forums

Nike deal

Advertisement
IMG_5579.png


Any of y’all hoop? The Nike Sabrina ionescu shoe is getting a Nike By You. It hasn’t dropped in US but has in Canada. You can make some niceeee Canes colorways as the green/orange look like good matches. I still remember my Nike ID Kobe 8’s…. Rip to the goat and those shoes as I needed up throwing them out because I wore the outsole to become completely flat lol
 
Y’all remember when we made it to the ACCCG in 2017 and adidas was all over twitter and ig with this huge marketing strategy that lasted weeks about the surprise they had for UM come gametime and it ended up being just a photo on twitter of a McClaren with a turnover chain decal on the hood and Malik rosier with a built in hand warmer in his jersey?
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
Bruh, pls just stay out of these threads. U make the dumbest comments 24/7 on this subject that are baseless merits. I’ve already said what happened, genius; so stop w/ the extra narratives to fit ur bitterness.
Click to expand...
You really think Notre Dame is letting Swarbrick, who has already announced his retirement( and his successor has already been named) make decisions that affect the program long term without any oversight? Really? I know you jock Nike so hard that objectivity went out the window a long time ago but let’s be honest here. Jack’s son will not be hurting for employment no matter which deal gets signed and if Nike’s deal was competitive, that’s where ND would have ended up. Their relationship with UA was iffy at best because of UAs stock price tumbling, due to their issues, which made their previous UA deal a complete loser. Also keep in mind, there's a good chance UA will not be in a strong financial situation in a decade, they may get bought out by Nike or Adidas if things go a certain way, so stability is also something UA can't offer. There's little keeping ND with UA outside of Swarbrick's son, who if it truly mattered to his father, could have cut a side deal for his progeny, that happens all the time in business.

You really think that ND just turned down the best possible deal, to keep a nepo baby employed? Really? Ever notice that your "Nike can do no wrong" posts always require a complete suspension of disbelief and the assumption that everyone in college sports is incompetent or can't do basic math? No, it can't be that Nike(and to an extent Jordan Brand), relies on jocksniffers like yourself to look the other way as they undervalue properties, because they have this mistaken belief that they are the only people that can provide value. While a school like Alabama or Clemson can afford to take a significantly worse deal(and service) to keep the swoosh on their gear, a school like Notre Dame can't really hope and pray it all works out if they want to stay competitive.

Who should we believe? Some random Nike cheerleader on a message board, or source after source that have been quoted for the dozens of articles on this transaction? Nike probably pulled their "If you sign with us, you could POTENTIALLY make more than the deal UA is offering" line, and ND didn't buy it.
 
Canedude08 said:
You really think Notre Dame is letting Swarbrick, who has already announced his retirement( and his successor has already been named) make decisions that affect the program long term without any oversight? Really? I know you jock Nike so hard that objectivity went out the window a long time ago but let’s be honest here. Jack’s son will not be hurting for employment no matter which deal gets signed and if Nike’s deal was competitive, that’s where ND would have ended up. Their relationship with UA was iffy at best because of UAs stock price tumbling, due to their issues, which made their previous UA deal a complete loser. Also keep in mind, there's a good chance UA will not be in a strong financial situation in a decade, they may get bought out by Nike or Adidas if things go a certain way, so stability is also something UA can't offer. There's little keeping ND with UA outside of Swarbrick's son, who if it truly mattered to his father, could have cut a side deal for his progeny, that happens all the time in business.

You really think that ND just turned down the best possible deal, to keep a nepo baby employed? Really? Ever notice that your "Nike can do no wrong" posts always require a complete suspension of disbelief and the assumption that everyone in college sports is incompetent or can't do basic math? No, it can't be that Nike(and to an extent Jordan Brand), relies on jocksniffers like yourself to look the other way as they undervalue properties, because they have this mistaken belief that they are the only people that can provide value. While a school like Alabama or Clemson can afford to take a significantly worse deal(and service) to keep the swoosh on their gear, a school like Notre Dame can't really hope and pray it all works out if they want to stay competitive.

Who should we believe? Some random Nike cheerleader on a message board, or source after source that have been quoted for the dozens of articles on this transaction? Nike probably pulled their "If you sign with us, you could POTENTIALLY make more than the deal UA is offering" line, and ND didn't buy it.
Click to expand...

In case u haven’t checked out the Megaconference thread, maybe u should stop questioning what I post b/c when I post on very specific things, I tend to be right, A LOT. I don’t post out of emotions on very specific topics; I try to share credible intel on CIS when I have very specific CONNECTIONS.

