Adidas have any influence?

WndyCityCane

Recruit
Joined
Sep 29, 2017
Messages
2,450
Not sure how much they spend to put heir logo on our players but I would think they can’t be happy with what they’ve seen with thier investment.

Is their contract renewed or negotiated annually?

Go Canes!!
 
Advertisement
Not sure how much they spend to put heir logo on our players but I would think they can’t be happy with what they’ve seen with thier investment.

Is their contract renewed or negotiated annually?

Go Canes!!


Lol. You mean the adidas that currently has our best player on the basketball team on the bench,? The adidas that was investigated by the FBI? GTFO
 
I know they were attempting to pay for some players to come our way...

Gotta believe their talking to the BOT and Blake James saying we need more wins and less embarrassment if you like our checks
 
Adidas..nike..under armour don’t care about wins losses that much . It’s enough for them just to have as many teams wearing adidas gear as possible no matter wins or losses..seriously..what diff is that gonna make for adidas?? I grew up wanting Nike everything..not because we was winning but because Nike had the best gear..now I find myself buying both Nike and adidas..even got some champion and starter gear
 
Advertisement
Adidas..nike..under armour don’t care about wins losses that much . It’s enough for them just to have as many teams wearing adidas gear as possible no matter wins or losses..seriously..what diff is that gonna make for adidas?? I grew up wanting Nike everything..not because we was winning but because Nike had the best gear..now I find myself buying both Nike and adidas..even got some champion and starter gear

Oh man is this ever wrong. Go take a look at who all the nothing programs are sponsored by. It's usually Russell.
 
Endorsement is a multi-year deal. I have no desire to look up terms at present, but typically 5-7 years. And yes, they have pull, though I doubt they really try to wield it much.

They're not going to say "fire this coach or else." But when re-negotiating the deal, might say something like "given the performance of the team and market exposure we feel the value of the brand has decreased and therefore our new offer is $X lower than your previous endorsement deal."
 
Oh man is this ever wrong. Go take a look at who all the nothing programs are sponsored by. It's usually Russell.
That goes back to exposure tho. Not just winning...winning does breed more exposure, don’t get me wrong..Nike was sponsoring us still when we was ***..same with bama..but they not gonna drop certain schools cause the school brand is bigger than they logo in the collegian arena..Nike sponsors sorry *** programs too. Not just powerhouses. Those brands want to sponsors teams that are well known. Bama will alway be a brand worthy of a sponsor spending on because they always gonna be on TV. No matter wins or losses. Just like Miami is always gonna have it’s fair share of national broadcast, mediocore or not..now if we dominating then that just icing on the cake for adidas...Nike and adidas arena to make money is b-ball and gear/sneakers. That’s where they butter they bread ..not college football jersey sales
 
Adidas..nike..under armour don’t care about wins losses that much . It’s enough for them just to have as many teams wearing adidas gear as possible no matter wins or losses..seriously..what diff is that gonna make for adidas?? I grew up wanting Nike everything..not because we was winning but because Nike had the best gear..now I find myself buying both Nike and adidas..even got some champion and starter gear

This is so stupid. God I hope you’re joking!
 
Advertisement
That goes back to exposure tho. Not just winning...winning does breed more exposure, don’t get me wrong..Nike was sponsoring us still when we was ***..same with bama..but they not gonna drop certain schools cause the school brand is bigger than they logo in the collegian arena..Nike sponsors sorry *** programs too. Not just powerhouses. Those brands want to sponsors teams that are well known. Bama will alway be a brand worthy of a sponsor spending on because they always gonna be on TV. No matter wins or losses. Just like Miami is always gonna have it’s fair share of national broadcast, mediocore or not..now if we dominating then that just icing on the cake for adidas...Nike and adidas arena to make money is b-ball and gear/sneakers. That’s where they butter they bread ..not college football jersey sales

You're totally right. But I doubt Nike is chomping at the bit to sponsor Eastern Michigan.

And I'm sure some dork will look up who sponsors Eastern Michigan and it will turn out to be Nike.

But the question is how much pull do they have. To me the answer is at least some, but probably not a ton, and they probably are not interested in really exerting influence.

Anyway, if your program is suffering, you've got way bigger things to worry about than your sponsor.
 
You're totally right. But I doubt Nike is chomping at the bit to sponsor Eastern Michigan.

And I'm sure some dork will look up who sponsors Eastern Michigan and it will turn out to be Nike.

But the question is how much pull do they have. To me the answer is at least some, but probably not a ton, and they probably are not interested in really exerting influence.

