Tuesday, October 18, 2005
18 October 2005
We have known for awhile that college athletics are a big business. If you don't think so, just look at the BCS or turn on your TV on a Saturday afternoon. We have college sports video games, TV shows, and tons of fan gear from clothes to trailer hitch covers.
Most, if not all division I schools have one or more athletic equipment suppliers. These contracts call for a team to wear gear made by the company, usually given to the schools free, and of course given to the players free. Some schools such as Wake Forest have multiple contracts with multiple companies. For example, the Men's basketball and football teams at Wake wear Nike while the soccer and volleyball teams wear adidas.
But what happens when a player doesn't want to wear the brand of shoes or equipment provided to him? Should he or she be allowed to provide his/her own equipment?
Apparently not.
Arkansas State Senior basketball player Jerry Nichols is choosing to sit out rather than wear the adidas shoes provided to him by the school. Nichols refuses to wear the shoes because he thinks that adidas shoes have contributed to past problems with his knee and thinks that his knee would be in more danger if he played in adidas shoes. Arkansas State administration has said that because they are under contract with adidas that Nichols must wear the shoes or sit out. Is this fair? I think not. Now, I don't advocate that Nichols or any other player should be allowed to shun their school's official equipment supplier because say, they want to wear the newest LeBron's or Jordan's or Dwayne Wade sneakers because they simply like them better, but what if there is a legitimate reason. Shouldn't these companies be supplying the schools and athletes with the best possible equipment? When Nike started making golf clubs and balls they put a provision in Tiger Woods's contract saying that he did not have to play with their clubs or balls if he thought that there was a better brand on the market. And, for a while Woods continued to play with Titleist clubs and balls. If the biggest sports equipment manufacturer can put that clause in the contract for its biggest endorser, shouldn't adidas and Arkansas St. Let a college basketball player wear shoes that he feels offer him the best chance to safely play his game? And if Nichols were forced to play in adidas shoes, would he even be effective? He might not play his hardest for fear of injuring his knee. So long as he is willing to provide his own shoes, and hey, even take the logo off if adidas so desires then why not let him wear whatever brand he thinks will serve his knee best? Of all companies, adidas should embrace this. They should prove to Nichols that they can make a shoe that will be safe for him, or let him wear whatever he wants. Adidas has long bragged that footballers around the globe under contract with other footwear suppliers have torn the stripes off of adidas shoes (frequently the Copa Mundial soccer boot) and worn them with hand drawn swooshes because these players have felt that the adidas shoes are superior to any other brand. Furthermore, I remember a few years ago when the NCSU mens basketball team who is under contract with adidas switched to Nike shoes mid-season because multiple players had suffered broken feet while wearing their adidas shoes. Shouldn't this case be considered in the same light? Let players wear shoes that make them feel safe, but don't let them substitute shoes for fashion's sense. If you're going to REQUIRE these student-athletes to wear your shoes at all costs, then you should be paying the student-athletes, not just their coaches and athletic directors.
We have known for awhile that college athletics are a big business. If you don't think so, just look at the BCS or turn on your TV on a Saturday afternoon. We have college sports video games, TV shows, and tons of fan gear from clothes to trailer hitch covers.
Most, if not all division I schools have one or more athletic equipment suppliers. These contracts call for a team to wear gear made by the company, usually given to the schools free, and of course given to the players free. Some schools such as Wake Forest have multiple contracts with multiple companies. For example, the Men's basketball and football teams at Wake wear Nike while the soccer and volleyball teams wear adidas.
But what happens when a player doesn't want to wear the brand of shoes or equipment provided to him? Should he or she be allowed to provide his/her own equipment?
Apparently not.
Arkansas State Senior basketball player Jerry Nichols is choosing to sit out rather than wear the adidas shoes provided to him by the school. Nichols refuses to wear the shoes because he thinks that adidas shoes have contributed to past problems with his knee and thinks that his knee would be in more danger if he played in adidas shoes. Arkansas State administration has said that because they are under contract with adidas that Nichols must wear the shoes or sit out. Is this fair? I think not. Now, I don't advocate that Nichols or any other player should be allowed to shun their school's official equipment supplier because say, they want to wear the newest LeBron's or Jordan's or Dwayne Wade sneakers because they simply like them better, but what if there is a legitimate reason. Shouldn't these companies be supplying the schools and athletes with the best possible equipment? When Nike started making golf clubs and balls they put a provision in Tiger Woods's contract saying that he did not have to play with their clubs or balls if he thought that there was a better brand on the market. And, for a while Woods continued to play with Titleist clubs and balls. If the biggest sports equipment manufacturer can put that clause in the contract for its biggest endorser, shouldn't adidas and Arkansas St. Let a college basketball player wear shoes that he feels offer him the best chance to safely play his game? And if Nichols were forced to play in adidas shoes, would he even be effective? He might not play his hardest for fear of injuring his knee. So long as he is willing to provide his own shoes, and hey, even take the logo off if adidas so desires then why not let him wear whatever brand he thinks will serve his knee best? Of all companies, adidas should embrace this. They should prove to Nichols that they can make a shoe that will be safe for him, or let him wear whatever he wants. Adidas has long bragged that footballers around the globe under contract with other footwear suppliers have torn the stripes off of adidas shoes (frequently the Copa Mundial soccer boot) and worn them with hand drawn swooshes because these players have felt that the adidas shoes are superior to any other brand. Furthermore, I remember a few years ago when the NCSU mens basketball team who is under contract with adidas switched to Nike shoes mid-season because multiple players had suffered broken feet while wearing their adidas shoes. Shouldn't this case be considered in the same light? Let players wear shoes that make them feel safe, but don't let them substitute shoes for fashion's sense. If you're going to REQUIRE these student-athletes to wear your shoes at all costs, then you should be paying the student-athletes, not just their coaches and athletic directors.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
16 October 2005
Roman Candle rocked my face off.
Apple introduced a new iMac and new iPod that is capable of playing TV shows and videos.
badass.
Inagural Ball this friday. Get your tix now.
Senior Fifth, this saturday or Thursday Nov 17th (when I'll be doing it) Get in.
Roman Candle rocked my face off.
Apple introduced a new iMac and new iPod that is capable of playing TV shows and videos.
badass.
Inagural Ball this friday. Get your tix now.
Senior Fifth, this saturday or Thursday Nov 17th (when I'll be doing it) Get in.
