forums

MEGA New Miami Adidas Ultraboost🔥 - The Shoe and Nike/Adidas Thread.

Advertisement
canester95 said:
Adidas is fine is they stroke that check, I loved some Nike gear back in the day but I also hated just as much of it. Heck, my favorite gear might be from Russell. It is about dem bucks. Whoever offers more..LFG
Click to expand...

I have a real ? for everyone on this board:

What’s most important to u as a fan, winning or $$?

Nebraska is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
Louisville is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
KU is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
UW is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?

U guys keep saying “it’s all about the bucks” & what u don’t understand is a lot of Adidas deals r not “bucks.” Let me give u the most recent example:

Texas Tech just signed a major deal w Adidas. Ppl will say “man, they r making so much more $$ w Adidas than UA” until u read that 85% of that deal is equipment & apparel while only 15% is liquidity w/ only $4.4m in bonuses spread over 10 yrs. Not so great of a deal anymore, huh?

Like, I try my best to articulate the sunk cost fallacies some of u continue to fall into b/c the vast majority on this board are not in my sector of business nor have my inside knowledge due to personal relationships w/in the industry; yet, u continue to hum these false narratives.

Moving fwd, the contracts need to be throughly vetted so we do not make the same mistakes we’ve made, & that includes “if it’s the more $$” narrative. If Adidas say “we want to renew u at 8 yrs 90m, cool; but, if 85% is simply apparel cost w/ hella loop holes to reduce compensation like they have w several futbol clubs, then what’s the benefit?
 
Last edited:
footgearlocker.com

Footgearlocker Miami Hurricanes TN Shoes Sneakers For Men And Women - Footgearlocker

The TN Shoes from Footgearlocker are incredibly comfortable and fashionable. They’re perfect for lounging about, having fun outside, and wearing every day.
footgearlocker.com footgearlocker.com

Pretty bold of this little company to advertise these knockoffs

IMG_4925.jpeg
 
Rellyrell said:
I have a real ? for everyone on this board:

What’s most important to u as a fan, winning or $$?

Nebraska is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
Louisville is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
KU is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
UW is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?

U guys keep saying “it’s all about the bucks” & what u don’t understand is a lot of Adidas deals r not “bucks.” Let me give u the most recent example:

Texas Tech just signed a major deal w Adidas. Ppl will say “man, they r making so much more $$ w Adidas than UA” until u read that 85% of that deal is equipment & apparel while only 15% is liquidity w/ only $4.4m in bonuses spread over 10 yrs. Not so great of a deal anymore, huh?

Like, I try my best to articulate the sunk cost fallacies some of u continue to fall into b/c the vast majority on this board are not my sector of business nor have my inside knowledge due to personal relationships w/in the industry; yet, u continue to hum these false narratives.

Moving fwd, the contracts need to be throughly vetted so we do not make the same mistakes we’ve made, & that includes “if it’s the more $$” narrative. If Adidas say “we want to renew u at 8 yrs 90m, cool; but, if 85% is simply apparel cost w/ hella loop holes to reduce compensation like they have w several futbol clubs, then what’s the benefit?
Click to expand...

Honestly, whether we win or lose, in the NIL era, depends almost exclusively on coaching and talent acquisition, than it does on a shoe deal.

If we switch to Nike, it doesn’t necessarily mean automatic NC, and staying with Adidas or whatever happens, whomever we go with when the time is up, isn’t going to make much difference in terms of talent acquisition and coaching acumen.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Honestly, whether we win or lose, in the NIL era, depends almost exclusively on coaching and talent acquisition, than it does on a shoe deal.

If we switch to Nike, it doesn’t necessarily mean automatic NC, and staying with Adidas or whatever happens, whomever we go with when the time is up, isn’t going to make much difference in terms of talent acquisition and coaching acumen.
Click to expand...

I agree w u & u make a salient point, however this is what I would like to bring up:

As companies start investing in NIL, it shrinks the access. So here’s the breakdown:

Nike & Jordan Brand athletes will only commit to Nike/Jordan Brand schools. The exception to this was Bailey & Harper both committing to play at Rutgers, but Rutgers didn’t have a formal Adidas deal which allowed Bailey & Harper to wear Nike shoes on court. So those recruits are out.

