Front Page News By Vinny

You clearly don't understand what Lannana is trying to do in Eugene. He is trying to make it the hotbed of T & F in the U.S. and possibly the world. Good for him!! Nike is willing to back U of O and if it means loosing money on track then that is what it means. Not every sport generates revenue but not every coach can make a difference in their sport like Lannana.

If Nike was always concerend about making money off a sport then why are they sponsoring as many runners as they do?

Original Headband Dude wrote:

You clearly don't understand what Lannana is trying to do in Eugene. He is trying to make it the hotbed of T & F in the U.S. and possibly the world. Good for him!! Nike is willing to back U of O and if it means loosing money on track then that is what it means. Not every sport generates revenue but not every coach can make a difference in their sport like Lannana.

If Nike was always concerend about making money off a sport then why are they sponsoring as many runners as they do?

Although running is not as popular as any of the major american sports, that's no reason to not try and expand the fan base. At the HS level, track has one the highest participation rates in the country. Likewise, millions of people of a wide variety of levels engage in some form of running.

Even if these marketing and expansion attempts will not result in NFL or NBA type popularity, what's wrong with trying to make the sport more than a fringe sport in the country? Investment in the sport makes it better for most runners, especially those that are real diehard fans.

Expanding the base will mean more sponsorship $$ and greater exposure on tv/internet, which will allow fans to have increased access to the sport. I think it's clear that Nike doesn't see running as a terrible investment or else it wouldn't invest as much as it does.

Jimmie Johnson wrote:

I think it's clear that Nike doesn't see running as a terrible investment or else it wouldn't invest as much as it does.

Don't forget that Nike was founded by a bunch of track guys, as was mentioned earlier.

Look, football participation numbers will start to drop off dramatically when the full impact of head injuries is truly understood. Soccer is not appreciable better. So where are these athletes going to go?

Track & Field baby! Get ready for the new renaissance and Eugene will be leading the charge.

Your comment barely deserves response but knowing LetsRun it will fuel all kinds of bashing. Good on you. You are a star!

Do you really believe whatever Vin does in Eugene is not in a larger plan for himself, the University of Oregon and Nike? Do you believe he is accountable to no one for the plans he announces?

"Akin to a charity." Well said. Let's start a movement to drop Track from American colleges. Would you like that? It sounds like it but hey I am "just as naive as the next sucker."

cogacofeca wrote:

Jimmie Johnson wrote:

I think it's clear that Nike doesn't see running as a terrible investment or else it wouldn't invest as much as it does.

Don't forget that Nike was founded by a bunch of track guys, as was mentioned earlier.

I am aware of that, but businesses like Nike do not just throw money away on products and services that do not have some sort of demand within the general public. Of course most of Nike's profit margin is not from running supplies, but Phil Knight must see some other value in supporting running as much as he does, other than just being a former walk-on runner at Oregon.

Jefe in the CO wrote:

Look, football participation numbers will start to drop off dramatically when the full impact of head injuries is truly understood. Soccer is not appreciable better.

Surely knee injuries are better than head injuries?

Or do you mean violence among the fans? ;-)

Maybe he feels a bit of loyalty to the company's roots and foundation. I understand we live in a heartless capitalist society, but Phil Knight happens to be A) in charge of a multi-billion-dollar company, and B) a huge track fan. You do the math.

Wait, we get to drop every program that doesnt make money for its school, and instead costs hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to run? Sweet! There goes 75% of NCAA football programs...or if we count schools that make money every year only, there goes 90% of NCAA football programs!

I have actually in the past made an argument that colleges drop collegiate athletics entirely. This may sound like a bad idea but when we think about the current economic pressures facing states it doesn't make sense to support programs that don't bring money & prestige to a school. You may not want to cut a football/basketball/hockey team from a school because that is what alums pride themselves on. Not many schools have alums talking around the water cooler about how great the Track team was. It may even be the case that many schools should drop football/basketball/hockey, but an analysis should be done before taking this drastic measure. Oregon may not want to drop track because Phil Knight may be dissapointed and pull funding from other sports, doubtful though based on his recent love affair with the football program at U of O.

I do think that Nikes support of running at the elite level is akin to a charity. How much revenue do you really think a professional runner or collegiant team brings in to Nike? Nike is not sponsoring schools for their track teams.

For example lets take Galen Rupp who is from reports being paid in the neighborhood of $500,000 a year he would have to sell an additional 6,250 pairs of spikes @ $80 bucks to generate revenue to cover his salary. This revenue however is divided up between many facets of Nike's business (i.e. R&D, Manufacturing, and other operating expenses). Maybe on a $80 pair of shoes Nike makes $15. Now Galen needs to sell 34,000 pairs of shoes. Now we must consider that many people who buy Nikes because of Galen would have bought them anyway. Lets say 16,000 people. Now Galen needs to sell 50,000 pairs of shoes. At 50,000 pairs of shoes Nike would earn no additional profit and would be giving Galen $500,000.

So the question is, Does Galen Rupp directly sell $50,000 pairs of shoes??? I'm going to have to say no!!

I would never buy a pair of Galen Rupps...ever!

Could you imagine the technology that would have to go into a shoe to be "The Rupp". Probably a $300 shoe.

I am all for what Vin is trying to do, but folks from Philly, NY and LA must cring whenever they hear Euguene refered to as track town.

Could you imagine the aneurysm the BroJos would have if the indoor track they put in is longer than 200 meters?

I tend to agree with the BroJos on indoor tracks, except i think they should not allow banked tracks.