OT: Uniformz - Tennessee switching from Adidas to Nike.

and why I linked it. You have twice now misinterpreted what the author is talking about. The author (who is pretty well respected in college basketball circles) was pointing out that Muhammad picking UCLA because of adidas was not a big deal like some people were making it out to be at the time as the influence of shoe companies is widespread in college basketball. The reason it made news was because usually adidas is the one that loses out on these high profile prospects and the fact Calipari lost out on a highly rated recruit. The reason he lists all those Calipari prospects was not to link them to Nike but to show how successful Calipari has been recruiting prospects in the late period which was when he was recruiting Muhammed. The prospect he does link to Nike was Anthony Davis who pretty much won Kentucky a National Championship and was the #1 overall draft pick, just another underachieving player who made no difference again. I don't think anything I post here is going to change your mind as it seems you are completely fixed on your view despite evidence to the contrary.

Of course, shoe companies are not the only reason a prospect will choose a school. But it is one of the factors in play and you can't ignore that. Nike is the dominant player, and the schools that are contracted with them have an edge in that area. That does not mean a school like Michigan can't overcome it, but why play at a disadvantage when the margins between winning and losing can be small. Comparing Nebraska with Kentucky and Kansas is comparing apples and oranges. Compare Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Syracuse, UConn, MSU, Florida and OSU basketball (Nike) with Kansas, UCLA, Louisville, Indiana, and Michigan basketball (adidas). And this is a sport that looks like adidas is heavily invested in. How do you think it will affect football where adidas is not heavily invested? The gap may be even wider in football where adidas is nowhere near the player that Nike is.

Shoe companies have an effect, and it is bigger than you make it out to be. For example, AAU coaches control what tournaments the teams play in and sometimes what universities their prospects visit on college tours. Hypothetical: How would you feel if Core 6 attended OSU & MSU camps and avoided taking their kids to Michigan because they were affiliated with Nike? You don't think that would have an effect? Little things like this happen.

You're contradicting youself.   First you say that shoe companies impact ingrecruting is false. now you say that it is a factor. No one is arguing that every recruit's decision is solely based on the shoe company.  

Let's set aside the major football powers for now.  Other college football programs without large budgets and product-only contracts with Nike still align themselves with Nike because of Nike's strong brand influence.  in their recruiting pitch, they do play up the fact that they have nike prouducts.  The major football powers will have other factors like facilities, education, tradition that should trump the logo on the shoe, but for some recruits, it's still a factor.

Another aspect that is not being discussed is that these shoe companies can help build the school brand.  Oregon would not be where they are without Nike's help. Notre dame jumped to under armour with the expectation that UA will help market/build/maintain their brand.  With a program like Michigan with so much tradition, we may not think much help is needed, but with so much competition, every little bit helps. 

We want the University of Michigan football program to be sucessful, so for me the question isn't what logo do I want to wear for me, but what associations should Michigan make to bring the highest chance of success?   Every detail matters.