Note to the OSU Athletic Department

Closing the stands because they are unsafe (even though the materials for new bleachers have been lying on the ground within sight of the stadium for at least a year, and even though they still use the press box, which sits on top of the stands)? I can live with that.

Actually having event staff security at soccer games? There's no need, but I can live with that - though they always come across as small-minded and mean-spirited. Last year they sometimes banned bags from the field; I also had one threaten to deny me entrance to a game if I didn't show my student ID, which was surreal; it's a good thing I still carry it around. (For those of you who don't know, OSU soccer games are free and open to everyone, regardless of student status. In fact, more non-students than students attend games.)

Searching bags and banning anything but sealed water bottles? Not acceptable. There's no reason for it. I've been told there have been incidents in the past, but I've been going to home men's soccer games for six years, and I've never seen anything that warranted this. I have also been told this is a new Pac-10 rule, not an OSU thing. Seeing as how it came from the 'security' folks, I am skeptical (though it should be noted that even if it is a Pac-10 thing, it remains unnecessary). I tend to think the newfound fear of liquids has more to do with the sale of $3 bottles of water and a control-oriented culture than anything else.

Soccer has always had its own culture and practices. Here, that has meant a relatively low-key, dedicated fan culture (the occasional frat boy stupid fan notwithstanding). It has never, to the best of my knowledge, meant a need for security or insanely overpriced food and drink. It's insulting to fans.

(While I am complaining, can I just note that I agree with this post regarding the strength of OSU's preseason schedule? I've seen two men's games so far this year, and OSU has outscored their opponents 10-0. In two games. I've left both games early because there was no point in staying. I know they've struggled in the past few years, but that's no reason to adopt this schedule.)

[Hasso Hering] Getting it (mostly) right

Hering:

As long as the University of Oregon wants to act like a private company where athletics are concerned, maybe the Legislature ought to make it official and turn the athletic department into a private enterprise.

The university refuses to disclose how much it is being paid under a new athletics marketing contract. The office of Attorney General Hardy Myers has agreed with the university. The AG rejected a request by the Portland Oregonian that the payments be disclosed under the Oregon Public Records Act.

“The state has an economic interest in maximizing payments made to its universities pursuant to sports marketing contracts," the AG’s opinion said. “Would-be contractors who know exactly what the UO or OSU agreed to accept in the past might offer less than they otherwise would have offered.’’

By that reasoning, none of the contracts made by public bodies in Oregon — from individual small fire districts and city governments to the giant Department of Transportation — should be open to public inspection.

I agree with him - the reasoning behind the decision to make the contract info a secret is weak. And wrong.

Privatizing college athletics is a giant can of worms he's obviously not thought through (what happens to the status of the student-athletes who participate? Do they become even more exploited once the veneer of interest in their academics is even further stripped away?), but hey, at least this editorial is coherent and genuinely seems to be in the public's interest. Hooray for that.

.... the more I think about this, the stupider Myers' decision is. Really? Sports marketing? I get that it might actually lead to more revenue, but hey - it's a state institution, and that means it should be public information. That's how it works. Yes, there are costs to that, but the benefit (the possibility of democracy) should easily be seen as outweighing the money.

Should, anyway.

An Observation

Many, many of the folks who have commented on the recent use of black facepaint at OSU football games have claimed that race or racism have nothing to do with the real issue at hand, which is "just football."

As if the intersection of American football and race means nothing.

Say hello to everyone's good friend white privilege.

In this case, that means the privilege of never having to think about race and football.

Question

What the heck is this?

As president and spokesperson for the Lebanon Education Association, I am responding to current events surrounding the athletic situation in regards to the coaches whose salaries are determined by our contract.

...

Athletics is a fundamental need in any school district and there is data-supported proof that a strong athletic program helps support student achievement, district morale and community spirit. Considering the increase in state budget, it would be appropriate for the district to fully fund the current athletic programs before adding new positions elsewhere. We need every coach we have and they should be paid the salaries that were bargained.

Kimberly Fandiño, LEA President, Lebanon

It's a fairly straightforward letter, but it lacks context. Like, for example, why did she write it? Why put this statement in the paper? Who is she trying to reach?

If it's teachers, then she's the LEA President and she's got email. I suppose that she's trying to reach the public to counteract the impression that she isn't fully supportive of coaches. I wonder where anyone could have got that idea?

Second, letters like this almost always work on at least two levels. The first is the level the general public is going to read it at, and the second is the level at which the parties involved are going to read it at. I wonder what's going on over at Level 2? One suspects her support for Lebanon coaches is in doubt, and she's trying to shore it up.