I’m telling u exactly what happened; Jack brokered the entire deal, Nike nor Adidas had a chance. ND WANTS to be Independent and they WANT to be the featured program of a brand. EVERYONE w/in ND knew that despite the athletes, coaches, and students ALL saying they wanted Nike, ND was going to stay w/ UA b/c JACK was brokering the deal, & ND does ND things. Idgaf what u want to believe; u can believe in my little ponies for all I care.

All that other chit u posted, imma be honest w/ u, I didn’t even read b/c it shows ur emotional side. All that Alabama this & Clemson that vs. ND don’t mean jack chit when ND is one of the richest schools in the nation according to Forbes (#10).

So do me a favor, all the ranting & rah rah u do on this subject, just stop. U post a lot of bull chit on this topic & u’re often wrong & off base, b/c u can’t disassociate business from ur feelings.
 
Advertisement
Canedude08 said:
You really think Notre Dame is letting Swarbrick, who has already announced his retirement( and his successor has already been named) make decisions that affect the program long term without any oversight? Really? I know you jock Nike so hard that objectivity went out the window a long time ago but let’s be honest here. Jack’s son will not be hurting for employment no matter which deal gets signed and if Nike’s deal was competitive, that’s where ND would have ended up. Their relationship with UA was iffy at best because of UAs stock price tumbling, due to their issues, which made their previous UA deal a complete loser. Also keep in mind, there's a good chance UA will not be in a strong financial situation in a decade, they may get bought out by Nike or Adidas if things go a certain way, so stability is also something UA can't offer. There's little keeping ND with UA outside of Swarbrick's son, who if it truly mattered to his father, could have cut a side deal for his progeny, that happens all the time in business.

You really think that ND just turned down the best possible deal, to keep a nepo baby employed? Really? Ever notice that your "Nike can do no wrong" posts always require a complete suspension of disbelief and the assumption that everyone in college sports is incompetent or can't do basic math? No, it can't be that Nike(and to an extent Jordan Brand), relies on jocksniffers like yourself to look the other way as they undervalue properties, because they have this mistaken belief that they are the only people that can provide value. While a school like Alabama or Clemson can afford to take a significantly worse deal(and service) to keep the swoosh on their gear, a school like Notre Dame can't really hope and pray it all works out if they want to stay competitive.

Who should we believe? Some random Nike cheerleader on a message board, or source after source that have been quoted for the dozens of articles on this transaction? Nike probably pulled their "If you sign with us, you could POTENTIALLY make more than the deal UA is offering" line, and ND didn't buy it.
Click to expand...


Holy ****.

You have GOT to be kidding.

In addition to your ridiculous defense of adidas, you are now white-knighting for Under Armour? It would be shocking if it wasn't so predictable. Did Nike steal your girlfriend once upon a time?

Look, your post is evidence that you really don't understand how Athletic Departments work, and you really don't understand how nepotism works. But, hey, you can quote hot new terminology like "nepo baby" as if you understand what is going on here.

First, please tell us about all this "oversight" on Jack Swarbrick, a longtime AD. Tell me about how the Notre Dame Board of Trustees is so knowledgeable about apparel deals and the math behind them, that they have ANY power over Jack freakin' Swarbrick. The ND BOT rubber-stamped whatever Swarbrick told them was the best deal, which is not that different from what happened with Beta Blake and adidas.

Second, you completely do not understand nepotism and inside information, and how that can impact a deal. Just because Swarbrick is "retiring" and a "successor" has been named does not remove the motivation to help his son out. And if you think his son can go anywhere for a job, as if Nike or adidas have an open job offer for him, I don't think you have solid comprehension here. It is ALREADY fairly easy to dismiss his son's "success" as a product of nepotism, because it HAS been the product of nepotism. So this deal buys his son another 10 years of paychecks. Not sure how you can't see that. And I'm not sure why you can't wrap your brain around the fact that LOTS of people in all walks of life try to push a bunch of things through right before they retire. As for inside information, perhaps...JUST PERHAPS...Under Armour was able to "outbid" Nike because they had inside information as to what Nike's final offer would be.

Third, you really don't understand the difference between an illusory "higher offer" and taking a slightly lower deal with a stronger and more stable company. You are giving me whiplash, between your "Under Armour offered so much money" and "Under Armour has problems". And that's really the key concept. The University of Florida OFFERED Jaden Rashada more money than we did. Promised it to him. And then immediately reneged. So if anyone has any kind of idea that Under Armour won't be around in 10 years (as you even seem to acknowledge), then it doesn't matter if they offered Notre Dame 100 million per year. Or a billion per year. ****, make it a trillion. They aren't going to pay the full contract.

