Last week on Mad Men, Peggy, speaking about the advertising game, said something to the effect of “I don’t even know what’s good and what’s bad anymore.”

I’m reminded of that notion when watching Foot Locker/Nike’s new Educators campaign. It stars, in order of how recognizable they are: Amare Stoudemire, Rajon Rondo, Justin Tuck, DeSean Jackson, and Sanya Richards? I watch more sports than anyone else I know, and I could only pick half of those people out of a lineup. And, just as with their Hyperizers campaign*, Foot Locker/Nike never say their names or provide any kind of hand-holding in this regard. To the uninitiated, these are just loud people taking over physical education classes. While I’m happy that we’ve dumped the whole conceit of “Hey, I just happened to show up in this mall with my full uniform and pads so that you know who I am,” I still think this is confusing. Shouldn’t a commercial that focuses on athletes tell us who those athletes are if it’s not obvious? Isn’t this a bad commercial?

Or, if I’m really into sports, if I am really the type of person shopping for shoes based on whose advertising features the best Aristotelian ethical appeals, maybe I would know these things. Are we supposed to believe that if you’re not part of the audience who would recognize a Giants’ pass rusher on sight then this commercial is not for you? Is it being purposefully exclusionary? If that’s the goal, to create a secret club, then this is a fantastic commercial.

This isn’t the first time I’ve felt like Peggy.

*- In the Hyperizers spots, not only were the players not household names, they were also in disguises. How am I supposed to recognize Rashard Lewis if he has a wig on?