@JayHawkFanToo
While I agree that the writer that wrote this story is probably not going to win a Pulitzer anytime soon, I try never to let writing style come between me and useful content.
For example, when I have read about the US Civil War, some of the most telling facts and opinions I read were written rather poorly by unskillful journalists and not very articulate soldiers and civilians.
Likewise, when reading basketball opining on boards, occasionally some of the most insightful things I have read are from aliases that have not written them very well, at least according to my subjective notions of good exposition.
Further, though I hate to admit it, sometimes I put things skillfully, again according to my subjective standards, and learn I am completely wrong, as you and others make usefully clear from time to time. :-)
Next, I also noted some ambiguity of posting date. I didn't make much of it. Maybe I should have. I guessed that the story was first written in 2013, and then perhaps edited/added to/subtracted from on the more recent date you mention. It is an interesting point to note, but it is not unprecedented in my recall that stories posted one date are altered and re-posted at a later date. Regardless, it would be very interesting to know what was added or subtracted in the interests of building a historical time line of Big Shoe's actions in college basketball the last decade.
That being said, the article, as it stands, might have relevance to board rats on a few levels.
First, awareness of it adds a significant data point to the evolutionary timeline of the current situation involving Big Shoe. Back in approximately some two year period apparently spanning portions of 2011 to 2013, adidas was apparently not only struggling with the Euro depression that reputedly drove it to try to offset Euro losses by aggressive attempts at increasing market share in North America, it was simultaneously seeing its efforts blunted by at least 17 schools reported in this story telling adidas thanks but no thanks, while Nike and the Dallas Cowboys apparently agreed to make amends and move on. What the story does NOT tell us is adidas reason for not similarly making amends, and instead apparently bearing the adversity of losing 17 schools. Maybe someone will be able to find that out, too. Whatever the answer will be, the situation indicates a significant divergence in strategy by Nike and adidas and those sorts of divergence in strategy might sometimes offer insight into the competition among players in an activity.
Second, the story makes it appear possible that perhaps some of the schools were not just walking away at the end of contracts, but rather walking away during contracts; that would be very significant news, if it were in fact the case. Why? Because it suggests that these shoe contracts are not viewed as an airtight commitment; that there are legal recourses based on legacy conduct by adidas that can allow the contracts to be walked away from. I find this interesting, because I, as a layman and a fan, had assumed these shoe contracts to be largely enforceable.
Third, this story suggests that adidas' difficulty in signing more schools might be rather more complicated than just Nike already having a lot of the bases covered. And it raises the question of whether adidas has been largely the cause of adidas' reputed difficulties in penetrating the North American market, rather than its interplay with a larger competitor.
Fourth, the story leaves a possible impression, given the two dates when the story appears to have been written, and apparently then amended, that this issue may not be entirely extinguished.
At least those are some points of relevance that strike me even without further reading on the topic, and being a layman and a fan, rather than a legal expert.
Finally, I do recall anything in the story, nor do I recall reading a published list of the 17 schools that ended their contractual relationship with adidas elsewhere, confirming your belief that the schools were all inconsequential schools and involved handshakes, rather than written contracts. Thus, I am not clear why you would assume that to be the case. But if it were the case, I am also not clear why this would not establish a precedent that these contracts between schools and adidas were something less than airtight. But again, I am a layman, and perhaps lacking sufficient legal expertise to appreciate the situation.