Look, I realize you are a financial *****, who thinks that everyone should accept the offer that is ONE DOLLAR MORE than the second-highest offer. You are entitled to your opinions, no matter how wacky they are.

But here's the reality. Notre Dame has now "set the record" with an apparel deal worth $10 million per year (assuming Under Armour doesn't go bankrupt). And Miami is getting approximately $7 million per year from adidas. The point of the comparison is two-fold. First, the "more money" between a decent deal and "the best ever thus far" is only a couple of million per year. So maybe, just maybe, you don't have to get a "record payment" to have a darn good deal with an excellent, strong, stable company. And second, when you look at the numbers being quoted for TV deals, you realize that the TV money dwarfs the apparel money. Apparel is not keeping the lights on in the Hecht. TV is. So maybe, just maybe, your financial whoring to squeeze an extra million out of an apparel company is...unnecessary? I'm not saying that we agree to $1 million per year, but come on, let's stop acting like "best offer plus $1 more" should be the determining factor for an apparel deal.

As for the rest of your terrible post, you really need to look in the mirror. For every bit of "you guys are just Nike fanboys" nonsense, you then expose yourself as being a massive Nike hater. Whatever you accuse others of, you are just as guilty, if not more. I've already made my own feelings clear, I was initially in favor of the adidas deal (based on false and misleading information), in spite of the fact that I've rocked Nike since the 1979. So for me personally, I'm capable of putting my brand loyalty aside in service of my alma mater. But with everything I've learned, I now realize that Beta Blake pulled the SAME EXACT MOVE that Swarbrick pulled. They both picked their personal favorite choices, for reasons that are NOT in the best interests of their universities, but are personal "legacy" type rationales.

But, hey, all this logic is not going to fill that hole in your heart that Nike (somehow?) created. You're gonna keep hating, and you're gonna keep inventing the myth of how Nike underpays everyone.

Strange. But you do you.
 
Rellyrell said:
In case u haven’t checked out the Megaconference thread, maybe u should stop questioning what I post b/c when I post on very specific things, I tend to be right, A LOT. I don’t post out of emotions on very specific topics; I try to share credible intel on CIS when I have very specific CONNECTIONS.

I’m telling u exactly what happened; Jack brokered the entire deal, Nike nor Adidas had a chance. ND WANTS to be Independent and they WANT to be the featured program of a brand. EVERYONE w/in ND knew that despite the athletes, coaches, and students ALL saying they wanted Nike, ND was going to stay w/ UA b/c JACK was brokering the deal, & ND does ND things. Idgaf what u want to believe; u can believe in my little ponies for all I care.

All that other chit u posted, imma be honest w/ u, I didn’t even read b/c it shows ur emotional side. All that Alabama this & Clemson that vs. ND don’t mean jack chit when ND is one of the richest schools in the nation according to Forbes (#10).

So do me a favor, all the ranting & rah rah u do on this subject, just stop. U post a lot of bull chit on this topic & u’re often wrong & off base, b/c u can’t disassociate business from ur feelings.
Click to expand...

"I'm an insider, so despite having little to no actual evidence of anything, I'm right" That's the rationale we're going with here. One thing I learned in law school, "Trust me" are the worst two words in the english language. If you can't prove something, or at least logically think through it, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Never mind the fact that in this conference realignment thing, even if you say the most outlandish things, you stand a fair chance of being right, because none of this stuff is making any sense. There are a lot of people that have been right about specific things in regards to realignment, not because they were insiders or had legit intel, but because any and everything is in play.

The point I'm making, and it's a rational one is that it's extremely unlikely that Swarbrick was able to push this deal through with no oversight, because he likely doesn't have the political capital to do so. Why? Because he's got one foot out the door. As he nears retirement, his pull becomes less and less, because he's gone. If you've spent any time in corporate America, you've seen this phenomenon play out.

Even if Jack wanted UA to win this war(By stacking the deck in their favor), to help his son, it doesn't make sense for everyone else in the organizational chart to go along with it, if the deal wasn't competitive. ND knows that they have to maximize revenue, if they want to stay competitive and also maintain their valued independence. Even with maximizing revenue, they may be forced into a conference sooner than later, just because they may not have anyone to play because everyone will be off the table. Apparel and television rights are going to be big for ND as they move into this new era, they are already facing the fact that a lot of their sidewalk alumni are dying off(ND has to have one of the oldest fanbases in collegiate athletics), and that's a big part of their appeal with NBC(Having a boomer heavy fanbase that spends money is a network's wet dream)

We all know UA was desperate to keep ND in their stable, because honestly, ND is the ONLY school they have that can move any merch whatsoever. If ND leaves, they might as well shutter their collegiate licensing arm. What's more likely, UA made ND a sweetheart deal out of sheer desperation and Nike wasn't going to(for good reason), or everyone at ND allowed a man with one foot out the door to make a terrible deal, and no one said or did anything?

