I don't think hypocritical is the right term. Everyone knows USC has a lot of advantages that most schools can't offer, and USC historically took full advantage of them. Was money involved? Of course, esp back in the 50s when the PCC didn't offer athtletic scholarships and all of the member schools were buying players to get around this. So USC has been guilty, but I would also note that if USC was free spending to buy players, then Eric Dickerson would have worn C&G. He's on record saying USC was his school of choice but he couldn't turn down SMU's money.
For USC, football, the vast majority of money is derived from revenues and proceeds developed from the football program. For Oregon, the overwhelmingly vast majority of money is derived from the largest shoe and apparel company in the world.
The vast majority of Nike contributions go to Duck football. The vast majority of donations to USC goes to educational endowments.
Money changes everything.
Cyndi Lauper was right
congrats!