collaborative or UW.
I'd also like to see the agreement with the Big 10 to see if the public statements match the agreement. They are not releasing it to the public. I have an appeal in to the Lane County DA.
|
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by bill82 on Sept 25, 2023 17:47:50 GMT -8
Update: UCLA provided me their agreement with the Big 10. Here it is. My analysis is include. Another potential question based on the agreement is whether or not UCLA or USC were involved in their decision. UCLA, and I'm guessing USC, could terminate their agreement with the Big 10 if there was a material change in conference membership. There is also a provision that the Big 10 must advise UCLA of changes (amendments) to the conference or grant of rights. |
|
|
|
Post by beavheart on Sept 25, 2023 18:18:23 GMT -8
I have a lot of choice questions for the dux, but I think most people here can guess what those would be.
I suppose if there is anything I actually want to hear from that institution is what do their officials have to say to tax paying Oregonians who are Beavs, alumni or otherwise, who have helped fund the development of Oregon into the school it is today. And, what they have to say to us about the financial damage their decision has done to OSU? Do they honestly feel they haven't also hurt themselves in this move?
|
|
|
|
Post by EmeraldEmpire on Sept 25, 2023 18:25:00 GMT -8
I'm curious about Phil Knight"s input. Or any outside influence like the NIL collaborative or UW. I'd also like to see the agreement with the Big 10 to see if the public statements match the agreement. They are not releasing it to the public. I have an appeal in to the Lane County DA. Good luck getting anything out of the Lane County DA ... unless something has changed recently that office is such a short-staffed trainwreck that they weren't prosecuting nonviolent offenders and letting them walk: www.opb.org/article/2022/07/31/lane-county-da-wont-prosecute-certain-crimes-staffing-shortage/ |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 25, 2023 18:44:46 GMT -8
If you could ask a rep from uo one question regarding its decision to join the Big 10 in relation to the impact on i.e. their athletes, our athletic program, and the state of Oregon, what would that question be? Asking for a friend. I've read a lot of good insights. Fire away. We know ex-governor Kate Brown and Oregon Congressman Ron Wyden are strong Duck fans and attend many Oregon athletic events. Even Oregon AG Rosenblum, who is a “double-duck,” received a BS from the UO in 1971 and earned her JD degree in 1975.
My question would be: Did any of them have any personal involvement with thre Oregon athletic department in helping to get them into the big 10? Like a few phone calls? A simple Yes or No.
|
|
beaver94
Sophomore
Posts: 1,632
Member is Online
|
Post by beaver94 on Sept 25, 2023 19:36:34 GMT -8
What made them doubt their brand so much, that they were willing to take a smaller yearly payout, along with increased costs, over the apple deal that would have started slightly less but could have increased quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 26, 2023 11:50:12 GMT -8
What made them doubt their brand so much, that they were willing to take a smaller yearly payout, along with increased costs, over the apple deal that would have started slightly less but could have increased quickly. No one really trusted the Apple deal. Ahead of it's time. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 26, 2023 12:36:58 GMT -8
Update: UCLA provided me their agreement with the Big 10. Here it is. My analysis is include. Another potential question based on the agreement is whether or not UCLA or USC were involved in their decision. UCLA, and I'm guessing USC, could terminate their agreement with the Big 10 if there was a material change in conference membership. There is also a provision that the Big 10 must advise UCLA of changes (amendments) to the conference or grant of rights. Sometimes, it is useful to timeline stuff like this, in order to get it into an order that makes sense, because it can look like a mess without that organization. It looks like this popped up on May 26, 2022, at least from the documents that you received. Then, you have the May 27, 2022 emails to set up the first meeting on June 4, 2022. Four days later, you have emails starting to set up the June 30, 2022, meeting, which is where they actually pulled the trigger. They then didn't have their agreement in place until a couple of weeks later, which, honestly, is the least interesting thing that you received in the documents. I am curious what their basis is for any of the redactions. Also, I am curious if they have any saved voicemail messages or other memorializations of such related to the emails that you received or the agreement or recordings or other memorializations of the Zoom meetings referenced in the documents that you received. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by bill82 on Sept 27, 2023 18:32:06 GMT -8
Update: UCLA provided me their agreement with the Big 10. Here it is. My analysis is include. Another potential question based on the agreement is whether or not UCLA or USC were involved in their decision. UCLA, and I'm guessing USC, could terminate their agreement with the Big 10 if there was a material change in conference membership. There is also a provision that the Big 10 must advise UCLA of changes (amendments) to the conference or grant of rights. Sometimes, it is useful to timeline stuff like this, in order to get it into an order that makes sense, because it can look like a mess without that organization. It looks like this popped up on May 26, 2022, at least from the documents that you received. Then, you have the May 27, 2022 emails to set up the first meeting on June 4, 2022. Four days later, you have emails starting to set up the June 30, 2022, meeting, which is where they actually pulled the trigger. They then didn't have their agreement in place until a couple of weeks later, which, honestly, is the least interesting thing that you received in the documents. I am curious what their basis is for any of the redactions. Also, I am curious if they have any saved voicemail messages or other memorializations of such related to the emails that you received or the agreement or recordings or other memorializations of the Zoom meetings referenced in the documents that you received. All good questions. I followed up asking for all ancillary agreements referenced in the doc I received and the governing document that was referenced which was the controlling document for the agreement I received (in case of a dispute). They said they had neither. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Sept 27, 2023 19:21:03 GMT -8
I don't have any questions. They are looking out for themselves.....their brand. What else do we need to know? F em
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 27, 2023 19:27:46 GMT -8
I don't have any questions. They are looking out for themselves.....their brand. What else do we need to know? F em Yeah, and what question could you really ask that would satisfy any outsider? You already know the answer to any question. Some political, sidestepping, BS. So again, why ask? |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Sept 27, 2023 19:43:12 GMT -8
I don't have any questions. They are looking out for themselves.....their brand. What else do we need to know? F em Yeah, and what question could you really ask that would satisfy any outsider? You already know the answer to any question. Some political, sidestepping, BS. So again, why ask? Exactly.....the only details I'm really interested in is the timeline, and who ultimately tanked the conference. I think it was USC deciding the Pac 12 conference was run by idiots, which it was/is....and they decided they were done.....they blocked expansion to make sure it failed. Colorado left, and the rest bailed like rats from a sinking ship. The remaining schools' perception was they needed to secure their own future......I don't really blame them. College football runs college athletics. It's cutthroat....lots of money at stake. Ultimately, our conferences leadership was ineffective and allowed this to happen and it sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Sept 27, 2023 22:26:14 GMT -8
Like others, I wouldn't expect a real answer, just a lot of tap dancing. But I'd ask him how he could justify to all the people across the state of Oregon demolishing over 100 years of tradition. Without Oregon State playing Simon to their Garfunkel, how does he expect to maintain fan interest outside the alumni base.
This year, I follow them because they're part of the conference I've followed for 54 years. Next year, they might as well be Rutgers for all I'll care.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 28, 2023 5:41:57 GMT -8
Like others, I wouldn't expect a real answer, just a lot of tap dancing. But I'd ask him how he could justify to all the people across the state of Oregon demolishing over 100 years of tradition. Without Oregon State playing Simon to their Garfunkel, how does he expect to maintain fan interest outside the alumni base. This year, I follow them because they're part of the conference I've followed for 54 years. Next year, they might as well be Rutgers for all I'll care. Interesting take. That fan interest is basically gauged with one school playing another. |
|