The fact that in every single deal that Nike loses out on, you push the narrative of "Something shady happened, or everyone is incompetent, that's why Nike didn't get so and so", is beyond unbelievable. Again, if Jack just wanted UA, and everyone else was asleep at the wheel, he could have wrapped this up during the exclusive negotiation window. Even if he wanted to let that window expire to force a bidding war, why would he then take a worse deal, considering that everyone around him wanted Nike? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If it was so egregious, Jack would have been sidelined by both the powers that be and his successor, who is already likely involved in decision making, or at least is in the loop. Never mind the obvious conflict of interest.

The question is whether Nike matched UA's offer. If they did, then that's a legit argument. If they didn't, and it's likely that's the case, then why should ND leave money on the table? Remember when you stated that Miami could have made more in their Nike deal, but the Adidas deal was guaranteed up front money. I'm willing to bet UA made a similar offer considering that they are extremely desperate. Nike has historically relied on the possibility to make more concept to justify paying less, but ND can't afford to hope for the best. A school like Michigan, that is rolling in money as is can take that chance, they have enough revenue streams to cover any shortcomings on that one deal. ND, like Miami can't afford to gamble.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Holy ****.

You have GOT to be kidding.

In addition to your ridiculous defense of adidas, you are now white-knighting for Under Armour? It would be shocking if it wasn't so predictable. Did Nike steal your girlfriend once upon a time?

Look, your post is evidence that you really don't understand how Athletic Departments work, and you really don't understand how nepotism works. But, hey, you can quote hot new terminology like "nepo baby" as if you understand what is going on here.

First, please tell us about all this "oversight" on Jack Swarbrick, a longtime AD. Tell me about how the Notre Dame Board of Trustees is so knowledgeable about apparel deals and the math behind them, that they have ANY power over Jack freakin' Swarbrick. The ND BOT rubber-stamped whatever Swarbrick told them was the best deal, which is not that different from what happened with Beta Blake and adidas.

Second, you completely do not understand nepotism and inside information, and how that can impact a deal. Just because Swarbrick is "retiring" and a "successor" has been named does not remove the motivation to help his son out. And if you think his son can go anywhere for a job, as if Nike or adidas have an open job offer for him, I don't think you have solid comprehension here. It is ALREADY fairly easy to dismiss his son's "success" as a product of nepotism, because it HAS been the product of nepotism. So this deal buys his son another 10 years of paychecks. Not sure how you can't see that. And I'm not sure why you can't wrap your brain around the fact that LOTS of people in all walks of life try to push a bunch of things through right before they retire. As for inside information, perhaps...JUST PERHAPS...Under Armour was able to "outbid" Nike because they had inside information as to what Nike's final offer would be.

Third, you really don't understand the difference between an illusory "higher offer" and taking a slightly lower deal with a stronger and more stable company. You are giving me whiplash, between your "Under Armour offered so much money" and "Under Armour has problems". And that's really the key concept. The University of Florida OFFERED Jaden Rashada more money than we did. Promised it to him. And then immediately reneged. So if anyone has any kind of idea that Under Armour won't be around in 10 years (as you even seem to acknowledge), then it doesn't matter if they offered Notre Dame 100 million per year. Or a billion per year. ****, make it a trillion. They aren't going to pay the full contract.

Look, I realize you are a financial *****, who thinks that everyone should accept the offer that is ONE DOLLAR MORE than the second-highest offer. You are entitled to your opinions, no matter how wacky they are.

But here's the reality. Notre Dame has now "set the record" with an apparel deal worth $10 million per year (assuming Under Armour doesn't go bankrupt). And Miami is getting approximately $7 million per year from adidas. The point of the comparison is two-fold. First, the "more money" between a decent deal and "the best ever thus far" is only a couple of million per year. So maybe, just maybe, you don't have to get a "record payment" to have a darn good deal with an excellent, strong, stable company. And second, when you look at the numbers being quoted for TV deals, you realize that the TV money dwarfs the apparel money. Apparel is not keeping the lights on in the Hecht. TV is. So maybe, just maybe, your financial whoring to squeeze an extra million out of an apparel company is...unnecessary? I'm not saying that we agree to $1 million per year, but come on, let's stop acting like "best offer plus $1 more" should be the determining factor for an apparel deal.

