kids like this are why coaches sell their soul?

[BBTV]

Read between the lines: he's a Nike--if you'll pardon the expression--foot soldier. That's what it's about more than anything.

It'll be ironic when he makes the pros and signs an endorsement deal with adidas... unless you're implying that there's already been some contact with Nike.

[McCall]

He said he's still considering Kansas, an Adidas school. So if he had come out and said it was other things and the colors/shoes were just a part if it then fine. But he's just showing his immaturity.

[BBTV]

He said he's still considering Kansas, an Adidas school. So if he had come out and said it was other things and the colors/shoes were just a part if it then fine. But he's just showing his immaturity.

He's what - 17 years old? 18 years old? Come on, in either case, while he's being highly recruited by prestigious universities and eyeing up multi-million dollar contracts, at the end of the day, he's a kid. None of that other stuff negates that fact.

I think we expect way too much out of young kids, and put them in positions where their immaturity (or maturity-for-their-age) is exposed. You can be "coached" to say and do the right things if you have a good support system around you, but even the "polished" kids are still just kids.

[keynote]

Many of us have brand loyalty as consumers as well. I'm sure some of you only use Crest, or only Colgate, or what have you. Many car buyers buy one Camry after the other, because they appreciate how they perform.

As for me personally: I've had enough positive experiences with Nike performance sneakers as a user (playing basketball, working out, and playing tennis) that I'm fairly loyal to Nike*when buying performance sneakers*. On the odd occasion where I've experienced an unusual degrade in quality after minimal wear, Nike gave me a full refund. In contrast, I had a horrible experience with a pair of Reebok basketball shoes over a decade ago (both from a performance perspective, and from a customer relations perspective); I haven't worn a pair since. And frankly, I'm scared to death that John Wall, star of my beloved Washington Wizards, is wearing Reeboks that received extremely low performance ratings on SoleCollector.com, in part because I personally don't trust Reeboks from a performance perspective at all.

Now, if I'm buying shoes just to walk around in, then I'll buy whatever shoe fits my style and my budget. And even for performance shoes, budget is clearly a factor. Based on my research, Nike's performance line of basketball shoes routinely get stronger reviews than Adidas, Reebok, UA, etc. Of course, Nikes also tend to be $30-50 more per pair. So you get more, but you pay more.

The kid's comments re: colors and the shoes aesthetics might be a little superficial, but we don't know the full story. And in general, I don't have any problem with someone declaring their loyalty to a brand (whether it be Honda, Lucky Jeans, Ragu, etc), so long as that loyalty is based on performance and value and not solely on trendiness.

[McCall]

Many of us have brand loyalty as consumers as well. I'm sure some of you only use Crest, or only Colgate, or what have you. Many car buyers buy one Camry after the other, because they appreciate how they perform.

As for me personally: I've had enough positive experiences with Nike performance sneakers as a user (playing basketball, working out, and playing tennis) that I'm fairly loyal to Nike*when buying performance sneakers*. On the odd occasion where I've experienced an unusual degrade in quality after minimal wear, Nike gave me a full refund. In contrast, I had a horrible experience with a pair of Reebok basketball shoes over a decade ago (both from a performance perspective, and from a customer relations perspective); I haven't worn a pair since. And frankly, I'm scared to death that John Wall, star of my beloved Washington Wizards, is wearing Reeboks that received extremely low performance ratings on SoleCollector.com, in part because I personally don't trust Reeboks from a performance perspective at all.

Now, if I'm buying shoes just to walk around in, then I'll buy whatever shoe fits my style and my budget. And even for performance shoes, budget is clearly a factor. Based on my research, Nike's performance line of basketball shoes routinely get stronger reviews than Adidas, Reebok, UA, etc. Of course, Nikes also tend to be $30-50 more per pair. So you get more, but you pay more.

