Biliema Quote on Nike

[daddacane]

Adidas probably believes the cloud is lifting this year and is merely swooping in for a financial reward by backing Canes..

 

[mirednmediocrity2]

Adidas made a bad bet by picking Miami as its "flagship" program. Bunch of Europeans who evidently don't know very much about US CFB. When we go 4-8 this year, they'll understand they've been had. Got to give Donna credit, however. While doing everything to de-emphasize Miami football, she still made sure we got good money from the ACC and the fools at Adidas. Where that money goes could be anyone's guess. The only thing that is certain is that the athletic department and especially football will never see a dime of it..

 

[Dingaan1828]

Adidas made a bad bet by picking Miami as its "flagship" program. Bunch of Europeans who evidently don't know very much about US CFB. When we go 4-8 this year, they'll understand they've been had. Got to give Donna credit, however. While doing everything to de-emphasize Miami football, she still made sure we got good money from the ACC and the fools at Adidas. Where that money goes could be anyone's guess. The only thing that is certain is that the athletic department and especially football will never see a dime of it..

But, we can brag about the new football "boots".

 

[INCaneFan]

@dennisdoddcbs: Bielema: "One thing that jumped out to me that no one has really written about is how an advantage being a Nike school is." #SECMDshoewars

Well coach, how do you explain what you said when 80% or even more of the schools youn face are also attired in Nike gear? Forgive me for questioning the obvious, but you're just one of many, so how's that an advantage?

 

[M3N]

Footbal won't see a penny of the Adidas deal. It's a win for the University, but not the Athletics department.

 

[butchs'revenge]

I'm sure his opinion is completely unbiased and not at all influenced by the large sums of money the school gets from nike.

isnt that an inherent advantage?

Pretty sure we are getting more from Adidas.

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.

You are whats wrong with America

 

[LatinCane]

Nike has dug their claws into the AAU and 7-on-7 tournaments. Exposing them young to their brand. Top AAU and 7 on 7 athletes will go to Nike schools. Does being an Adidas school put us at a disadvantage as far as top AAU/7on7 talent? Yes, definitely in basketball and maybe in football. We are blessed to have Miami-Dade carry the distinction of the most NFL players per metropolitan area in US so there will always be great athletes from this area that come to UM but it has always been a struggle to get top basketball talent. Being an Adidas school will make it harder. Hopefully Coach L keeps the transfer pipeline going.

 

[Tristero]

One thing that jumped out at me Bret is how much of a disadvantage your school has when it's located in bumf**k Arkansas.

 

[Paranos]

Biliema was interviewed by WQAM on July 15th an of course he was touting how Arkansas has 2nd most players from Florida out of all the SEC teams. Good lord I am still bothered about the Alex Collins fiasco!

Link to Audio Interviews on WQAM« CBS Miami

 

[The Franchise]

That quote proves everything. That's your smoking gun right there. I wonder if UM can get out of the Adidas deal based on that info.

 

[Coach Macho]

Fvck Nike. Fvck Adidas. We should play in Converse Chucks cleats with Z-Cavaricci pants and jerseys made by Cross Colours.

 

[OrangetieFatface]

Those don't look like Nike swim trunks.

View attachment 30879

Interesting. Bielema strikes me as a speedo guy.

 

[TC7D]

I understand twitter limits words, but can people at least use proper grammar / English?

"is how an advantage being a nike school is" - wtf is that?

@dennisdoddcbs: Bielema: "One thing that jumped out to me that no one has really written about is how an advantage being a Nike school is." #SECMDshoewars

 

[daddacane]

Just can't imagine that the "U" is no#1 priority for Adidas ...If they're depending on the "U" to help boost sales I can only assume their stock is just before a nose dive..

 

[svenben]

How anyone could want Nike after the debacle last year. FSU Miami is a classic game... look at this garbage... for both schools.

 

[Morey161]

Lol. Means nothing.

 

[Rellyrell]

I'm sure his opinion is completely unbiased and not at all influenced by the large sums of money the school gets from nike.

isnt that an inherent advantage?

Pretty sure we are getting more from Adidas.

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.

You are whats wrong with America

@Butch's revenge: I'm what's wrong w/ America b/c I'm giving you facts? B/c I understand marketing and image? Did I say it was right? No, I'm giving you perceptive facts and perceptive facts is that Nike is considered a better brand b/c of who are sponsored by them and the championships they bring. I'm assuming you don't have a smart phone, or drive a reliable car, or wear a certain brand of clothing b/c marketing and image doesn't apply to you right?

Dude get real, and wake up. This is not an American thing, it's a world thing. Maybe you should take a global marketing class and understand how this works. If you don't think Nike is a beast in the image marketing dept., then you don't follow Wall Street. If you think Adidas is on the same level in regards to imaging, then you don't follow marketing.

Adidas is widely considered a Futbol and Hip Hop brand and that's where majority of their income is resourced. Hence that is why they dropped down to the No. 4 shoe company in the world vs. being No. 2 for sooooo many years. Which is why they despearately need a team like Miami to do well to uplift their image on the American Football circuit.

 

[Rellyrell]

Just can't imagine that the "U" is no#1 priority for Adidas ...If they're depending on the "U" to help boost sales I can only assume their stock is just before a nose dive..

[MENTION=6985]daddacane[/MENTION]: you're absolutely right! Adidas was just passed by Skechers for Christ's sake! It's a roll of the dice for them and us, in my opinion.

 

[Rellyrell]

I'm sure his opinion is completely unbiased and not at all influenced by the large sums of money the school gets from nike.

isnt that an inherent advantage?

Pretty sure we are getting more from Adidas.

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.

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: Let me remind you that at one point, Michigan was Adidas priority as well. They came out like gang busters to promote the Big Blue Brand...but they couldn't keep up w/ the demands and they, along w/ their marketing, began to fizzle out.

Nike is a creative brand....however, our AD didn't get involved in the branding process as he should've either. Here's how these things work, whoever is on the project will say, "HEY MIAMI, WE HAVE SEVERAL IDEAS WE WANT TO THROW YOUR WAY, LET US KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS." The school is the one to make the final decision, not the sponsor. It's no difference than when they create LBJ shoes...once he puts them on, test the quality, and so forth, then the final product is given. They won't arbitrarily just force things upon it's clients. So you can blame Blake James with the final products and Golden for the uniform combination on game day.

Sometimes taking less money up front means more money on the back end. I look at MJ for instance; he consistently took less money to stay on the Bulls (except for his last two years w/ them) and the residuals paid more dividends on the back end b/c of the image of winning surpassed the up front contract money any other team would've offered. Nike ALWAYS pay schools significantly less than the competition b/c they are guaranteeing an image boost and back end money from jersey sales will take care of itself...back end money from team shoes will take care of itself and that's why Tennessee took less money to go to Nike and Michigan is about to the same.

Imagining is everything and it's perceived that Nike branded schools are better than Adidas branded schools B/C Nike branded schools have dominated the championship arena. Personally, if we were to leave Nike, we should've went to UA since they are the new up and coming brand and are hot on Nike's tail in regards to imaging and perception. They already sponsor arguably the biggest HS all-star game, and plus we have Ray Lewis and Ed Reed sponsored by them.

 

[Rellyrell]

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.

[MENTION=731]DroCane[/MENTION]: Adidas is actually on the downside of American Sports in general: They lost money in both the NBA and NFL apparel deals b/c not only did jersey sales decline once they took over, they didn't get the endorsement deals they had hoped. And you're right, their biggest athlete under contract with them is a EURO-FOOTBALL player in Lionel Messi. smh.