As for the rest of your terrible post, you really need to look in the mirror. For every bit of "you guys are just Nike fanboys" nonsense, you then expose yourself as being a massive Nike hater. Whatever you accuse others of, you are just as guilty, if not more. I've already made my own feelings clear, I was initially in favor of the adidas deal (based on false and misleading information), in spite of the fact that I've rocked Nike since the 1979. So for me personally, I'm capable of putting my brand loyalty aside in service of my alma mater. But with everything I've learned, I now realize that Beta Blake pulled the SAME EXACT MOVE that Swarbrick pulled. They both picked their personal favorite choices, for reasons that are NOT in the best interests of their universities, but are personal "legacy" type rationales.

But, hey, all this logic is not going to fill that hole in your heart that Nike (somehow?) created. You're gonna keep hating, and you're gonna keep inventing the myth of how Nike underpays everyone.

Strange. But you do you.
Click to expand...

What’s more weird is, bro, we’re talking about Under Armour. Lol.

Like dude, bro be straight on one. Jack handled this completely by himself; his successor wasn’t remotely involved. When ND left Adidas for UA it was nepotism. Cal had just started working at UA, and immediately Jack made the switch, although Adidas made a fair and competitive offer.

UA drops the all green unis, ND’s student-athletes had to find out via Twitter that ND stayed w/ UA b/c Jack new this would upset the masses, & the masses voiced their frustration to the news. Furthermore, Michigan blasted the tweet for stating it’s the richest apparel deal in athletics history, when it’s not. That tweet has now been redacted to say something to the effect of “among one of the richest.”

The PR propaganda of “UA offered considerably more than both Nike & Adidas” is bull chit b/c like Miami, ND is a private institution that doesn’t have to release contract offers or details. What it was, was Jack covering his *** & patting himself on his back while hiding the fact neither Nike, Adidas, or New Balance had a fcking chance, nor did the staff and students’ wants.

Fck who my connections r; u can go on any ND current or former student podcast who r all saying the same thing, that the feeling was Jack was always going to stay w/ UA b/c of nepotism and they felt the new AD should’ve been apart of it. The other complaint was why 10 yrs? The answer? Nepotism. UA need ND & ND loves that feeling of being needed despite image.
 
Last edited:
Canedude08 said:
You really think Notre Dame is letting Swarbrick, who has already announced his retirement( and his successor has already been named) make decisions that affect the program long term without any oversight? Really? I know you jock Nike so hard that objectivity went out the window a long time ago but let’s be honest here. Jack’s son will not be hurting for employment no matter which deal gets signed and if Nike’s deal was competitive, that’s where ND would have ended up. Their relationship with UA was iffy at best because of UAs stock price tumbling, due to their issues, which made their previous UA deal a complete loser. Also keep in mind, there's a good chance UA will not be in a strong financial situation in a decade, they may get bought out by Nike or Adidas if things go a certain way, so stability is also something UA can't offer. There's little keeping ND with UA outside of Swarbrick's son, who if it truly mattered to his father, could have cut a side deal for his progeny, that happens all the time in business.

You really think that ND just turned down the best possible deal, to keep a nepo baby employed? Really? Ever notice that your "Nike can do no wrong" posts always require a complete suspension of disbelief and the assumption that everyone in college sports is incompetent or can't do basic math? No, it can't be that Nike(and to an extent Jordan Brand), relies on jocksniffers like yourself to look the other way as they undervalue properties, because they have this mistaken belief that they are the only people that can provide value. While a school like Alabama or Clemson can afford to take a significantly worse deal(and service) to keep the swoosh on their gear, a school like Notre Dame can't really hope and pray it all works out if they want to stay competitive.

Who should we believe? Some random Nike cheerleader on a message board, or source after source that have been quoted for the dozens of articles on this transaction? Nike probably pulled their "If you sign with us, you could POTENTIALLY make more than the deal UA is offering" line, and ND didn't buy it.
Click to expand...
So it is unbelievable that ND turned down a deal because of nepotism but it is believable that Alabama and Clemson stuck with a worse offer from Nike for no reason. Makes sense.
 
Advertisement
Canedude08 said:
"I'm an insider, so despite having little to no actual evidence of anything, I'm right" That's the rationale we're going with here. One thing I learned in law school, "Trust me" are the worst two words in the english language. If you can't prove something, or at least logically think through it, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Never mind the fact that in this conference realignment thing, even if you say the most outlandish things, you stand a fair chance of being right, because none of this stuff is making any sense. There are a lot of people that have been right about specific things in regards to realignment, not because they were insiders or had legit intel, but because any and everything is in play.

