Originally Posted by chseagle (Post 716641)

Here's the initial article I read that made me think of asking everyone.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 716610)

My point is even if it has some Nike influence, that does not mean they were the ones that said this was the exact direction the court design should be. The building of course donated but Knight, but a lot of arenas are often named after people or having little to do with name of the arena. Like "The Summit" or "Coach K Court." I think it is possible that someone else at that university said this was a good idea and the designers were helping them out.

Peace

Originally Posted by Judtech (Post 716871)

He/Duke has been approached countless times about building a NEW Arena and he has repeatedly said he is not interested and if they do he will resign.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 716532)

As an official, I'm with BNR. They noted the division line is hard to see. I couldn't see it at all on TV, and I wondered how easy it was to see on the court. That could be a problem from an officiating perspective. That's about all, though.

As a fan, however, I found it hard to watch.

Originally Posted by TimTaylor (Post 716989)

I got to see it up close and personal a couple weeks ago - the division line is very hard to see unless you're standing right on top of it & looking for it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 716764)

Doing it in honor of someone is different than doing it in response to a $100 mm donation. $100 mm buys you a lot more than just the name; and I'm not sure Oregon does anything without Phill Knight's permission. You get a sugar daddy that prolific, you tend to run things by him at the very least.

Maybe it was their idea and he just signed off on it, but I'd bet he had a lot of input.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 716992)

I did not say he had no input. I said it might not have been his idea or vision for the court.

Peace

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 717007)

Gotcha. I'm leaning towards the fact that it was in fact his vision. For that kind of money, I'd have to be thrilled with the result. Especially if it has my name attached to it. Maybe that's just me.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 717089)

Maybe you are right, but I heard it was not his vision or original idea. That is why I made the statements as it appeared the symbolism was not a original Nike idea or design (there is no Nike logo or other Nike symbolism on the court). Then again there have been many reports about what actually motivated this and why these kinds of trees and colors were used.

Peace