Michigan switched to Adidas ('bodes the Irish)

BlindRef · Post by **BlindRef** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:53 pm

From my favorite blog:

http://mgoblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/unv ... adieu.html

Unverified Voracity Bids Nike Adieu

Stripe versus Swoosh. Fight! Yesterday the university announced that, effective next year, the primary athletics sponsor was switching from Nike to Adidas. This is not something I particularly care about, at least not to the extent that it matters more than $7.5 million per year, nearly double the previous deal. If Adidas put in the best bid, I'm perfectly happy to dump Nike. There's an undercurrent of discontent with the move out there I find odd after the introduction of the controversial Bibby McPiping jerseys that were universally panned and then immediately forgotten about.

Well, the piping's still there and it still irritates. Unfortunately I can't find the exact quote, but something Uni Watch's Paul Lukas said about that one horrible weekend when Florida, Virginia Tech, and a few other teams wore asymmetrical Nike eyesores featuring one neon sleeve stuck with me: the truly grating thing (other than, you know, the uniforms) was that Nike seemed to regard itself as the show, not the teams they sponsor.

What bothered me about the piping was not the piping itself but the fact that Miami had identical piping-bib-woo jerseys done in different colors, as, I'm sure, do several other teams. Nike tries to play this off as a structural necessity required to prevent their space age jerseys from accidentally sending players to the moon or something, but I've seen a lot of shirts in my time -- people just love wearing the things -- and I call bull. Universally identical piping was a Nike branding technique subtle enough to rope Michigan in. I'd rather be Michigan than a Nike school that happens to wear maize and blue. So, insofar as I care for reasons other than "the athletic department gets money they can rule the world with," I support the devil we don't know here.

Internal UPDATE! The Free Press with more delicious details:

There is a "most favored nation" clause in the contract that will keep Michigan as Adidas' top college deal.
Nice! NDNation is throwing a hissy fit; they signed a ten year, $60 million contract in 2005 (Michigan's is the same money over eight years) and are upset about the MFN status and the fact that Michigan is getting "33%" more than ND did. That's what you get when your engineering school sucks ass.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:54 pm

Nike's shitty labor-practices are well-known so I'm glad to see Phil "sweatshop" Knight take as many shots to the balls as possible. Plus their football unis to tend to be fugly.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:35 pm

The rich get richer.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 5:38 pm

I think Michigan was afraid of this.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:44 pm

Another reason to fire Kevin White, yesterday.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:52 am

I wish Quiksilver would make sports equipment, then USC could cut itsself off from oregon and use a Trojan company

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:12 pm

Blind Ref wrote:That's what you get when your engineering school sucks ass.

The numbers can dictate a conclusion either way on that one.

Going back to when I was a student (and I know that was awhile ago), about 2/3 of my incoming freshman class was planning to major in either engineering or pre-med. But only about 20% of my class graduated with degrees in one or the other; most of the rest switched majors somewhere along the way.

On one hand, you can make the argument that a lot of otherwise promising students wash out of ND's engineering program because it is so demanding. OTOH, one could argue that a top-notch program would do more to keep those students in.

Killian wrote:Another reason to fire Kevin White, yesterday.

I usually don't pay much attention to uniform deals and the like, but yep.

JSC810 wrote:If ND is complaining about it, then I'm for it, at least until ND joins a conference.

As long as Kevin White is our AD, you have a good shot at getting your wish. If you can convince a majority of ND's alumni to go along with the idea of conference membership, that is.

White is a follower, not a leader. If he thought the majority of ND's alumni favored joining a conference, he'd have us in one so fast it would make your head spin.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:56 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote: As long as Kevin White is our AD, you have a good shot at getting your wish. If you can convince a majority of ND's alumni to go along with the idea of conference membership, that is.

White is a follower, not a leader. If he thought the majority of ND's alumni favored joining a conference, he'd have us in one so fast it would make your head spin.

Which is why we were almost a member of the ACC. Michigan's AD (Bill Martin) is one of, if not the top, AD in the country. ND should follow their model when they replace Kevin White.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:44 pm

When Nike scores a deal, my local economy benefits.

When Adidas scores a deal, my local economy benefits.

Although Nike is a much, much, much more charitable company, and is an asset to their community. As far as being a "good, active member of the community"...

"Adidas who?"

Although I've probably scored more free Adidas than free Nikes in my day(vast numbers of both, though).

And in fairness, Adidas used to donate all of the old test-shoes to my friend's mom's charity, which were used to clothe the less-fortunate(and after all of the available "less fortunate" had picked through, those of us who wore a size that wasn't popular with the less-fortunate scored pretty big). Besides, I was kinda "less-fortunate" that I didn't work for one of the shoe giants.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:05 pm

A&M Folows Suit

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/stor ... AHeadlines

Texas A&M switches from Nike to adidas
Associated Press

Updated: July 17, 2007, 7:46 AM ET
Comment
Email
Print
PORTLAND, Ore. -- Adidas just did it -- again.

Texas A&M has signed a contract with adidas, the company told The Associated Press Monday. This is the second major university in less than a week to end its relationship with Nike and move on with adidas.

"We believe college sport is very important," said Erich Stamminger, president and chief executive officer of the Adidas brand.

The terms of the contract were not immediately available.

"We're thrilled to be working with adidas," said Drew Martin, assistant athletic director for branding and creative development at Texas A&M.

Earlier this month, University of Michigan ended its relationship with Nike and signed an eight-year contract with adidas. The adidas deal was valued at $60 million in cash and merchandise, plus a $6.5 million signing bonus -- the company's largest university deal to date.

Adidas said its goal is to "enter all school agreements with marquee programs that stand for performance, reflecting our mission to be the leading sports brand in the world".

Nike informed Texas A&M months ago that it would not match the adidas bid, according to the university's Web site. The Texas A&M System Board of Regents considered contract offers from Nike, adidas and Easton Sports, Inc.

The deal strengthens adidas' presence in the Big 12, with the Aggies becoming the third school in the conference -- along with Texas and Nebraska -- to contract with the German company, which has its U.S. headquarters in Portland.

Adidas also has marketing agreements with schools such as Notre Dame, UCLA, Tennessee, Indiana and Wisconsin.

L45B · Post by **L45B** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:16 pm

The deal strengthens adidas' presence in the Big 12, with the Aggies becoming the third school in the conference -- along with Texas and Nebraska -- to contract with the German company, which has its U.S. headquarters in Portland.

Is this correct about Texas? I thought they were still with Nike.