The point I'm making, and it's a rational one is that it's extremely unlikely that Swarbrick was able to push this deal through with no oversight, because he likely doesn't have the political capital to do so. Why? Because he's got one foot out the door. As he nears retirement, his pull becomes less and less, because he's gone. If you've spent any time in corporate America, you've seen this phenomenon play out.

Even if Jack wanted UA to win this war(By stacking the deck in their favor), to help his son, it doesn't make sense for everyone else in the organizational chart to go along with it, if the deal wasn't competitive. ND knows that they have to maximize revenue, if they want to stay competitive and also maintain their valued independence. Even with maximizing revenue, they may be forced into a conference sooner than later, just because they may not have anyone to play because everyone will be off the table. Apparel and television rights are going to be big for ND as they move into this new era, they are already facing the fact that a lot of their sidewalk alumni are dying off(ND has to have one of the oldest fanbases in collegiate athletics), and that's a big part of their appeal with NBC(Having a boomer heavy fanbase that spends money is a network's wet dream)

We all know UA was desperate to keep ND in their stable, because honestly, ND is the ONLY school they have that can move any merch whatsoever. If ND leaves, they might as well shutter their collegiate licensing arm. What's more likely, UA made ND a sweetheart deal out of sheer desperation and Nike wasn't going to(for good reason), or everyone at ND allowed a man with one foot out the door to make a terrible deal, and no one said or did anything?

The fact that in every single deal that Nike loses out on, you push the narrative of "Something shady happened, or everyone is incompetent, that's why Nike didn't get so and so", is beyond unbelievable. Again, if Jack just wanted UA, and everyone else was asleep at the wheel, he could have wrapped this up during the exclusive negotiation window. Even if he wanted to let that window expire to force a bidding war, why would he then take a worse deal, considering that everyone around him wanted Nike? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If it was so egregious, Jack would have been sidelined by both the powers that be and his successor, who is already likely involved in decision making, or at least is in the loop. Never mind the obvious conflict of interest.

The question is whether Nike matched UA's offer. If they did, then that's a legit argument. If they didn't, and it's likely that's the case, then why should ND leave money on the table? Remember when you stated that Miami could have made more in their Nike deal, but the Adidas deal was guaranteed up front money. I'm willing to bet UA made a similar offer considering that they are extremely desperate. Nike has historically relied on the possibility to make more concept to justify paying less, but ND can't afford to hope for the best. A school like Michigan, that is rolling in money as is can take that chance, they have enough revenue streams to cover any shortcomings on that one deal. ND, like Miami can't afford to gamble.
Click to expand...

U do a lot of assumptive reasoning, homie. Ur first statement a lone, lol!!

U really need to slap ur urself. The fact that u said every deal Nike loses, I push a narrative is laughable; but I’m game. Go search the threads & tell me what narrative did I use for Boston College? What narrative did I use for Tulsa? What did I use for Utah? What narrative did I use for Washington? What narrative did I use for ASU? What narrative did I use for USCe? What narrative did I use for Cal when they left? What narrative did I use for St John’s when they left? When u find those narratives from me for all the bids or losses Nike had, pls post them, until then stop accusing me of chit that don’t exist.

U’re by far thee most emotional poster on this subject matter, which is y u write rants. Again, Notre Dame is not “some broke school” that u’re trying to paint them. ND $$ absolutely chits on the vast majority of every Fckin academic institution in the nation, since u have this hard time comprehending chit, let me say it louder: 🗣️ NOTRE DAME IS THE 10TH RICHES SCHOOL IN THE MUTHA FCKIN NATION, SO WHAT THE FCK R U EVEN TALKING ABOUT?!

U sound dumb af, and the only reason I’m saying u’re not dumb af is b/c I’ve seen u put coherent post together; HOWEVER, on this subject u sound dumb af b/c u have this degraded emotional side on THIS subject. I speak on things I know, not that I assume, I know. I may not know EVERY single detail about EVERY single matter, but as long as I know the picture, I’ll share.

We don’t need for the back & forth b/c again u do u, feel the way u want. If u wanna shake The Leprechaun’s hand at the end of the rainbow for a great deal, hey do u. Like I told my ex wife who found this out the hard way: I don’t argue on chit I know, but u’re more than welcome to post another rant to make urself feel good.
 
Rellyrell said:
What’s more weird is, bro, we’re talking about Under Armour. Lol.