Now, to Adidas credit, they have been heavily investing in NIL particularly at the skill position. The problem? They don’t have the same stipulations & their players r still committing to Nike schools. Y? B/c they get to double dip; they get to experience the lifestyle & performance of a Nike athlete while in school, at the same time collect a bag from Adidas off the court/field (& I got this straight from two of the horses mouths that signed w Adidas last yr & r currently enrolled at Nike schools).

So anyway u cut it, the ? is what’s the true value
 
Rellyrell said:
I have a real ? for everyone on this board:

What’s most important to u as a fan, winning or $$?

Nebraska is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
Louisville is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
KU is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?
UW is making way more $$ than us on their Adidas deal, but w/ what results?

U guys keep saying “it’s all about the bucks” & what u don’t understand is a lot of Adidas deals r not “bucks.” Let me give u the most recent example:

Texas Tech just signed a major deal w Adidas. Ppl will say “man, they r making so much more $$ w Adidas than UA” until u read that 85% of that deal is equipment & apparel while only 15% is liquidity w/ only $4.4m in bonuses spread over 10 yrs. Not so great of a deal anymore, huh?

Like, I try my best to articulate the sunk cost fallacies some of u continue to fall into b/c the vast majority on this board are not my sector of business nor have my inside knowledge due to personal relationships w/in the industry; yet, u continue to hum these false narratives.

Moving fwd, the contracts need to be throughly vetted so we do not make the same mistakes we’ve made, & that includes “if it’s the more $$” narrative. If Adidas say “we want to renew u at 8 yrs 90m, cool; but, if 85% is simply apparel cost w/ hella loop holes to reduce compensation like they have w several futbol clubs, then what’s the benefit?
Click to expand...
Lol what more important "Winning or money".... In a thread about ******* adidas/nike. What a joke.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Honestly, whether we win or lose, in the NIL era, depends almost exclusively on coaching and talent acquisition, than it does on a shoe deal.

If we switch to Nike, it doesn’t necessarily mean automatic NC, and staying with Adidas or whatever happens, whomever we go with when the time is up, isn’t going to make much difference in terms of talent acquisition and coaching acumen.
Click to expand...
The revenue will matter, because honestly, that's all that matters at this point. That's why I'm of the mindset that you go with the brand that offers the most in regards to revenue and support for the student athletes.
 
Canedude08 said:
The revenue will matter, because honestly, that's all that matters at this point. That's why I'm of the mindset that you go with the brand that offers the most in regards to revenue and support for the student athletes.
Click to expand...

Highlight and capitalize “talent acquisition” , and under this heading put as one of your top bullet points “available funds” to acquire talent. Yes, I agree with you. There is no doubt, a strong correlation exists between funds and talent acquisition. No such correlation exists regarding brand affiliation/shoe deal and winning/talent.
 
Rellyrell said:
I agree w u & u make a salient point, however this is what I would like to bring up:

As companies start investing in NIL, it shrinks the access. So here’s the breakdown:

Nike & Jordan Brand athletes will only commit to Nike/Jordan Brand schools. The exception to this was Bailey & Harper both committing to play at Rutgers, but Rutgers didn’t have a formal Adidas deal which allowed Bailey & Harper to wear Nike shoes on court. So those recruits are out.

Now, to Adidas credit, they have been heavily investing in NIL particularly at the skill position. The problem? They don’t have the same stipulations & their players r still committing to Nike schools. Y? B/c they get to double dip; they get to experience the lifestyle & performance of a Nike athlete while in school, at the same time collect a bag from Adidas off the court/field (& I got this straight from two of the horses mouths that signed w Adidas last yr & r currently enrolled at Nike schools).

So anyway u cut it, the ? is what’s the true value
Click to expand...

The true value will be determined by those that have a fiduciary interest at the University Of Miami as it relates to the football program.

I appreciate your response and I get the gist of what you’re trying to say, but right now there are too many nebulous and uncorrelated assumptions regarding “true value“.

So one has to fall back to what’s the most concrete factor, and that is actual value in terms of dollars and cents of the deal.

Things like opportunity costs have to be defined and correlated by those making the decision

So unless someone starts defining those other factors that add to the true value, and can quantify those other non-monetary values, as to what their actual value is, it just remains an academic discussion without any real substance.
 
Advertisement
canester95 said:
Adidas is fine is they stroke that check, I loved some Nike gear back in the day but I also hated just as much of it. Heck, my favorite gear might be from Russell. It is about dem bucks. Whoever offers more..LFG
Click to expand...


