BuzzerBeater Forums

Agreed...I was just curious where people feel the line is: shoe company, family, religion, community etc.


Last edited by Solana_Steve at 10/28/2009 2:53:16 PM

Obviously UCF shouldn't have made that promise to him. College basketball recruiting is such that I think that's pretty common though. Not saying that's right.

Agreed. It is my belief that whomever promised him he could wear Jordans at UCF should be fired. This issue will affect the other programs at UCF more than the Basketball team. The 5% of the AD budget wont come out of the basketball budget, you can be sure. (If they lose the Adidas sponsorship)

In terms of having an individual identity versus being part of the team, how do you all feel about athletes that don't play on certain days for religious reasons (BYU doesn't play on Sunday's -- but what do other Mormon/various other Christians do who play at other universities do who might have a Sunday sporting event). Also, I remember Shawn Green from the Dodgers not want to play on one of the Jewish holidays. Is that too much individual identity?

Depends, I guess. It is one thing to say that the entire BYU team wont play on Sunday, that isn't individual. A better example is if a Mormon player playing for USC wont play on Sunday when the rest of his team will. I think the person who has special needs should make sure those needs can be met before committing to any type of co-reliant group, in writing.

My wife goes crazy when they talk about athletes that missed the birth of their children because the team had a game scheduled. Is that to much putting the team ahead of the individual?

Wives tend to think of sporting events as just a game. Dont they realize it is a matter of life and death we are talking about? (kidding)

I missed the birth of my son while in Iraq in '91. Seems odd since I was an undrafted walk on.

If the above linked story is completely accurate, it seems obvious that someone at UCF screwed up, and is ultimately to blame. The question really is....what do we do now?


Last edited by Heathcoat at 10/28/2009 7:08:11 PM

I agree with what you said, but I have to wonder just how important wearing a shoe is to a father/son relationship. It is not like him wearing Adidas will somehow harm the Jordan franchise of footwear. I think either UCF was foolish or deceptive in this situation, but it is a shoe (actually, two of them)

Of course, it isn't. But the Air Jordan's (in a certain way) pay an homage to one of the best players to ever hit the court. In that way, it was something that his father worked hard to achieve. Sure, it's just a shoe but like all objects, they are only as important as the meaning you give to them. In that way, what you see as simple shoe, might mean something more to him. A kind of "the importance is in the eye of the beholder", if you please. Yeah, I adapted the 'beauty' one :P

How many other Freshmen are going through the same thing this fall? This is all because his last name is Jordan. Personal identity isn't supposed to be a big factor in a team sport. When practicing and playing in games he is a member of a team and should wear the team uniform. As soon as practice or the game is over, he can resume his personal identity and wear whatever he wants.

So, let me get this straight. Just because you are a part of a team you are not entitled to your own identity? I would like to take this issue even further and say that teams are made of differences. When you mix different experiences and various areas of knowledge, that's a team worth being in, that's where you'll really learn something. Of course, all this is because he's a Jordan... But I really don't feel like he's being a "prima-dona". It was an intention he had from the beginning, he made it public and crystal clear but didn't got it on ink (and that was his only and decisive mistake). Otherwise, Adidas would have deal with it.

MJ should just tell his son 'Just wear their shoe for the games, we are doing OK financially. After all, son, it is just a shoe, right?"

Keeping in mind the current situation, that's exactly what I would say to my son. And add: "Next time we know what we've got to do, if you really want to wear them on court."

Excellent points.

I dont think a person gives up his identity when he wears a uniform. I wear decidedly different clothes at work then I do in my free time. I speak differently to my boss than I do to my buddies at the bar. Is this a concession of my identity?

The Yankees have a policy about facial hair. If a player got traded to the Yanks in this hypothetical example, and had a beard that he refused to shave so the yanks fined and benched him. Which side of this argument would you tend to side with? Not quite sure myself.

I dont think a person gives up his identity when he wears a uniform. I wear decidedly different clothes at work then I do in my free time. I speak differently to my boss than I do to my buddies at the bar. Is this a concession of my identity?