Like dude, bro be straight on one. Jack handled this completely by himself; his successor wasn’t remotely involved. When ND left Adidas for UA it was nepotism. Cal had just started working at UA, and immediately Jack made the switch, although Adidas made a fair and competitive offer.

UA drops the all green unis, ND’s student-athletes had to find out via Twitter that ND stayed w/ UA b/c Jack new this would upset the masses, & the masses voiced their frustration to the news. Furthermore, Michigan blasted the tweet for stating it’s the richest apparel deal in athletics history, when it’s not. That tweet has now been redacted to say something to the effect of “among one of the richest.”

The PR propaganda of “UA offered considerably more than both Nike & Adidas” is bull chit b/c like Miami, ND is a private institution that doesn’t have to release contract offers or details. What it was, was Jack covering his *** & patting himself on his back while hiding the fact neither Nike, Adidas, or New Balance had a fcking chance, nor did the staff and students’ wants.

Fck who my connections r; u can go on any ND current or former student podcast who r all saying the same thing, that the feeling was Jack was always going to stay w/ UA b/c of nepotism and they felt the new AD should’ve been apart of it. The other complaint was why 10 yrs? The answer? Nepotism. UA need ND & ND loves that feeling of being needed despite image.
Click to expand...
UCLA settled the lawsuit against UA for like 67.5 million and went with Nike for less money per year.
The ucla deal with UA was massive!!
Like 18 million a year massive.
UA made some sht up about why they cancelled the deal.
Everything from ucla not being marketable to social justice patches worn by players on top of the logo.

The Nike deal is 7.5 mill a year. Yup, less than half of what they made.
And on top of that, ucla was millions in the red cause they were writing checks with money promised by UA.

Anyone telling me ucla doesn’t sell gear is brain damaged. Just in california alone they kill it.

The caveat is that ucla was able to settle and sign for less money cause that tv deal was even more massive!!!

Not to derail the convo but this is why it is imperative that we get the Fck out of the ACC.

And after that massive tv deal who did ucla sign with?
Yup.

Why? Because perception matters and image matters.
Does anyone in here actually remember how big of a deal it was when we signed with Nike?

The difference between an old navy polo and RL polo is about 70 dollars.
Based only on superficiality and vanity. But it means 2 totally different things when you wear each one.

Curry is one the most popular players in nba history and one of the few players that actually changed the way the game is played and the way kids today prepare for the game.
But go outside right now and post on here when you spot someone wearing his shoe.


I’ll wait.


What about quality, materials, and fit.
How many posts have been started due to um’s adidas gear on here?
Maybe go with the company that actually outfits the pro teams.
This isn’t soccer where you can literally play with a t shirt and shorts

The fact that a team like nd went with under armour even for 10 million a year is a complete head scratcher regardless of nepotism or not.

The only other option is that they feel the need to get as much money as possible as an independent.
And that’s it. No other **** reason except daddy looking out for his own.

Ad shows in to the board meeting with a 10 million dollar check
“Great job!!”

Sound familiar?
 
Advertisement
pacusmc said:
UCLA settled the lawsuit against UA for like 67.5 million and went with Nike for less money per year.
The ucla deal with UA was massive!!
Like 18 million a year massive.
UA made some sht up about why they cancelled the deal.
Everything from ucla not being marketable to social justice patches worn by players on top of the logo.

The Nike deal is 7.5 mill a year. Yup, less than half of what they made.
And on top of that, ucla was millions in the red cause they were writing checks with money promised by UA.

Anyone telling me ucla doesn’t sell gear is brain damaged. Just in california alone they kill it.

The caveat is that ucla was able to settle and sign for less money cause that tv deal was even more massive!!!

Not to derail the convo but this is why it is imperative that we get the Fck out of the ACC.

And after that massive tv deal who did ucla sign with?
Yup.

Why? Because perception matters and image matters.
Does anyone in here actually remember how big of a deal it was when we signed with Nike?

The difference between an old navy polo and RL polo is about 70 dollars.
Based only on superficiality and vanity. But it means 2 totally different things when you wear each one.

Curry is one the most popular players in nba history and one of the few players that actually changed the way the game is played and the way kids today prepare for the game.
But go outside right now and post on here when you spot someone wearing his shoe.


I’ll wait.


What about quality, materials, and fit.
How many posts have been started due to um’s adidas gear on here?
Maybe go with the company that actually outfits the pro teams.
This isn’t soccer where you can literally play with a t shirt and shorts

The fact that a team like nd went with under armour even for 10 million a year is a complete head scratcher regardless of nepotism or not.

