- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 31,489
I completely disagree with you on this.
Front-end money is better ... Fact.
Back-end money ... Remains to be seen.
I don't think the apparel logo will be an issue, at all.
We continue to suck? That will be an issue for back-end sales. But if we get things right on the field, the sales will come ... And nobody will care we're in Adidas.
I'll bet you Michigan gets a positive spike in apparel sales this coming season. The reason isn't because their fans like Adidas more than they use to ... It's because they like Harbaugh more than Hoke, and they have some faith in where he can take them.
Also ... Check the history. Nike originally wanted UM because UM was cool. That means The U brand was valuable BEFORE the Nike connection. It ain't about the swoosh ... Never was. Nike didn't make Jordan ... Jordan made Nike.
Canes win, Canes will make Adidas a bigger player in the market. When that happens ... Guess what the next contract looks like???
The front end money is no doubt better, believe that. I totally agree w/ you on there...but you can't compare Adidas sales to Nike sales. Give you an example; the moment that Kobe switched from Adidas to Nikes, his endorsement earnings grew 1000%...he was still the same popular player as before but the switch increased his money astronomically. Another example; when the NFL switched sponsorship from Adidas to Nike, IMMEDIATELY their sales volume increased 500%.
To your point, Nike did want to align themselves with UM b/c we were cool...and bet money, that if we were still cool, they would've paid us handsomely. The fact is, we're not the same U. 6-7, losing 11 of the last 19 and a combined record of 56-44 over the last 8 years translated to Nike low balling u. So now a 3rd fiddle company, who is also desparate to save is image, over paid for us. Adidas is fledgling; the fact that a small start up company like UA who's only been in the game for about a decade is now No. 2 in the athletic industry shows where Adidas is as a brand.
No doubt, the U is still a popular brand, and if we start winning, recruits will come here regardless of who are sponsor is and Adidas is rolling the dice on that. But as I've mentioned before, this switch shows we are as a football program right now.
You can agree to disagree, but there's a reason why since 1987 (when schools started the trend after us of obtaining exclusive sponsorships) 26 of the last 29 national champions were sponsored by Nike. Adidas hasn't had school hold up the National title since 1998 with Tennessee. ****, even UA has had a national championship sponsored school in the last 5 yrs. Just saying, bruh.
Who you are sponsored by doesn't affect how good your team is. So talking about national championships in football is completely pointless.
You say this switch shows where we are as a football program, but I'm not seeing why this switch is bad (assuming the Uni's will be on the same level of what Nike gave us this year OR better). I'm pretty sure even if we were doing well, Adidas would have offered more money than Nike. Nike doesn't want to pay a school more, because then other schools will start asking for more.
Also, you can easily make the argument that this shows our program is still incredibly valuable, even when it is at the worst its been since like 1996. The reason being Adidas spent a lot of money on us, and is putting a lot of faith that being our apparel sponsor will really make an impact on their sales in the US, especially in Florida.
Sponsorship does matter. You have to remember we live in a pop culture world, now. Kids love themselves some Nikes and Jordans. Some recruits have been quoted as dropping teams from their list due to what sponsor that school had a relationship with. Walking around town in free gear is a big plus. It's the idea that one product is superior than the other, even though that may not be the case.
For instance, had Adidas signed Michael Jordan instead of Nike, Adidas would be number and Nike number whatever as we speak. Jordan was cool, refreshing, charismatic, and more importantly, a winner. Nike took off, when Jordan took off b/c the feel was that Nike aligns themselves with winners and winners only. So that's the image it's created; and by that image, you see mostly Nike sponsored teams in the winner's circle. That's not a co-incidence.
My point that getting dropped from a "winning brand" signifies where we are at. If we were still winning, Nike would've ponied up on their offer.
Adidas overpays b/c it has too...it has to roll the dice to get back going. UA came in and they stomped them out. The biggest show cases are the Nike Opening and UA All-Star games, so yes, who a team is sponsored by does make an impression on kids when that's what is show cased to them. Perception is 99% reality for a lot of people.
You must be talking about Basketball, because that is literally the only time it has any effect on where a recruit would go. And it's not like we are a top basketball school anyway, where we are getting top 100 prospects. If Adidas ends up having good designs, it will all be great. ****, they don't even have to do much, they just literally have to not **** with our helmet, and it'll all be pretty good.
IMO, the design is all that really matters, and when one company is willing to pay you 3-4x as much as another, it just makes the deal that much better.
Of course I like Nike better, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have switched to Adidas. Someone who wouldn't come to a school because they are sponsored by Adidas instead of Nike (especially if the uni's were still nice) is an absolute idiot. Choosing where to go to college is so much more important than whether you have a swoosh or 3 stripes.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...-adidas-signs-new-apparel-agreement-with-nike
read the story and read the comments below as well.
