This is an interesting thread. Allow me my two cents:

I go to the University where Phil Knight got his undergraduate degree in business. Phil Knight was a walk-on track athlete whose coach, the late Bill Bowerman, was attempting to pioneer running footwear. His greatest achievement was taking rubber, molding it in waffle irons, and creating light shoes more conducive to better performance. Knight and Bowerman worked out a business deal and, as they say, the rest is truly history...

The university's legacy is, in many ways, Nike's legacy. Without the university, Nike would not likely have existed, and it goes without saying that Phil Knight has been a generous benefactor in giving back to the school that quite literally gave him everything. His reach on campus has been vast, and many say that the school is in Nike's back pocket. The spirit of innovation and marketing brilliance that has come to define Nike has, in many ways, some of them parallel, come to define the university. I disagree with this notion on the principle that the university in and of itself reaches far beyond any athletic realms, and while our school could do much better in the departmental relations as they pertain to academics and athletics, that is also here nor there.

The point brought forth is, does a shoe company matter to a college football team? Yes, yes, a million times yes, and you'd better fucking believe it. Our football team currently plays in a 58,000-seat stadium that provides one of the best fan experiences in the country. (Opposing fans...not so much. But the stadium looks nice and gets really loud.) Phil Knight's fingerprints are on most of the athletic department's areas of interest, but none more so than the uniforms. Our football team has uniforms that are widely considered the best in the nation, and in many ways considered the worst. We are a Nike testing ground. People have written ad nauseum about our uniforms, and if they like or hate them.

You had better believe kids see that. Just this year, we played the University of Washington up in Seattle and wore an all-white uniform: jersey, pants, helmet, socks. The look was raved about up and down. The uniforms themselves mix and match between green, yellow, black and white versions of the helmets, jerseys, pants and socks so much that a football player can go four years without wearing the same uniform combination twice. Mind-blowing. Not to mention, the players PICK which uniform combination they were pre-game.

We had a junior college running back sign with us, in great part because he liked the uniforms. Who did he tell that to? ESPN. That's right, ESPN. He saw us on TV and liked what he saw, particularly in the uniform department.

Let's be honest: uniforms are the first thing people notice about a football team. It's how people distinguish between two teams. Nike, in particular, is very adept at creating uniforms so unique (whether they look good or not is in the eye of the beholder) that people don't just recognize them as a school's uniform, but as a NIKE uniform as well. And what does Nike represent to them? Greatness, innovation, cutting-edge work...the Nike brand is so powerful that it can evoke these one-word mental images and exploit them so well. Not saying Nike uniforms are mind-control, but Nike's marketing branch is the most brilliant of its kind in the world because of efforts such as this.

Which brand of athletic apparel you like has to do with personal preference more than anything. But, when it comes down to who makes Michigan's or MSU's uniforms, does it matter? Yes, yes, YES. It matters. It really does. Is it stupid? Sure, but those who realize that aren't being targeted by Nike. The uniforms are designed to help target the kids who want to play college football. Always have been. Always will be.