I can’t believe its already been more than a year since Tiger Woods was “rescued” from his car by his wife armed with a golf club, and went from being every kid’s role model to the scum of the earth. While the memory of the media firestorm is still very fresh, its hard to remember what it was like when Tiger was still the hottest product endorser on the market. As we blogged about earlier this year, he quickly became like the plague for brands that once clamored for him — except, of course, for Nike.

That Nike commercial with a somber-looking Tiger in one continuous shot with the haunting voice-over of Tiger’s deceased father is still vivid in my mind. It’s a revolutionary spot that not only acknowledged the controversy, but conveyed that while Nike didn’t condone his behavior, they clearly wanted to give him a second chance. It was a huge risk for Nike to go from “Just Do It” to making a moral statement.

At the time, The Cyphers Agency was divided about whether the spot was in good taste and whether this was a good strategy for Nike. Ten months later, the verdict is finally in: standing by Tiger Woods helped Nike’s bottom line. Research published in Ad Age found that Woods scandal wasn’t enough for him to lose his value as a highly respected golfer and Nike’s top golf dog. And while it seemed that golf as a whole suffered losses, Nike fared better than others who wouldn’t touch Tiger with a ten-foot-pole.

The reason may lie in the type of marketing Nike took on. Other brands were leveraging Tiger’s positive image, but the warm-and-fuzzy disappeared when the affairs came to light and they had to move on to other positive role models. Nike, however, has always taken a different stance. They’ve always done a great job of positioning their endorsers as fallible human beings who, at the end of the day, just love the game they play. Tiger isn’t the first: think back to Michael Jordan. Look again at LeBron James. In the end, Nike’s brand isn’t about being a perfect person – because, after all, who is? It’s about a passion for doing what you love, and that is something we can all identify with.

When the Tiger Woods scandal broke, the world cringed. But maybe none of us cringed as hard as the folks at Nike Golf. From 1996 – 2006 they supported Woods with $140 million in sponsorships. The deal was renewed in 2006 for presumably upwards of 100 million. So what will Nike do now that Tiger’s reputation is ruined? Support the icon of their brand and let it reflect on their reputation? Or drop him and try to save face before any more bad news surfaces?

This is the very expensive question that many in the advertising world are asking. With huge implications for the brand either way, Nike has a crisis on their hands. What would you do if you were in Nike’s PR/Marketing departments? We took a little poll around the office to see where people stood on the issue. Let us know what YOU think in our comments below.

Darren Easton, Creative Director: I say keep him. According to research, Mr. Whipple was the most hated brand icon in advertising history and yet Charmin was the #1 toilet paper brand for 20 years. People talked about him because they didn’t like him. So what?… they talked about him.

Lucas Hanyok, graphic designer: I’m not sure what Nike will do. I am one who believes someone’s personal problems should be left alone. To me he is still an icon of GOLF. Nike should continue to support him as an icon of the sport. On the other hand your personal life becomes your brand in ways, and will stick with you no matter what you do. Your personal brand is not just one thing that you do, it is the total of all things you do. If I were Tiger I would keep my stance as: “leave me alone, I’m really good at golf”

Dave Cyphers, owner (obviously joking!): I think they should pay him more; he just added a whole new dimension to “Just Do It.”

So there you have it, some insight from our greatest minds. What is your stance? Do you think Nike should give Tiger the boot or support him?