forums

Biliema Quote on Nike

Advertisement
I'm sure his opinion is completely unbiased and not at all influenced by the large sums of money the school gets from nike.
 
calinative umstudent said:
Bigtip said:
Foreman said:
I'm sure his opinion is completely unbiased and not at all influenced by the large sums of money the school gets from nike.
Click to expand...

isnt that an inherent advantage?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we are getting more from Adidas.
Click to expand...

michigan got more from adidas as well, and you see they left them, right? kansas will be leaving soon as well. it doesn't matter about how much up front money we have, it's about imaging.

everyone keeps talking about days w/ starter and russell....you're comparing apples and oranges. shoe companies weren't even involved in sports athletics like that. remember, we were the first team to start the trend of big shoe companies being sole sponsors of athletics.

the fact is, nike is perceived to be the better brand b/c their marketing is 10 folds better, their sales are 25 folds better, and they are often associated with the best of the best.
 
Rellyrell said:
calinative umstudent said:
Bigtip said:
Foreman said:
I'm sure his opinion is completely unbiased and not at all influenced by the large sums of money the school gets from nike.
Click to expand...

isnt that an inherent advantage?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we are getting more from Adidas.
Click to expand...

michigan got more from adidas as well, and you see they left them, right? kansas will be leaving soon as well. it doesn't matter about how much up front money we have, it's about imaging.

everyone keeps talking about days w/ starter and russell....you're comparing apples and oranges. shoe companies weren't even involved in sports athletics like that. remember, we were the first team to start the trend of big shoe companies being sole sponsors of athletics.

the fact is, nike is perceived to be the better brand b/c their marketing is 10 folds better, their sales are 25 folds better, and they are often associated with the best of the best.
Click to expand...

I really don't get why this is so hard for some to understand.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
calinative umstudent said:
Bigtip said:
Foreman said:
I'm sure his opinion is completely unbiased and not at all influenced by the large sums of money the school gets from nike.
Click to expand...

isnt that an inherent advantage?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we are getting more from Adidas.
Click to expand...

michigan got more from adidas as well, and you see they left them, right? kansas will be leaving soon as well. it doesn't matter about how much up front money we have, it's about imaging.

everyone keeps talking about days w/ starter and russell....you're comparing apples and oranges. shoe companies weren't even involved in sports athletics like that. remember, we were the first team to start the trend of big shoe companies being sole sponsors of athletics.

the fact is, nike is perceived to be the better brand b/c their marketing is 10 folds better, their sales are 25 folds better, and they are often associated with the best of the best.
Click to expand...

But what you aren't writting is that Nike gave Michigan a 15 year like $170M deal that is about $12M per year.
Sure, if Nike was offering us the same contract that Adidas was, we would have stayed. But they weren't. They were offering us something like $6-8M less than what Adidas was offering. And since the switch to Adidas, we have become their #1 priority. We are their biggest team, and they are promoting the crap out of us, while Nike wasn't. Nike promotes the **** out of Oregon.
Lastly, the uniforms Nike gave us last year were overall not good, they were just average, and that is because the helmets (Orange and green) were fugly. The jersey was solid, the only bad thing was the ibis logo on the shoulder. The pants were plain, which is all good. As long as Adidas doesn't really touch our helmet, I really don't think the uniforms will be worse than what Nike gave us last year. And if the unifoms are about the same quality as the ones Nike gave us, well then this switch is nothing but great for us.
 
calinative umstudent said:
Rellyrell said:
calinative umstudent said:
Bigtip said:
Foreman said:
I'm sure his opinion is completely unbiased and not at all influenced by the large sums of money the school gets from nike.
Click to expand...

isnt that an inherent advantage?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we are getting more from Adidas.
Click to expand...

michigan got more from adidas as well, and you see they left them, right? kansas will be leaving soon as well. it doesn't matter about how much up front money we have, it's about imaging.

everyone keeps talking about days w/ starter and russell....you're comparing apples and oranges. shoe companies weren't even involved in sports athletics like that. remember, we were the first team to start the trend of big shoe companies being sole sponsors of athletics.

the fact is, nike is perceived to be the better brand b/c their marketing is 10 folds better, their sales are 25 folds better, and they are often associated with the best of the best.
Click to expand...

But what you aren't writting is that Nike gave Michigan a 15 year like $170M deal that is about $12M per year.
Sure, if Nike was offering us the same contract that Adidas was, we would have stayed. But they weren't. They were offering us something like $6-8M less than what Adidas was offering. And since the switch to Adidas, we have become their #1 priority. We are their biggest team, and they are promoting the crap out of us, while Nike wasn't. Nike promotes the **** out of Oregon.
Lastly, the uniforms Nike gave us last year were overall not good, they were just average, and that is because the helmets (Orange and green) were fugly. The jersey was solid, the only bad thing was the ibis logo on the shoulder. The pants were plain, which is all good. As long as Adidas doesn't really touch our helmet, I really don't think the uniforms will be worse than what Nike gave us last year. And if the unifoms are about the same quality as the ones Nike gave us, well then this switch is nothing but great for us.
Click to expand...

Adidas is the Michael Dukakis of sportswear.
 
Adidas is on the come up in the (American) football world. You guys act like Adidas is some joke of a company... It sponsors the greatest and most well known athlete in the WORLD... Lionel Messi.
 
Those don't look like Nike swim trunks.

Bret-Bielema-topless.webp
 
Advertisement
(Allen Iverson voice)man we taking about Biliema not Harbaugh we talking about Biliema!
 
Last edited:
Serious topic? If the team is sponsored by Nike what is he going to say?

UM needs to get back to the point where the logo on the uniform doesn't mean anything ......except for the U
 
Miami needs all the money it can get going to the Athletic department as the money grubbing Liberal campaigned for funding to everything non-athletic!
 
Of course he's going to say that...

Also, how on earth did Auburn win national championship and come within seconds of another, that time with a subpar roster, with an Under Armour apparel deal?! Talk about against all odds, huh?

Nike has the most apparel deals. Who cares? Everyone is Nike these days. I actually think Adidas is a perfect fit for Miami (USC too). We have that big city paradise appeal about us. Adidas does a good job of playing off of that vibe. ****, their logo even looks like a palm tree. I like the deal. Now let's go win some games and make Adidas an icon.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top