Of course, wearing a uniform means you are a part of that particular team (and it's useful for identification purposes along the match). But if a player wants to express himself by using extravagant haircuts, exuberant tattoos, using his daddy's shoe brand... as long as it doesn't affect his performance on the field, why not?
As for the example you gave regarding the work environment, it just means that you keep your private and professional lives separated. So, yes... that separation, is itself a part of who you are. As long as you feel comfortable, nothing wrong with it.

The Yankees have a policy about facial hair. If a player got traded to the Yanks in this hypothetical example, and had a beard that he refused to shave so the yanks fined and benched him. Which side of this argument would you tend to side with? Not quite sure myself.

I don't know enough about baseball to talk about it. For example, I know there are Olympic marathon athletes and speed athletes that shave their hair in the legs, so they can have less air resistance. I don't know if that's the reason for that policy. If that's the case, I think it is completely justified. If it is based on tradition, I think it is completely absurd. I mean, hundred and fifty years ago, racial segregation was a tradition. We've developed since then, haven't we? We understood that it was a very unfair, unfounded and plain ignorant thing to do, haven't we? Then, there's no reason not to cut a tradition that directly affects personal freedom of expression. Plus, I think that giving the opportunity for a player to express himself (within a certain reason, as I said before) might influence in a positive way his self-confidence.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, the reason why you do it matters. And that's something I'm missing about that particular example, that prohibits me from giving a more explicit opinion on it.

Last edited by the L train at 10/29/2009 4:21:07 PM

You make a good argument. I believe the Yankee rule (which may not even be in effect anymore, but I think it is) is because the ownership felt the players should look professional and somewhat clean cut. I agree that being able to express who you are can help motivate you to play better, but I also think that too much 'on-court' personal expression can be a distraction and may subtract from the whole 'team-unity' thing. Something to be said for a guy who leaves his personality in the locker room and goes on the court as a professional concerned about winning. I dont wear dress clothes to work to hide my personality, I do it because it is a condition of employment, like athletes who must conform to uniform requirements.

Good post, I think you may have swayed me more towards the 'personal expression' side of the fence.

You make a good argument. I believe the Yankee rule (which may not even be in effect anymore, but I think it is) is because the ownership felt the players should look professional and somewhat clean cut. I agree that being able to express who you are can help motivate you to play better, but I also think that too much 'on-court' personal expression can be a distraction and may subtract from the whole 'team-unity' thing. Something to be said for a guy who leaves his personality in the locker room and goes on the court as a professional concerned about winning. I dont wear dress clothes to work to hide my personality, I do it because it is a condition of employment, like athletes who must conform to uniform requirements.

Of course, there's a limit for everything. When it begins to affect the player's performance, I believe it's time to intervene. It's very hard to draw a line at the beginning, but I don't believe that prohibiting it completely it is the way to go. It's like banning pets because you don't know how to handle them. In that aspect, it may require a couple of tries before you get to the right policy.

That way, I think that the professional look can be summed up to tidiness. But more important than that is having a professional attitude. Because, it's true, they are on their jobs... but they are also on the entertainment business. So, it's required for them to have a certain showman's spirit. And there are good examples of showmanship with extravagant looks. Birdman, comes to my mind. Playing skills opinions aside, I really think he tries to keep the crowd and the team excited while playing around with one of his favorite themes. I don't see how that subtracts on the "team unity" spirit. Au contrair, to be honest, I think it adds a lot. And I think he's tidy. Shirt tucked in, clean clothes at the beginning and leveled socks. For Jordan, this could be a more intimate motivation but still as important.

So no more Dennis Rodmans?


Last edited by Solana_Steve at 10/30/2009 12:12:37 AM

Rodmans are fine, as long as they dont wear the wedding dress for the game :)

I think it's horrendous that a corporation can dictate to amateur athletes still attending an educational institution what footwear they have to use to play for the college team.

But if the university really did make that promise, they should rip up their contract with Adidas and sign a deal with Nike. If i was in Nike's marketing department, I'd sure as hell compensate them for any breach of contract. It's great PR for Nike and a no-win situation for the three stripes.




Last edited by Elmacca at 10/30/2009 7:29:07 PM

I should add, some premiership footballers have been known to wear one brand's boots made up to look like another brand. Perhaps that's an idea for Marcus.