@Marco said in Adidas suing TJ Gassnola:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in Adidas suing TJ Gassnola:
@Marco said in Adidas suing TJ Gassnola:
As soon as I saw that story I thought, ‘man, until this all came out, I had never really given much thought to the shoe co. connection.’ But it is so obvious now, Nike undoubtedly being the biggest culprit.
Bruce Bowen was going to go to Louisville, but who also almost got him? KU - both KU and Louisville being Adidas schools. Who supplied Bowen’s AAU team? Adidas. We got Muscadin, but again it came down to Louisville and KU. Who got De Sousa? KU. But who was in the running? Maryland, an Adidas school.
KU was smart to resign with Adidas. Had we signed with Nike or anyone else we would not have, in the future, even gotten so much as even a whiff of a bigtime recruit. What, With Dook, Kentucky and UNC having already established long-term relationships with Nike the top recruits would have gone to one of those three schools, and Adidas would have steered almost all of the other good or even great ones to schools that they supplied apparel to. Just a thought.
Several things here:
Maryland is not an Adidas school which is how Silvio got caught up in this mess in the first place. The payment between shoe co. reps is why Silvio was suspended a season. Maryland is Under Armour’s flagship school since that’s where their founder went to school the same way Oregon benefits from Nike because of Phil Knight being an alum.
KU was not a finalist for Bowen, the competition was between Louisville, Michigan St. and Texas. Also, Brian Bowen was a much more sought after recruit than Gethro Muscadin is. Bowen was a consensus 5 star recruit while Muscadin is a 3/4* recruit depending on the service. While Louisville offered Muscadin, they were never a serious player for him.
Also, KU would probably be better off in recruiting with Nike because there is a much bigger pool of AAU talent to spread around than there is at Adidas. KU would be a big fish in a big pond at Nike. KU could get just about any top Midwest and west coast recruit they wanted with Nike, while Kentucky, Duke, and UNC split the eastern half of the country. With Adidas, they are a big fish in a little pond that has to share a sometimes too small pond with other top Addias programs.
I stand corrected by saying Maryland is an Adidas scool. I respect your opinion, but disagree that KU should have signed with someone else. Think that we were wise to stay with Adidas.
I only said KU would be better off in recruiting because of the bigger recruiting pool has to offer, never said KU should’ve signed with Nike. KU Athletics is a for profit business and the goal of a a for profit business is to make as much money as possible. The Adidas deal pays KU a lot more per year than a Nike deal would based off of what Kentucky and North Carolina receive from Nike. KU currently has the 4th richest apparel deal in the NCAA behind UCLA, Louisville, and Texas.
