Phil Knight

Hey,

Does anyone have the transcript of the poem that Blackledge read at the memorial?

when you consider that his “hero” Joe Paterno would never go for wild pro-combat designs in his football uniforms.

Knight obviously understands the Penn State brand never did and probably never will need that kind of help.

LJ has grown up a lot since then, I think, and as I recall, the worst thing he did was throw a drink in a woman’s face. Not ok, but it’s not like he punched her.

I never had a particular problem with Nike. I was/am uncomfortable with the degree to which he personally bankrolls Oregon. But I’m nervous about how much PSU hockey relies on Pegula too. It’s just a lot of power to put in somebody who isn’t a coach or a duly appointed administrator. I don’t like most of the Pro Combat uniforms, but I understand that Nike is just experimenting with different ideas that they will then translate to their products. It’s like the ridiculous haute couture stuff that comes out in Paris fashion shows. Nobody will ever wear that, but some ideas from that may trickle down.

Not all of their new efforts are bad:
Army looked good against Navy (better than the newfangled Navy unis, I thought)
http://www.goarmysports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/091311aac.html

And Minnesota’s new kits are olk:
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/34482001

also usually include this gibberish from one Lanny J. Davis:

“All the reasons for the board’s difficult and anguished decision – made unanimously, including former football players and everyone who still loves Coach Paterno and his memory – reached a decision which was heartfelt. All 32.”
“The facts speak for themselves” and include the grand jury testimony, he said.

Not sure why or how Lenny was the one to get quoted, but we should all give him a warm welcome to the world of asshattery. “heartfelt”? Nothing the BOT’s did or have done since has been indicative that they have any heart.

And that is that the GJP sure as hell does not “speak for itself.” What other facts is he referring to? They didn’t have any others.

But having said that. I don’t think all this board bashing is very constructive. They have new leadership now and all of the alumni members, at least will turn over soon. There’s hope they’ve learned some lessons.

The whole structure is f’d up. Too many people, for one. I don’t know how that will change. It must.

I wouldn’t give that many to the alums. I’d give a lot to the faculty. They’re what makes the university a university, after all, and are in the best position to see what the university needs to fulfill its mission. And I’d give a few to the students – undergrad (UP and commonwealth) and grad.

And I think it’s ok for industry and ag to have some seats, but not so many. An important part of the University’s mission is to provide research and education that helps PA’s economy.

It’s a significant shakeup from what’s there now, but I think that it will provide better representation, as well as limit the influence of certain groups:

6 alumni Trustees, 3 elected each year for 4 year terms
3 reps from the Faculty Senate
2 Ag trustees (Land Grant reasons)
1 admin rep from U. Park
1 admin rep from a branch campus (elected by vote of branch campus chancellors)
1 student rep from U. Park (Elected by students)
1 student rep from a branch campus (Elected by students)
1 governor appointee
University President (Non-voting)
Other non-voting members as needed

This way, all factions of the University are represented, but most of the Trustees will be elected rather than appointed, and thus would have to be more responsive. In addition, there will be no trustees elected by the trustees, which strikes me as something that should have been done years ago.

PSU’s board wouldn’t do anything to damage such a mutually beneficial relationship AND piss off just about every living alum in the process just because Knight was unkind to them. It’s highly unlikely that they are that petty and stupid.

The BOT has pretty much pissed off every living alumn. Instead of letting Joe go with dignity they fired him over the phone. Whether you think Joe was complacent or not, after 62 years he deserved the respect of a face to face meeting. You can believe what you want but Penn State is where it is today, a world class university, more through Joe’s efforts than all 32 BOTs combined. I think it is in the best interest of every PSU supporter to do what they can to see that Corbett gets defeated and never holds a political office again.

The board may be incompetent as a whole, but they are not insane. As you said, they take the mentality of a junior high girl. (although that would be insulting to some junior high girls I know) As such, they want to do what was popular and politically expedient. Political winds were blowing one way in early November, but since the preliminary hearing and Joe’s passing, the winds seem to have shifted.

I too am concerned about the stories about the board feeling that Joe wasn’t showing than proper deference. Even if he was showing them up – which he wasn’t – that’s just not how a university should run. A university is not a military operation that needs absolute chain-of-command discipline. It’s about free minds. Criticizing the board of trustees (or whomever is running the show) has been part of academic culture to some degree since the middle ages, at least. Then again, a lot of that sort of talk appeared to be coming form Surma, and he’s out so, we’ll see what the tone is like now.

Joe is one of a handful of people that made enormous contributions to PSU in the post-war era. Eric Walker deserves a lot of credit as does Spanier, despite some of his mistakes. There are some others, mostly unsung faculty that gradually built up their departments.

But yeah, I don’t think any of the people on the current board are remotely in Joe’s league as far as that goes.

or does anybody else wonder why not one BOT member has broken ranks and spoken anything but the party line? You couldn’t get that many people to agree on where to go to dinner. I understand that Standing Order 9 requires them to present a united front, but what’s the penalty for violating that? I assume it’s not jail time or death. I would think that a member who disagreed with the “unanimous” decision or was unhappy with the way the BOT functioned wouldn’t mind being thrown out.