The kid's comments re: colors and the shoes aesthetics might be a little superficial, but we don't know the full story. And in general, I don't have any problem with someone declaring their loyalty to a brand (whether it be Honda, Lucky Jeans, Ragu, etc), so long as that loyalty is based on performance and value and not solely on trendiness.

I think COLLEGE is a little more of a priority over what shoes you wear. THAT'S what's truly sad here. That he and a lot of others seem to think choosing which shoe to wear is on the same level as choosing where to go to college.

[Billy B]

Many of us have brand loyalty as consumers as well. I'm sure some of you only use Crest, or only Colgate, or what have you. Many car buyers buy one Camry after the other, because they appreciate how they perform.

As for me personally: I've had enough positive experiences with Nike performance sneakers as a user (playing basketball, working out, and playing tennis) that I'm fairly loyal to Nike*when buying performance sneakers*. On the odd occasion where I've experienced an unusual degrade in quality after minimal wear, Nike gave me a full refund. In contrast, I had a horrible experience with a pair of Reebok basketball shoes over a decade ago (both from a performance perspective, and from a customer relations perspective); I haven't worn a pair since. And frankly, I'm scared to death that John Wall, star of my beloved Washington Wizards, is wearing Reeboks that received extremely low performance ratings on SoleCollector.com, in part because I personally don't trust Reeboks from a performance perspective at all.

Now, if I'm buying shoes just to walk around in, then I'll buy whatever shoe fits my style and my budget. And even for performance shoes, budget is clearly a factor. Based on my research, Nike's performance line of basketball shoes routinely get stronger reviews than Adidas, Reebok, UA, etc. Of course, Nikes also tend to be $30-50 more per pair. So you get more, but you pay more.

The kid's comments re: colors and the shoes aesthetics might be a little superficial, but we don't know the full story. And in general, I don't have any problem with someone declaring their loyalty to a brand (whether it be Honda, Lucky Jeans, Ragu, etc), so long as that loyalty is based on performance and value and not solely on trendiness.

I think COLLEGE is a little more of a priority over what shoes you wear. THAT'S what's truly sad here. That he and a lot of others seem to think choosing which shoe to wear is on the same level as choosing where to go to college.

Like it or not, a top recruit like that is going to play basketball not go to college. If all goes well for him, he won't be graduating so why not wear whatever shoes you like best? I think the dumber thing was saying publicly why he made his decision.

[McCall]

Many of us have brand loyalty as consumers as well. I'm sure some of you only use Crest, or only Colgate, or what have you. Many car buyers buy one Camry after the other, because they appreciate how they perform.

As for me personally: I've had enough positive experiences with Nike performance sneakers as a user (playing basketball, working out, and playing tennis) that I'm fairly loyal to Nike*when buying performance sneakers*. On the odd occasion where I've experienced an unusual degrade in quality after minimal wear, Nike gave me a full refund. In contrast, I had a horrible experience with a pair of Reebok basketball shoes over a decade ago (both from a performance perspective, and from a customer relations perspective); I haven't worn a pair since. And frankly, I'm scared to death that John Wall, star of my beloved Washington Wizards, is wearing Reeboks that received extremely low performance ratings on SoleCollector.com, in part because I personally don't trust Reeboks from a performance perspective at all.

Now, if I'm buying shoes just to walk around in, then I'll buy whatever shoe fits my style and my budget. And even for performance shoes, budget is clearly a factor. Based on my research, Nike's performance line of basketball shoes routinely get stronger reviews than Adidas, Reebok, UA, etc. Of course, Nikes also tend to be $30-50 more per pair. So you get more, but you pay more.

The kid's comments re: colors and the shoes aesthetics might be a little superficial, but we don't know the full story. And in general, I don't have any problem with someone declaring their loyalty to a brand (whether it be Honda, Lucky Jeans, Ragu, etc), so long as that loyalty is based on performance and value and not solely on trendiness.

