<p>
Let’s look at this for a second. The top athletes are sponsored by Nike or adidas (let’s say in soccer, since this is the easiest for me to compare to). Nike soccer has an entire set of training equipment, some things that you would look at and not even know what to do with it. Doubt Reebok takes a second look at the shoes they make because first of all they are straight up ugly, and second of all, they suck. Nike employs aerodynamics engineers apparently (if anyone is familiar with the Mercurial line, that is the one), and they’re the top company in the market.</p>
<p>Likewise, MIT is world class, the Nike of engineering. Then there’s VT, which is somewhat like Reebok. Now no one said that VT sucks (okay, maybe if you did the analogy correctly, but I only bashed Reebok because I’m decked out in all Nike gear), but there is no argument that MIT will provide a much better education than VT will, even though both will get you an engineering job.</p>
<p>Wearing Nike won’t make you a better athlete if you suck, or it might but you’d still suck. But if you’re good, it’ll help you just that bit more to become better, although you’ll still be good if you were sponsored by Reebok, you just wouldn’t have access to all the equipment that could help you be better with Nike. That’s the key word there: could. You’d still have to work hard as an athlete to get better, it would just be easier with great Nike gear.</p>
<p>And then there’s Under Armour, which makes great sporting and training equipment across the board. That would be Harvard or Dartmouth. They’re top class overall, but if you saw anyone wearing Under Armour soccer cleats, well you’d just have to laugh at them.</p>