The only other option is that they feel the need to get as much money as possible as an independent.
And that’s it. No other **** reason except daddy looking out for his own.

Ad shows in to the board meeting with a 10 million dollar check
“Great job!!”

Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding; and, to comment further on ur point regarding UCLA:

In their contract they have an escalator clause which will help off-set some of that lost $$ from UA (not all, of course), but more importantly (wait for it), they didn’t sign no f’ing marriage contract w/ JB/Nike. They signed a deal that will allow both brands to evaluate and re-negotiate in a few more yrs, & b/c of UCLA’s merch sales spiking after the switch (just like UofM) along w the success they’ve shown in sports, I’m going to assume they’ll be in bed together in the future.

The first thing Martin Jarmond said b4 they switched, was he reached out to Russell Westbrook & K Love. K Love had the experience of signing w/ Nike out of college, switching & “taking more $$ from a Chinese Brand”, b4 quickly switching back to Nike. They both said if we want to build our brand further, Nike is the perfect partner b/c of its global reach and how they market u.

Back to ND:

ND doesn’t want to join a conference b/c they feel their brand is bigger than a conference. ND didn’t want to be apart of a global brand like Nike or Adidas b/c they love being the big fish in the small pond. The talk around ND was they thought they were going Nike; ****, even S.I said the move is a match made in heaven. They thought that b/c Jack vetted several ADs whose programs have Nike as their outfit & he received positive feedback. The other reason they thought they would switch was due to apparel issues. Apparently, UA’s cleats have been breaking left & right on the Football & LAX teams, causing lower leg injuries. Furthermore, fans had been talking about the lack of branding by UA; an example is UA’s Chicago Hub Store not having one piece of ND gear in it, while ND having to use Champion, & Coliseum to provide T-Shirts, sweaters, beanies in UA’s stead.

So yeah, once the rumorville started circling that it was never Jack’s intent to leave UA, leaks started coming out about the 2014 switch, his son Cal’s role etc.

The fact is UA is using monopoly $$ right now. They r at a market cap of only $3.3b, which means if their new strategic plan doesn’t work in 2024, they’re going to look to shed weight to stay afloat. They’re going to renew a focus on women’s branding, so how is this a kick to the nuts:

They had a NIL deal w/ Aliyah Boston while at USCe; when she got drafted in to the WNBA, she signed w/ Adidas. Ouch.
 
Rellyrell said:
Ding ding ding; and, to comment further on ur point regarding UCLA:

In their contract they have an escalator clause which will help off-set some of that lost $$ from UA (not all, of course), but more importantly (wait for it), they didn’t sign no f’ing marriage contract w/ JB/Nike. They signed a deal that will allow both brands to evaluate and re-negotiate in a few more yrs, & b/c of UCLA’s merch sales spiking after the switch (just like UofM) along w the success they’ve shown in sports, I’m going to assume they’ll be in bed together in the future.

The first thing Martin Jarmond said b4 they switched, was he reached out to Russell Westbrook & K Love. K Love had the experience of signing w/ Nike out of college, switching & “taking more $$ from a Chinese Brand”, b4 quickly switching back to Nike. They both said if we want to build our brand further, Nike is the perfect partner b/c of its global reach and how they market u.

Back to ND:

ND doesn’t want to join a conference b/c they feel their brand is bigger than a conference. ND didn’t want to be apart of a global brand like Nike or Adidas b/c they love being the big fish in the small pond. The talk around ND was they thought they were going Nike; ****, even S.I said the move is a match made in heaven. They thought that b/c Jack vetted several ADs whose programs have Nike as their outfit & he received positive feedback. The other reason they thought they would switch was due to apparel issues. Apparently, UA’s cleats have been breaking left & right on the Football & LAX teams, causing lower leg injuries. Furthermore, fans had been talking about the lack of branding by UA; an example is UA’s Chicago Hub Store not having one piece of ND gear in it, while ND having to use Champion, & Coliseum to provide T-Shirts, sweaters, beanies in UA’s stead.

So yeah, once the rumorville started circling that it was never Jack’s intent to leave UA, leaks started coming out about the 2014 switch, his son Cal’s role etc.

The fact is UA is using monopoly $$ right now. They r at a market cap of only $3.3b, which means if their new strategic plan doesn’t work in 2024, they’re going to look to shed weight to stay afloat. They’re going to renew a focus on women’s branding, so how is this a kick to the nuts:

They had a NIL deal w/ Aliyah Boston while at USCe; when she got drafted in to the WNBA, she signed w/ Adidas. Ouch.
Click to expand...
1691345748334.gif
 
Advertisement
Back
Top