I just read an article on ESPN announcing the finalist for the Pro Basketball HOF. It's headline by Reggie Miller (should be a no-brainer this time). As the you get to the bottom of the article, an interesting name pops up from the "contribution committee." Phil Knight. Phil Knight is the co-founder of Nike. Is Phil Knight worthy of being inducted into the Pro Basketball HOF? I need someone to give me an argument that a Nike co-founder should get in. In my EXPERT opinion, he's not. I don't see what his contribution was to the pro game. Air Jordan's have impacted society, but an impact to pro ball?! C'MON MAN! I'd put in Joe-Bob Spaulding first! Why Phil Knight? The Hall of Fame should be for those who have a noticeable impact on the game. Someone who changed the game (via rules or strategies) but simply selling gear and shoes--NAAAA!
As a kid growing up the shoes of choice were Chuck Taylor's by Converse (or Konverse as MY shoes used to say--thanks to my parents buying them from the knock off store. I'm still scarred over that). Without Googling it, I couldn't tell you Chuck Taylor is/was. I can tell Dr. J used to wear Chuck's and Dr. J was the man! From there you got Air Force One (Nike), Weapons (Converse), Air Jordans (Nike), Hammers (British Knights)...just checking to see if you're paying attention :)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not hatin' on Phil Knight. I'm sure the millions (AND MILLIONS in my Rock voice) I've spent on Nike shoes, shirts, sweats, etc... probably paid for a car or two of his. I'm just saying the HOF should be sacred--select company only. Exceptions need not apply.
...or maybe it's just me...
Agreed
ReplyDelete