First, Jordan contends that UCF told him he could wear the Jordan brand when they were recruiting him to play at the school. I don't see a problem with that, he is the son of one of basketball's most recognizable stars and probably the greatest player ever. Why wouldn't he want to wear the iconic shoes that were created for his father and eventually transformed into one of the most recognizable brands in the world. So, can we blame Marcus Jordan?

Next, you have the school. UCF feels that negotiations with Adidas were ongoing. These negotiations dealt with allowing Jordan to wear the shoes, but no agreement had been reached. So, can we blame the school?

And what about Adidas? Why couldn't this company come to some sort of agreement with UCF? Why couldn't they have understood that Jordan would want to wear his father's shoes and be a little flexible? Reportedly, UCF had reached an agreement with an Adidas representative that would allow Jordan to wear the Air Jordans, but "high-level Adidas officials" overturned that agreement. So, can we blame the shoe company?

Honestly, all three are to blame. UCF should have cleared the agreement with the same high-level officials that overturned the agreement made between the school and the representative. Some will say the school should have told the younger Jordan that he couldn't wear the shoes, but that would have resulted in a disgruntled athlete and bad publicity from the Nike spin machine -- so UCF was in an unenviable position. Next, we have Adidas. I understand that a contract is a contract, but a bit of flexibility could have been exercised. Seriously, Adidas has schools like Tennessee, Notre Dame, and the University of Cincinnati in the fold -- is UCF really going to take that much publicity away from the school if one player wears different shoes? Yes, there was a contract, and there was a breach of said contract. But the company did have a representative promise UCF that Jordan could wear his dad's shoes. A large part of the fault falls on the shoulders of Adidas, and I write this while wearing Adidas track pants and some Adidas Adilette sandals (endorsement money is welcomed Adidas, I know my readership is massive).

Let's not forget that a large part of the blame should fall on the Jordan family (and it really pains me to say that, Michael is one of my idols). Is Marcus tied to Nike? Last I checked, it was his father who had the contract and the brand named after him. I don't think that Marcus wearing a pair of Adidas would have damaged Nike beyond repair. You know that Marcus received pressure from his father, which I am sure made family meals a bit awkward. I really think that Marcus had no choice in the matter, which is a tough situation for a young man.

So, is the saga over? In our litigious society, I doubt it. But this story is interesting and it shines a light on what can be considered one of the biggest rackets in sports, shoe sponsorships for colleges. My University of Cincinnati Bearcat basketball team recently had to wait to find out the eligibility status of a recruit because a shoe company contacted him in high school. There was a question of whether or not he would come out and declare himself eligible for the NBA draft, so a shoe company nearly cost him his college eligibility by contacting him. Shoe deals are a major deal in sports, mainly basketball. The situation is getting bad ... when will college players be signing individual deals? (The answer is never, as it would cost them their college eligibility, but I wouldn't put anything past the influence of Nike and Adidas.)