Anyway, if your program is suffering, you've got way bigger things to worry about than your sponsor.
But Nike sponsored UNLV for yearsss..but I get what your saying. If I’m marketing a brand i want to get my brand as exposed as possible. Which means as many colleges, high schools, pro athletes as possible. That’s what adidas is starting to do in the football arena. When u do that then u get a National brand like Miami. They had Michigan for a while too. Adidas is def catching up to Nike. They’ll never surpass in the sports gear arena in my opinion. But if they play it right the sneaker/gear part then maybe..but yeah that’s the least of our worries. Good convo tho
 
That goes back to exposure tho. Not just winning...winning does breed more exposure, don’t get me wrong..Nike was sponsoring us still when we was ***..same with bama..but they not gonna drop certain schools cause the school brand is bigger than they logo in the collegian arena..Nike sponsors sorry *** programs too. Not just powerhouses. Those brands want to sponsors teams that are well known. Bama will alway be a brand worthy of a sponsor spending on because they always gonna be on TV. No matter wins or losses. Just like Miami is always gonna have it’s fair share of national broadcast, mediocore or not..now if we dominating then that just icing on the cake for adidas...Nike and adidas arena to make money is b-ball and gear/sneakers. That’s where they butter they bread ..not college football jersey sales

You're totally right. But I doubt Nike is chomping at the bit to sponsor Eastern Michigan.

And I'm sure some dork will look up who sponsors Eastern Michigan and it will turn out to be Nike.

But the question is how much pull do they have. To me the answer is at least some, but probably not a ton, and they probably are not interested in really exerting influence.

Anyway, if your program is suffering, you've got way bigger things to worry about than your sponsor.
 
But Nike sponsored UNLV for yearsss..but I get what your saying. If I’m marketing a brand i want to get my brand as exposed as possible. Which means as many colleges, high schools, pro athletes as possible. That’s what adidas is starting to do in the football arena. When u do that then u get a National brand like Miami. They had Michigan for a while too. Adidas is def catching up to Nike. They’ll never surpass in the sports gear arena in my opinion. But if they play it right the sneaker/gear part then maybe..but yeah that’s the least of our worries. Good convo tho

Here's the question. If you're Nike or Adidas, all about performance, trying to sponsor the best brand.... do you want to sponsor a consistent loser JUST for the exposure? These companies have bidding wars to sign the premiere athletes in their sport. They wan to endorse the best. So is sponsoring a doormat the right move? Is all exposure good? Maybe you offset the bad exposure with the good exposure.

Quite the paradox.
 
Advertisement
Endorsement is a multi-year deal. I have no desire to look up terms at present, but typically 5-7 years. And yes, they have pull, though I doubt they really try to wield it much.

They're not going to say "fire this coach or else." But when re-negotiating the deal, might say something like "given the performance of the team and market exposure we feel the value of the brand has decreased and therefore our new offer is $X lower than your previous endorsement deal."
The bolded is the key..it’s like the sponsore logo on the jersey for nba that just started a few season ago..the lakers and were *** when this was going on..but I bet my bottom dollar most sponsors wanted their logos on those jerseys..because no matter if those teams are winnni g or losing those teams will always be top 10 or better In jersey sales, attendance and national exposure.

Now to college it’s the same thing. No matter how Notre dame, bama, Texas, Miami, UF or OSU are doing on the field those programs will always garner national attention, tv exposure and large following. Now if those teams a dominating it’s icing on the cake. But Nike isn’t adding a dent either way in their bottom line based on the fact that Clemson and bama are in the chip again. But sponsors wouldn’t divorce from national brands off of a bad season
 
The bolded is the key..it’s like the sponsore logo on the jersey for nba that just started a few season ago..the lakers and were *** when this was going on..but I bet my bottom dollar most sponsors wanted their logos on those jerseys..because no matter if those teams are winnni g or losing those teams will always be top 10 or better In jersey sales, attendance and national exposure.

Now to college it’s the same thing. No matter how Notre dame, bama, Texas, Miami, UF or OSU are doing on the field those programs will always garner national attention, tv exposure and large following. Now if those teams a dominating it’s icing on the cake. But Nike isn’t adding a dent either way in their bottom line based on the fact that Clemson and bama are in the chip again. But sponsors wouldn’t divorce from national brands off of a bad season

I need to split hairs because pro endorsements are infinitely different than college. You get 32 teams and many people watch any game that's on regardless of affiliation. So the eyeballs you get are exponentially greater than from some bottom-dwelling NCAA team.

