Rock8888 - serious question. You contend MU "sold it's soul"
Posted on: April 11, 2012 at 16:14:01 CT
by accepting Nike money for the right to have MU wear their apparel (co-branding).
If Nike designed MU's uniforms and didn't pay MU, you would have no beef, correct?
If Nike can choose from 300+ Div 1 BBall programs where they want to co-brand and MU was targeted, doesn't that reflect more on MU in a positive light than negative?
I can see your point if MU were in some manner truly sacrificing their long-term roots/identity for a short term cash grab, but since 1984 when I enrolled at MU, I've seen a pretty diverse array of MU imagery, uniforms and branding and I'm not sure our current stuff is anything we were loathe to put behind us.
In summary - your attempt to equate MU's "soul" to our "brand/logos/uniforms/traditions" falls incredibly short to me - as a soul is the defining, inherent and never-changing aspect of an entity and I'd hardly call our "brand/logos/uniforms/traditions" as meeting that definition.
Methinks you just like to chew bones for sake of chewing.