SInce its foundation, Nike’s brand strategy has more or less been limited to adopting the most dominant athletes in the world and aggressively promoting their talent and dedication, contributing considerably to the phenomenon that is celebrity athletes. Having spent the last decade learning the painful lessons of celebrity, Nike shifted its focus towards whole teams, and particularly dominant collegiate ones. Considering the deep ties that Nike has with the University of Oregon, the brand having been forged on the asphalt track of Hayward Field, Nike expanded its already massive visibility, introducing the Pro Combat line of football equipment and issuing Oregon’s teams the most distinctive and progressive uniforms in sports. While this worked brilliantly for a while, with Oregon’s team becoming the national darling, filling the role USC previously held. However, 2011 has proved to be something of disappointing year for the football team, and an absolute disaster for the running program, with perhaps the most prestigious quasi-amateur running team in the world faling to qualify for the NCAA Cross Country National Championships and the absolutely flashiest football team in the world suffering a disappointing loss to USC and dropping from 4th in the nation to 9th and losing any shot at the BCS final. This raises the question, is sports marketing essentially gambling? Is the policy of only selecting a few, albeit extremely talented athletes and teams dangerous to an entire brand? Is Nike’s new practice, that is, issuing multiple teams with the prestigious Pro Combat gear a safer bet? Or does it simply dissolve the power of such endorsements? Does it reflect a crack in Nike’s extremely well designed and lightweight armour? Is Nike’s infallibility dependent on the teams it endorses?

In other news, the Stanford Pro Combat jerseys are coming on to the open market soon and I’m definitely getting one.