Leaderboard

It'll be tough. Omaha is the ONLY site west of Louisville, KY other than Portland/Seattle. You're going to want to be a 4 seed at the minimum to feel like you have a better than average chance at getting sent to Omaha. For selfish reasons I've been hoping they end up in Portland And at least a million others are planning on Omaha!

Guessing it was Pitchford...he's good for at least one KO per year.

Andrew White will play in the exhibition game? I don't recall either Petteway or Pitchford playing in the exhibition game the year they sat out. The 29th is the open scrimmage.. Exhibition is early November. Idk if white will play in nov, but he will in scrimmage on the 29th. PROPERLY HYPED Will need lots o' reports on AW-III et al, Dimes.

Andrew White will play in the exhibition game? I don't recall either Petteway or Pitchford playing in the exhibition game the year they sat out. The 29th is the open scrimmage.. Exhibition is early November. Idk if white will play in nov, but he will in scrimmage on the 29th. PROPERLY HYPED

Anyone else hyped up to see Andrew White play on Oct 29th? Just over 2 weeks away!

Who did we beat out for Glynn Watson? Creighton - Nike Purdue - Nike Tennessee - Nike Iowa - Nike West Virginia - Nike Who did we beat out for Ed Morrow? Creighton - Nike Iowa - Nike Minnesota - Nike Florida St - Nike SMU - Nike Who did we beat out for Andrew White III? Maryland - Under Armour Richmond - no sponsorship deal as far as I can tell but they wear Nike uniforms Notre Dame - Adidas Wake Forest - Nike Miami - Nike Florida St - Nike It has more to do with coincidence than anything, seeing as how there are many more schools with shoe contracts with Nike than Adidas, we're going to lose out to/beat out mostly Nike schools. FWIW, Baylor is an Adidas school for hoops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Adidas_sponsorships#Colleges_and_Universities Wow! The prevalence of Nike on that list is overwhelming. And of the three or four non-Nike schools on the list (excluding Nebraska), two are there because of proximity to the recruit's home. Having no personal knowledge about the issue, that list is the strongest argument I've ever seen in support of the proposition that shoe identification matters in recruiting . . . and matters a lot! And it shows the recruiting success of Tim Miles & Co. to be even more impressive than previously thought. I made a mistake about Notre Dame, they switched to Under Armour this year. But I think you missed my point. There is a reason why Nike is so prevalent on that list, and that is because the vast majority of schools, especially in the Power Five conferences have shoe contracts with Nike. My point was to counter the argument that we lose recruits to Nike schools just because of their associations with that shoe company. While that may play a small factor into some recruiting battles, I don't believe it's as much of a factor that some choose to believe it is. We lose recruits and we beat out other schools for recruits. Owing to the fact that Nike sponsorships outnumber Adidas sponsorships by about 5 to 1 at the major conference level, we're almost always going to beat out Nike schools for kids (and we're almost always going to lose out to those schools, just due to the sheer numbers alone) but the contracts themselves don't change things in the big picture, IMO. There have been discussions about this very article on message boards all over the web, and I have even seen fans of Nike schools worry about how much influence these shoe companies have on kids at the AAU level and how it is a detriment to the game. Everybody knows recruiting is at least a cut throat business and can be at times out right dirty, and events like this only go to show just how dirty of a game it can be. But to say that Nebraska is at such a disadvantage just because of the shoes they wear? I'm not buying it. So, to take the very long way around, what I'm really trying to say is that I think it is sour grapes / convenient excuse. I misspoke earlier when I said "coincidence". I really meant to say it is not coincidence.

Yes it's a real factor for an extremely small percentage of players. The players that this affects is probably less than 5% in reality. There are plenty of guys that were on Nike AAU teams that chose adidas and vica versa. Kansas, Indiana, UCLA, Louisville, Michigan before the Nike switch, etc all have tremendous basketball teams and were able to pull in talent. Many of which were stars in the Nike EYBL. Yes it will influence some but there's so much talent out there that it shouldn't make or break you otherwise you weren't that good to begin with. One of Adidas' top NBA designers was at my daughters birthday party yesterday and asked him about this issue. He said he knows it happens and has dealt with the slimy AAU guys before. He said the only players at the end of the day it gets are the insecure ones that are letting people guide them instead of deciding for themselves. He said he recently spent a couple days with Andrew Wiggins. He was saying how so many people tried getting involved between coaches, agents, etc even in high school and how many were upset with his decision to choose Kansas after being a Nike AAU guy and Nike Canada representative. He said at the end of the day he knew no matter what that the decisions he himself made would be good enough and that if he played the way he knew could that he would be just fine. Now will this factor in at nebraska? Maybe once in awhile but it shouldn't be often. Plus look at recent history and we will see that Glynn Watson (under armour), Ed Morrow (Nike) both highly ranked guys chose nebraska and should continue getting guys of that nature going forward as long as they win.

Looks like we will have to wait for Freshman BJ day for another year. Sorry student body.