Started By
Message
AU and USCe-Is it the shoes?
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:21 pm
Auburn fans have been blaming the shoe companies influence for about 10 years now and I never really bought in but I'm starting to reconsider. The 2 Under Armour schools in the conference are a combined 0-8 and clearly lacking talent. Frank Martin is a proven good coach and good recruiter. Barbee got A Moutrie and D Caracter to go to UTEP but can't anything near that level of big at Auburn. Maryland made something around 16 or 17 straight post seasons before they switched in 08 and outside of the 1st year haven't been back to the tourney since with 1 NIT appearance. There are other factors like lack of tradition and coaching changes but it has made me take a more serious look at the possibility. Thoughts?
This post was edited on 1/18/14 at 9:22 pm
9
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:23 pm to marshallcotiger
No, it's the coaching
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:29 pm to The Nino
Phil Jackson couldn't win with inexperienced mid major talent.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:29 pm to marshallcotiger
Gary Williams made the tourney in 09 and 10 then retired the next year. It's more the coaching. Even though I think USCe has a good coach, and will get it turned around.
This post was edited on 1/18/14 at 9:34 pm
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:32 pm to marshallcotiger
you could put spring shoes on these squads and get the same results.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:35 pm to marshallcotiger
No, it's the lack of talent, experience, & coaching at times for us. I'm pleased so far with the season since the Hawaii trip. You can definitely tell this team in a few years will have a lot of potential, & they're at least competing in every game this season in the SEC minus UF.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:37 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
you could put spring shoes on these squads and get the same results.
I'm not talking about the shoe itself. AAU is run by Nike and Adidas and some say they push players toward their schools which if true would make it difficult for an Under Armour school to compete.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 9:57 pm to marshallcotiger
They don't wear shoes in south carolina
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:00 pm to marshallcotiger
I always hear this same reasoning from my friends who keep up with AU basketball, I'm interested to hear the USCe repsonse.
It seems to make sense to me.
It seems to make sense to me.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:00 pm to marshallcotiger
Well USC is playing 7 freshmen and lost their best guard to an injury this week, so I think it's primarily that.
Underarmour does lag behind in their footwear compared to their competitors though. I have heard some football players complain about the underarmour cleats. But I don't think they would blame any losses on them
Underarmour does lag behind in their footwear compared to their competitors though. I have heard some football players complain about the underarmour cleats. But I don't think they would blame any losses on them
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:04 pm to marshallcotiger
We'll give you Nikes and Anthony Grant.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:05 pm to Cockopotamus
missing the point. the op is basically suggesting nike/adidas bribe students to go to those schools, somehow
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:10 pm to Cockopotamus
quote:
Underarmour does lag behind in their footwear compared to their competitors though. I have heard some football players complain about the underarmour cleats. But I don't think they would blame any losses on them
From what I've heard their issues in football are pretty much in the past.
I know when we first signed with them all the players wore New Balance cleats with tape over the logos, but Under Armour has really come a long way.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:10 pm to Tiguar
Was that the point? I assumed it had to do with the quality of the shoes.
I have heard that the talented athletes are more likely to go to a school that's sponsored by Nike or Adidas because they'd rather wear those brands of shoes than Under armour. But I've never heard some suggest there was a conscious effort by Nike or Adidas to get kids committed to schools they sponsor
I have heard that the talented athletes are more likely to go to a school that's sponsored by Nike or Adidas because they'd rather wear those brands of shoes than Under armour. But I've never heard some suggest there was a conscious effort by Nike or Adidas to get kids committed to schools they sponsor
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:12 pm to jso0003
I've heard the same thing but with the caveat that they are still pretty far behind the others
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:12 pm to Cockopotamus
well, I guess the point is similar.
for whatever reason, being a nike school is an advantage
not saying I agree just trying to get a handle on the thread
for whatever reason, being a nike school is an advantage
not saying I agree just trying to get a handle on the thread
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:15 pm to Cockopotamus
When I was in High School we had three guys who went to play high level college basketball, a five star and 2 four star guys. Guaranteed you would probably know their names.
Shoe Companies ABSOLUTELY play a huge role in the seedy underbelly of the AAU system where these guys play most of their games.
Shoe Companies ABSOLUTELY play a huge role in the seedy underbelly of the AAU system where these guys play most of their games.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:18 pm to Tiguar
quote:
not saying I agree just trying to get a handle on the thread
I'm just talking about recruiting.
Posted on 1/18/14 at 10:20 pm to Tiguar
Nike/Adidas schools' coaches get more access to AAU players because they pour more money into AAU basketball.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 4:17 am to marshallcotiger
We just have undisciplined, young players right now....the talent level is getting better, and I like the direction we're going in in that regard. But even if we had flubber on our shoes, we wouldn't be very good right now....
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News