Pretty obvious the strategy is more eyes are better regardless of team performance, because team performance effectively evens itself out across teams. You get some winners and you get some losers.
 
Advertisement
Lol. You mean the adidas that currently has our best player on the basketball team on the bench,? The adidas that was investigated by the FBI? GTFO

I don’t agree w u often, but ur exactly right. Between Kanye and this FBI probe, Adidas can kiss my ***. **** near got the school in trouble. They better be glad we still f’ing w them.
 
Here's the question. If you're Nike or Adidas, all about performance, trying to sponsor the best brand.... do you want to sponsor a consistent loser JUST for the exposure? These companies have bidding wars to sign the premiere athletes in their sport. They wan to endorse the best. So is sponsoring a doormat the right move? Is all exposure good? Maybe you offset the bad exposure with the good exposure.

Quite the paradox.
Yes..here’s my counter..in baseball would it be a good marketing tool too sponsore the Mets or the astros based on the last 2 years..answer is the Mets. Even tho the stros beeN winning ..b4 the cubs won a title again, would it had been better to sponsor the cubs or a team like the cardinals..even tho the cubs were *** the answer is the cubs..if the Yankees only win 50 games next they are still the best team for sponsors in the mlb to get into biz with. NBA same ****. The knicks could win 20 games and still sponsors would bend over backward to get a bite In the garden during a Knick game..idk about you but I never look at dominate teams and I’m like “****, whoever sponsors them must be why they are winning, let me go get some of those”..if we’re talking individual Athletes then I gotchu. Like what steph is to under armour or Jordan to Nike...in cfb it’s texas, notredame, usc, bama, Miami (still)..no matter mediocre play each of those schools brands is ALWAYS gonna be bigger than the sponsor
 
I know they were attempting to pay for some players to come our way...

Gotta believe their talking to the BOT and Blake James saying we need more wins and less embarrassment if you like our checks

If we’re not careful, they’ll begin to treat us like they started doing Michigan. They were all in w Michigan being their banner school, but as both the football and basketball teams started to falter, they started becoming less and less interested in doing for them. By the time Michigan left back for Nike/Jordan, the players weren’t getting fresh practice unis anymore, shipments weren’t frequent, etc.
 
But Nike sponsored UNLV for yearsss..but I get what your saying. If I’m marketing a brand i want to get my brand as exposed as possible. Which means as many colleges, high schools, pro athletes as possible. That’s what adidas is starting to do in the football arena. When u do that then u get a National brand like Miami. They had Michigan for a while too. Adidas is def catching up to Nike. They’ll never surpass in the sports gear arena in my opinion. But if they play it right the sneaker/gear part then maybe..but yeah that’s the least of our worries. Good convo tho

Here’s y Adidas won’t catch up to Nike. The moment Nike felt Adidas on its heels, it figured out what was making Adidas so popular. The key? Urban street wear v. athletic street wear. Also running shoes. B-ball shoes were beginning to fade, while designer shoes and urban shoes kicked up the market. Add w Kanye going live on radio to diss Nike and make his shoes seem like a demi-god, must wear appearal, and voila, Adidas began to cook.

So Nike did what any petty, competitor would do....see their products, and started to low key copy cat. But then they went a step further, they re-created the image of the J’s and started to collab w/ street designers and high fashion designers, while making them ultra limited. They took the iconic shoe and made it a myth, in a sense. Then they collabed w all the designers that helped Ye and created their own version of urban fashion. Then basketball players started to IG their sneaker head collections and that added more followings.

I remember @brock saying how comfortable the ultra boost were, so Nike created its on version of the boost w the epic reacts which created a new frenzy.

The results? Nike has completed dominated the shoe market again. Now w Adidas getting bad press from Ye and this FBI probe, they dipped a bit, but Pharrell is making monster shoes as well.

Every time we watch college football, at least 3 of the 4 teams are Nike sponsored. It’s this thing they do w marketing that is shear genius. Mr King for Adidas did his thing by switching its focus to the US and he was giving Nike a run for its money, but for some inexplicable reason, he resigned from his position.

Now that Puma is throwing its hat in the ring, it’s going to be interesting in the shoe wars. My problem w Puma is that they’re sponsoring all unproven big men (except Boogie), and it’s known fact, big men don’t move weight like that.

Adidas did right by us by ponying up that money, but I didn’t appreciate them getting Coach L & the B ball team caught up. I can’t imagine they’re happy w their investment. They put faith in us, and we have yet to yield results.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top