I've seen various players mentioned as going to a Nike school or an Adidas school. A school might have a contract with a particular company but why in the world would a high school student care about such a thing? It has never been even a little bit interesting to me which company has which shoe. I understand that if your life is spent in them that you would be interested but to have it decide which university to attend just sounds stupid to me. Is money or other perks being handed out to cause such loyalty? Could someone give a logical reason why it is significant other than just individual preference?
Adidas, Nike or Reebok? What difference does it make to a recruit?
- Thread starter Blue Angel
- Start date
Guarantees of multi million dollar shoe deals after their one year in college. Promises that their families will get the hook up while they are in college etc.
Seems aittle more prominent with the Adidas circuit. Which makes sense because Nike is big dog and Adidas is constantly playing catch up in the brand game so they are constantly looking for an edge. Nike knows they can sit back and hand pick who they want after they are a proven commodity in the league
Seems aittle more prominent with the Adidas circuit. Which makes sense because Nike is big dog and Adidas is constantly playing catch up in the brand game so they are constantly looking for an edge. Nike knows they can sit back and hand pick who they want after they are a proven commodity in the league
It doesn't . Just an excuse people use . UK in all of Cal's time has lost one recruit due to shoes , 1. Bazz muhommad. It is just something people talk about like how others talk about Cal cheating but there is nothing to it . Brown , like most guys , will go where he thinks gets him ready for the NBA the best.
The shoe stuff is ridiculous, If I'm going pro after one year I'm going to be rich anyway, my parents and I would decide where I'm going and no shoe company is going to guide me to any school I do not want to go to. These AAU teams and this shoe crap is taking away from the kids and their family's reasons for picking the right schools for them, it's all based on money and it shouldn't be, the money will come later.
Now I have no proof on what any of the shoe companies do or don't do, promise or don't promise, but all I can point to is this interesting little factoid:
Since Calipari has been at UK, we have signed kids that played on Nike, Reebok, Under Armour, and unaffiliated Club/AAU teams. In that same time frame, we have signed ZERO kids that played for an Adidas affiliated AAU team. Several of Cal's most notable "misses" have been on recruits that sign with Adidas programs, and then go on to sign huge contracts with Adidas once they enter the pros.
To be fair, most of our signings have been Nike kids the same way that most teams sign kids that have their same affiliation, but if you look around you will see that Nike kids occasionally sign with programs that are not Nike, same with Reebok and Under Armour kids. Louisville, Indiana, and Kansas, just to name 3 well known Adidas schools, have gotten tons of Nike kids recently. Very rarely will you see, however, Adidas kids sign with anyone that is not an Adidas affiliated program. That's all I'm saying.
Since Calipari has been at UK, we have signed kids that played on Nike, Reebok, Under Armour, and unaffiliated Club/AAU teams. In that same time frame, we have signed ZERO kids that played for an Adidas affiliated AAU team. Several of Cal's most notable "misses" have been on recruits that sign with Adidas programs, and then go on to sign huge contracts with Adidas once they enter the pros.
To be fair, most of our signings have been Nike kids the same way that most teams sign kids that have their same affiliation, but if you look around you will see that Nike kids occasionally sign with programs that are not Nike, same with Reebok and Under Armour kids. Louisville, Indiana, and Kansas, just to name 3 well known Adidas schools, have gotten tons of Nike kids recently. Very rarely will you see, however, Adidas kids sign with anyone that is not an Adidas affiliated program. That's all I'm saying.
Last edited:
That would be the absolute last thing a shoe company would want to do.
Once in the league a player will take a shoe contract with whoever forks over the most cash. Doesn't matter if it is Nike, Addidas, UA, or Timberland boots.
Whoever pays the most gets the deal.
the player may not care but his handlers might care a lot. Lets pretend I'm an AAU guy, I'll go and recruit someone I think has great potential to play for my team... I'd shower them with gifts, jewelry.. possibly even allow these kids to live we me or pay their parents bills with cash.. etc. Well if I do that, the kid owes me and in order for me to have this money, I need to satisfy my shoe company.
Its an awful aspect of sports but its there.
Its an awful aspect of sports but its there.
It can be more than hype, but it all depends on the individual player and who around that player is influencing the player's decision.
Nike and Adidas aren't stupid enough to directly funnel money to HS and college players, and I think the idea of the "guaranteed" shoe contract is totally overblown. What Nike and Adidas do is funnel money to the people around great players. They fund all of the elite traveling AAU teams. The people who run those programs are beholden to the shoe companies, and if those people have a huge influence on a great player, guess which direction many (though not all) are going to push that player?
The thing is, not all people affiliated with those AAU programs choose to try and directly influence the kids who play on their teams, and not all players care what the people who run their AAU team think about their school choice. With some players, their families are going to have a huge say, and their families may or may not care what the AAU people think. With some, the HS coach is going to be a huge factor. It varies with every kid.
As some others have said, Adidas appears to "defend their turf" more aggressively than Nike. That may just be the nature of their biggest AAU teams (meaning that the people who run those teams try to have more direct influence). Or it may just be a recent fluke, where school interest and shoe company affiliation have intertwined.
Nike and Adidas aren't stupid enough to directly funnel money to HS and college players, and I think the idea of the "guaranteed" shoe contract is totally overblown. What Nike and Adidas do is funnel money to the people around great players. They fund all of the elite traveling AAU teams. The people who run those programs are beholden to the shoe companies, and if those people have a huge influence on a great player, guess which direction many (though not all) are going to push that player?
The thing is, not all people affiliated with those AAU programs choose to try and directly influence the kids who play on their teams, and not all players care what the people who run their AAU team think about their school choice. With some players, their families are going to have a huge say, and their families may or may not care what the AAU people think. With some, the HS coach is going to be a huge factor. It varies with every kid.
As some others have said, Adidas appears to "defend their turf" more aggressively than Nike. That may just be the nature of their biggest AAU teams (meaning that the people who run those teams try to have more direct influence). Or it may just be a recent fluke, where school interest and shoe company affiliation have intertwined.
So, the consensus seems to be that while there may not be a lot of proof, there is a lot of smoke and it is reasonable to think there is therefore, fire.
Latest posts
-
-
So this is Auburn's tactic, it wasnt just our game with them- Latest: spudinthehouse
-
-