This is just an insanely misguided concept.

This so-called "top dollar" contract that Tennessee got from adidas is supposedly worth $20M per year. And please keep in mind, that is NOT all money going to Tennessee. A quarter to a third of that expressed value is for equipment and player apparel. A quarter to a third of that is what is called "activation" (co-branded marketing spend).

That means, Tennnessee will make $7 to $10 million per year in actual cash. And, no, that's not a terrible number.

But then you look at the big picture. The big picture where top teams are spending $30M to $40M per year in NIL (and, sure, it might go down somewhat as the House settlement comes online).

Now, if I told you that you could make up whatever "less money" you took in the apparel contract with superior recruiting, where you didn't have to pay as much suck tax (to be in a second-tier conference playing second-tier competition wearing second-tier adidas), would you trade that money?

Keep in mind, I am not saying to play for free. We still need uniforms. And Nike OR adidas will still pay for co-branding.

But would you take, say (just for conversational purposes) $3M less cash per year for better recruits, who would be willing to play (each and every one of them) for a bit less money at a Big 10 Nike school such as Miami?

Of course you would.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
The true value will be determined by those that have a fiduciary interest at the University Of Miami as it relates to the football program.

I appreciate your response and I get the gist of what you’re trying to say, but right now there are too many nebulous and uncorrelated assumptions regarding “true value“.

So one has to fall back to what’s the most concrete factor, and that is actual value in terms of dollars and cents of the deal.

Things like opportunity costs have to be defined and correlated by those making the decision

So unless someone starts defining those other factors that add to the true value, and can quantify those other non-monetary values, as to what their actual value is, it just remains an academic discussion without any real substance.
Click to expand...


Again, I've tried to explain this.

NO SCHOOL. NONE. NOBODY. Gets the majority of the "total value" stated in a contract in cash.

MOST of the contract is trade and co-branding. NOT ACTUAL CASH IN THE COFFERS.

Thus, if you can tell a prospective student-athlete that he will have 4-6 years of Nike co-branding, that is certainly more attractive (on the whole and on average) than adidas co-branding. It just is (unless a kid is already signed to adidas).

Anyone can say that they haven't seen studies that "prove" this, but @Rellyrell has plenty of allegorical examples saying otherwise.
 
Calinative said:
lmfao
Click to expand...


You are laughing out of ignorance. You really don't know what you are talking about, but you keep shooting off your ignorant mouth.

The amount of money we make from TV and tickets and fund-raising ******* dwarfs the "apparel contract". Pick the brand you want to wear, not the one that fake-pays a couple of pennies more.

Which, of course, is just a hypothesis from the adidas fanboys anyhow. You have no idea what adidas will offer and whether Nike will beat it. You just don't, but that has been your desperate assumption all along.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, I've tried to explain this.

NO SCHOOL. NONE. NOBODY. Gets the majority of the "total value" stated in a contract in cash.

MOST of the contract is trade and co-branding. NOT ACTUAL CASH IN THE COFFERS.

Thus, if you can tell a prospective student-athlete that he will have 4-6 years of Nike co-branding, that is certainly more attractive (on the whole and on average) than adidas co-branding. It just is (unless a kid is already signed to adidas).

Anyone can say that they haven't seen studies that "prove" this, but @Rellyrell has plenty of allegorical examples saying otherwise.
Click to expand...

Allegorical examples.

Ok.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, I've tried to explain this.

NO SCHOOL. NONE. NOBODY. Gets the majority of the "total value" stated in a contract in cash.

MOST of the contract is trade and co-branding. NOT ACTUAL CASH IN THE COFFERS.

Thus, if you can tell a prospective student-athlete that he will have 4-6 years of Nike co-branding, that is certainly more attractive (on the whole and on average) than adidas co-branding. It just is (unless a kid is already signed to adidas).

Anyone can say that they haven't seen studies that "prove" this, but @Rellyrell has plenty of allegorical examples saying otherwise.
Click to expand...

I get tired of explaining this, including literally giving a real life contractural details.

I’m not sure y ppl r incessant to go against empirical data, data that has been absurdly accurate. This is y it’s like fck it, let them believe what they want.

¡Òrale, Holmes; Viva La Adidas! Se merecen lo que reciben.
 
Back
Top