Should the public send a "just stop it" message to Nike?

Nike is swooshingly gaining a notorious reputation for standing by celebrity athletes who womanize; Ben Roethlisberger and Tiger Woods, to name a few.

Should the public continue to buy goods from Nike or send a message loud and clear forcing the sports retailer to become more family-friendly?

Tiger Woods has finally come clean, probably because of the buzzing in his ears from sponsors that doing so limits the damages he incurs over time. He still needs to break Jack Nicklaus' records, right?

No one has to like Ben Roethlisberger off the field except for, maybe, Missy Peregrym and accused still means innocent until proven guilty. But, with Andrea McNulty also claiming sexual misconduct, Nike should consider putting the brakes on before being forced to do so.

Nike does have its limits; cruelty to animals, for example. Michael Vicks was quickly dropped from the Nike roster after pleading guilty to running a dog-fighting ring punishable by prison time.

Could this mean that Nike considers infractions to women a more palatable offense than to dogs? Nah, couldn't be. Most likely it just the fact that Nike backs off when an athlete is found guilty without first admitting blame.

Nike's product is still moving off the shelves so perhaps "creepy cred" as Timothy Egan puts it is good for business. And, as Hollie Shaw mentioned, "Love it or Hate it, Nike's ad got noticed."

Bottom line comes from "data from U.S.based market research firm TNS suggesting that while the athlete (Tiger Woods in this case) may have hurt his personal reputation in the scandal, that harm did not extend to the brands he endorses."

With reasoning being that any press is good press, who will Nike sign on next?