Tooling around

University of Oregon prez Dave Frohnmayer takes issue with a recent ESPN.com story examining the powerful pull Nike founder Phil Knight wields over his alma mater. The UO prez says he was "offended by implications" made in the article.

His rebuttal, however, took the form of a rather semantic non-denial, with apparent emphasis on the concept of whether big donors like Knight merited such sway:

Your article implied that donors, especially generous donors such as Phil Knight, exercise undue influence over the governance of this university's operations. That is simply not the case. Ascribing importance to the ideas and thoughts of involved supporters deserved better than cynical stick figure caricatures.

In other words, Frohnmayer doesn't deny "involved supporters" (hereafter: Phil Knight) get a hearing for their "ideas and thoughts" (say, whether a track coach should be retained who doesn't run his program according to the individual whim of our involved supporter).

What Frohnmayer appears to really say here is that he resents the charge that Knight's influence is undue -- have you noticed the size of the wad of cash he's dropped on UO?

This isn't really the place to argue about whether rich donors should get such power in how universities and their athletic programs are run. (Answer: No)

But you can see how much Frohnmayer squirms when someone happens to make informed observations about the fact that he is, in many instances, a tool.

It'd be even funnier if it turned out Frohnmayer drafted and submitted his response at the urging of Phil Knight.