Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

ccgeneral

(2017) SF Kris Wilkes to UCLA

Recommended Posts

Jeff Rabjohns @JeffRabjohns
North Central (IN) 2017 F Kris Wilkes offered by Butler during visit this morning, per AAU coach Mike Peterson.


Don't even think about it Kris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Indyhoosiersbba: Univ of Maryland Terps latest school Hot on the trail of 2017 6'8 F Kris Wilkes

. Worries me. Wilkes is an Under Armour kid and Maryland is their flagship program. Those who think this doesn't matter, aren't being very realistic. The shoe wars are heating up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Worries me. Wilkes is an Under Armour kid and Maryland is their flagship program. Those who think this doesn't matter, aren't being very realistic. The shoe wars are heating up again.

Not trying to call you out, but do you have statistics/insider knowledge to support this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaab/eye-on-college-basketball/25261949/the-nike-under-armour-battle-for-high-school-stars-is-heating-up
This is in reference to him saying the Endorsement Wars are heating up again.

Thank you for linking this article.

What I garner from this article is that high school students are interested in enjoying the moment. When presented with multiple options, they will pick the one that is the most interesting/appealing/flashy at that time. Can anyone provide data on how allegiances to shoe companies have impacted college recruiting? I just haven't seen a reliable source of information to justify that the "Shoe Wars" exist at the collegiate level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for linking this article.

What I garner from this article is that high school students are interested in enjoying the moment. When presented with multiple options, they will pick the one that is the most interesting/appealing/flashy at that time. Can anyone provide data on how allegiances to shoe companies have impacted college recruiting? I just haven't seen a reliable source of information to justify that the "Shoe Wars" exist at the collegiate level.

Somebody posted an article in another thread. 40% plus of college coaches said they had lost a recruit to shoe company influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody posted an article in another thread. 40% plus of college coaches said they had lost a recruit to shoe company influence.

Coaches saying that they "lost" a recruit isn't exactly the reliable information I'd like to see. I'll look around and see if I can find data that shows how many recruits stick to their shoe allegiances from high school to college.

 

Here's some:

 

"A Courier-Journal database shows that 58 percent of the Rivals.com's top 10 seniors in the signing classes beginning in 2011, the first class from the Nike-backed Elite Youth Basketball League, came from Nike clubs, and of those, 69 percent, or 20 players, committed to college teams sponsored by that apparel company. Four committed to adidas-sponsored colleges.

 

By comparison, nine top-10 players have played for adidas-sponsored travel teams in those five classes, and only two went to adidas-sponsored colleges. Six went to Nike schools, according to the database, and one, a current senior, remains undecided.

 

Since the 2010 class, 75 percent of recruits signed by the Nike-sponsored University of Kentucky came from Nike-backed travel programs. During the same period, 43 percent of the signees at adidas-sponsored U of L came from Nike clubs.

 

Indiana University, another adidas-sponsored school, signed five players from Nike programs — or 25 percent of its high school signees — and 11 players from adidas programs during that period."

 

But here is the point that I think really matters and lessens the importance of any of the above data:

 

"Nike sponsors 45 of the 65 "power five conference" programs compared to adidas' 11, Under Armour's eight and Russell Athletics' one. With 15 of the 20 teams in the last five years' men's Final Fours affiliated with Nike, it then follows that, if Nike can maintain a stronghold on the bulk of top-rated club players and have deals in place with most of the country's top college programs, many of those athletes would be likely to continue the connection at the next level."

 

Essentially, the winners are playing for or with Nike.

 

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/basketball/2014/10/17/analysis-nike-schools-land-top-recruits/17458319/

 

Check out the interactive charts about halfway down the article. Pretty interesting display of shoe company affiliations. If you look at the player charts, you can see that there is plenty of jumping from brand to brand. I'll still argue that shoe company allegiances aren't as important as some make it out to be; it's all about who can "pay" you the most now.

 

This article by SBNation stating that the shoe wars are "heating up", supports this claim only with specific situations, and not aggregate data. 

 

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/8/14/9150941/james-harden-nike-adidas-college-basketball-recruiting-influence

 

This article has very little credibility in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×