I think COLLEGE is a little more of a priority over what shoes you wear. THAT'S what's truly sad here. That he and a lot of others seem to think choosing which shoe to wear is on the same level as choosing where to go to college.

Like it or not, a top recruit like that is going to play basketball not go to college. If all goes well for him, he won't be graduating so why not wear whatever shoes you like best? I think the dumber thing was saying publicly why he made his decision.

Even so, the quality of the team and coaching staff and university have way more of an effect on the long term than what brand of shoes or team colors. Immaturity plain and simple.

[keynote]

As I said earlier, we don't know the full story. I posted this in another thread on this forum, but as an FYI, here's an update from the original blogger quoted by Yahoo!.

POSTSCRIPT, ADDED ON 9/10

I have read a lot of comments on multiple sites, especially Yahoo Rivals, attacking Goodwin as a person for the above statements. Most of the people making these nasty attacks seem to believe the only reason Goodwin chose to eliminate Baylor from contention was aesthetic concerns. This is obviously false, since he gave other reasons. It’s unfortunate that his comments were stripped from their original context on this blog, but I also understand that is an inherent risk with anything written online for public consumption.

My job isn’t to be an apologist, or promoter, for Goodwin. It’s simply to serve as a way for him to tell the world about the life of a modern elite college recruit. He’s done that, and done it well, for six Sync player’s diaries now.

People who take the time to read these diaries, or listen to other Goodwin interviews online, will quickly realize he’s a personable, intelligent teenager. But he’s a teenager. In the spring, he was watching “SpongeBob“ and “Fairly Odd Parents”. He likes to goof around. And yeah, he likes some colors and shoe styles over others.

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, even those spewing ill-informed garbage all over major outlets’ comment sections. It’s a lot easier, after all, to form opinions without first going through the trouble of getting correct context and proper background information.

But it takes curiosity and intelligence to even understand when such effort is necessary.

The Yahoo Rivals comment section shows those qualities are absent in a disturbingly large number of people.

http://thesportsseer.com/2011/09/09/extras-from-archie-goodwin-interview-nike-adidas-and-why-it-matters/

[andrewharrington]

As I said earlier, we don't know the full story. I posted this in another thread on this forum, but as an FYI, here's an update from the original blogger quoted by Yahoo!.

POSTSCRIPT, ADDED ON 9/10

I have read a lot of comments on multiple sites, especially Yahoo Rivals, attacking Goodwin as a person for the above statements. Most of the people making these nasty attacks seem to believe the only reason Goodwin chose to eliminate Baylor from contention was aesthetic concerns. This is obviously false, since he gave other reasons. It?s unfortunate that his comments were stripped from their original context on this blog, but I also understand that is an inherent risk with anything written online for public consumption.

My job isn?t to be an apologist, or promoter, for Goodwin. It?s simply to serve as a way for him to tell the world about the life of a modern elite college recruit. He?s done that, and done it well, for six Sync player?s diaries now.

People who take the time to read these diaries, or listen to other Goodwin interviews online, will quickly realize he?s a personable, intelligent teenager. But he?s a teenager. In the spring, he was watching ?SpongeBob? and ?Fairly Odd Parents?. He likes to goof around. And yeah, he likes some colors and shoe styles over others.

Everyone?s entitled to their opinion, even those spewing ill-informed garbage all over major outlets? comment sections. It?s a lot easier, after all, to form opinions without first going through the trouble of getting correct context and proper background information.

But it takes curiosity and intelligence to even understand when such effort is necessary.

The Yahoo Rivals comment section shows those qualities are absent in a disturbingly large number of people.

http://thesportsseer.com/2011/09/09/extras-from-archie-goodwin-interview-nike-adidas-and-why-it-matters/

I don't really have an opinion on this one way or another, but didn't the article only list two reasons for his elimination of Baylor? One being that their colors were ugly and the other being that they were an adidas school?

"If you've got ugly colors like that, you've gotta be Nike." or thereabouts?