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.
