James Day of the Salem
Statesman-Journal says that college athletic departments are selling out their operations to shoe companies, like Nike and adidas. He's complaining that schools are signing up with the highest bidder, while being "controlled" by the almighty dollar.
What did you expect, Jim?
Programs need money to be competitive, and shoe companies are willing to hand out the cash, in exchange for schools marketing their brand. But he thinks the price of allowing companies, like Nike, to have an impact on athletic department decisions is too high. What's wrong with that? I don't see the problem. I also disagree with Day's analogy that Nike CEO Phil Knight has too much say and influence in University of Oregon athletic department decisions.
For example, Knight and Nike have single-handedly put the Oregon Ducks on the collegiate map, in terms on donations and market-branding for the university. Without that money, many teams would have to tighten budgets and do without, rather than focus on building winning programs.
