We'll just have to disagree, because the market for Yeezys at that $245 price point has no bearing on the buyer of a $250 performance basketball shoe. Those are two different types of buyers, and the $245 Yeezy price point isn't something that a Jordan sig purchases would even likely put together in their mind. The price of a LeBron, Kobe or Hyperdunk 2012-2013 might very well set expectations for a consumer of a signature performance shoe (as to a lifestyle/casual shoe).
Reebok couldn't execute that kind of strategy either because there's not that kind of demand for retros of past shoes the way there is with Jordans. It's hard to believe limiting one shoe with a much smaller reach to begin with would amp up demand for another shoe that likely has a (relatively) small reach.
I don't think there's a very good example of Nike propping up a higher priced Jordan release with another (cheaper and limited) one, although the '88's could very well be the first to try and establish a much higher price point for other shoes in the future (i.e. a 2014 NA Infrared VI for $225).
My overall point though is that in the example used, demand/customers increased by 50%. That's not going to happen in the real world. The net effect would move the bar a couple percentage points at most, but as I tried to explain, this market has reached a saturation point where you're not going to see a drastic number of new consumers enter, especially of purposes of exclusivity, which is why I think Nike made a mistake (to their bottom line) with the AJ1's all being limited this year. Maybe not though, maybe the strategy is to raise the price on these to $150 (from 140) in 2015 and sell huge amounts to offset the unmet demand created this time around. Either way it's a net loss for the consumers in the market.