forums

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

I’ve never seen anything where it was documented from a reliable source that Zachariah Branch either did not sign with Miami initially or transferred to Miami when he ended up transferring. An anonymous porster saying it on a message board doesn’t count. But even if this were the case, which I’m not convinced of, we’re talking about one person for which there is scant, if any, evidence. Sounds like grasping at straws to me.

I don’t believe shoe brand makes a significant difference for anybody. We seem to be recruiting OK with adidas whether we like the brand or not. And I get people hate the brand. But let’s be real.
 
Calinative said:
1. Yes. 12 yr is too long. If we re-sign with them and it’s 8yrs, most of this is mitigated.

2. Sure. But today is that clause in effect and will it be going forward upon a re-sign and the CURRENT admin is unlikely to get played, right? Past is past. Current and future this is doubtful to be an issue

3. Sure. I’d argue so were the final decade of Nike uniforms. And like point 2, CURRENT and assumed future uniforms are great. So not really an issue with this renegotiation at all.

4. Ok, that’s mostly personally opinion. I noticed Bryant picked the camo to rep in the photos on his recruiting trip… maybe kids don’t hate it as much. But also I haven’t really disliked most of the 1-off units. Especially the white ones. At end of the day they take swings, a few will be misses. Not a big deal imo. Not all Oregons are good

5. Yes this is probably strongest point going forward. Indiana just won with adidas, but yeah Nike is clearly viewed as superior.

6. If recently Adidas has figured out to pay guys to help us, is that going to continue to be the case going forward? That’s what matters more with this renegotiation. Seems to be going well. Is the school happy with what adidas has done in this dept currently? Is this admin going to let that slip going forward? Seems unlikely. Guess the AD choice could be critical here?

7&8. Sure. Everyone seems to hate the merch. I guess we will see how much the school values that vs the rest of the deal. If we re-sign with Adidas, I’m sure it’s because they think the rest of the value and pay is superior than we’d get with Nike
Click to expand...


I knew you'd **** in here with your adidas-water-carrying bull****. I just knew it.

1. As per usual, you act like "hey, dude, I agree with you on the LENGTH of the contract" is the same thing as acknowledging that we got shafted on the "guaranteed money" portion. GTFOH with that. We've had years of discussion on this vital point, and you continue to deny deny deny. But I'm right, and I know I'm right. And I'm fully aware that you know next to nothing about how apparel/merch deals are structured and paid in the sports industry, while I know way more than you do on this subject (because I dealt with it for YEARS at NASCAR).

2. This one was not about the "current state", but was an explanation TO THE GUY WHO ASKED THE QUESTION as to why the intelligent Miami fans are unhappy with our adidas prison sentence (no time off for good behavior). So, you know, a bit of reading comprehension and CONTEXT on your part would have made your Rebuttal #2 unnecessary.

3. Again, like in #2 above, this was NOT about "the renegotiation", it was explaining to the poster who asked WHY the intelligent Miami fans have grievances against adidas. I was more than fair in stating the obvious, that adidas has belatedly and begrudgingly improved. And, as per usual, you bring up a bunch of bull**** about some of the later Miami uniforms. I also knew you would do this. You ignore Miami's great Nike uniforms in the 1980s and 1990s and the early 2000s. Your focus is on the bra-straps and the one-off special uniforms. I could have predicted that you would overlook the Smokes, which was an amazing jersey design that the players and the fans loved, but suffered a premature death when Beta Blake picked adidas, when none of the players or alums wanted adidas.

4. It's so cute how you attack me for "personal opinion", when your rebuttal #4 is ENTIRELY your personal opinion. It's hilarious that you think Bryant "picked" the camo jersey. Yeah. Whatever. We don't have 99 different jerseys in each color for them to pick through. Based on the number they want to rock and the size of the jerseys available (and the fact that we are lining guys up to take pictures), they don't have infinite time and wardrobe choices. And it's also cute how you wave off all the adidas uniform complaints of the past 10 years as "they take swings, a few will be misses, not a big deal imo". Oh, really? Then why don't you apply those EXACT SAME STANDARDS to the University of Miami uniforms from, say, 2006 to 2013? Why can't Nike have a couple of mulligans? Why won't you blame our dip**** ADs at the time for APPROVING such ****** uniforms? But, yeah, adidas gets a pass while you continue to crucify Nike for the same exact thing.

5. Thank you, next.

6. As stated above in multiple points, you don't get the point of my post. While I'm happy that adidas has found religion in Year 10 of a 12-year contract, I am still bothered by their performance in Years 1-9, which is where the dissatisfaction (that the poster asked about) came from. And, as ALWAYS with you, you turn it into a one-sided comparison. "adidas is doing it, Nike isn't". And, actually, Nike is doing the same thing, but at other schools. So, sure, right now "2026 adidas" is going to look better for UM than "2006 Nike". The game has changed. I give credit to adidas for belatedly getting into the game, but it's credit nonetheless. But I also don't act as if Nike will do nothing if they were to get the contract back.

7-8. I'm just going to be direct with you on this. What in the **** do you think "the rest of the value and pay" is? WHAT IS IT? You don't ******* know and you won't ******* admit it. The "equipment/PE/uniforms" portion is about 1/3 of the total announced deal price, AND WE WOULD GET BETTER QUALITY WITH NIKE. So, before you even get started making a side-by-side comparison, approximately 1/3 of the deal is equivalent from a dollar standpoint and favors Nike from a quality standpoint. OK. Now, another 1/3 of the deal is "activation/co-branding/NIL and branding" money. Now, on this part, if adidas offered "more" in absolute dollars, I'd be the first to acknowledge that. If it was $1 more, who cares. But if it was millions more, I'd be fair and honest and defer to that. Now, if we were to analyze that by VALUE, given the superior position of Nike, the same "$100K Heisman" campaign by Nike is going to get more eyeballs and ears and have more VALUE impact. But, whatever, maybe you won't acknowledge that. Therefore, the BIGGEST driver of "this company has a superior offer to that company" comes down to whether we get a fair cut of our merch sales. So while you will never admit that an UPSIDE contract that gives a generous royalty is better than a lazy-man's "guaranteed annual amount" contract, I don't give a ****. The proof is in the pudding. Most people simply prefer the Nike merch to the adidas merch. If you can't see how that will net Miami more money, then you never will.

Good night.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
I’ve never seen anything where it was documented from a reliable source that Zachariah Branch either did not sign with Miami initially or transferred to Miami when he ended up transferring. An anonymous porster saying it on a message board doesn’t count. But even if this were the case, which I’m not convinced of, we’re talking about one person for which there is scant, if any, evidence. Sounds like grasping at straws to me.

I don’t believe shoe brand makes a significant difference for anybody. We seem to be recruiting OK with adidas whether we like the brand or not. And I get people hate the brand. But let’s be real.
Click to expand...


I get it. It's never going to be "documented". And I'm not going to name names, but the people that know about this deal are names that you know, some just as log-ins, but others you know their government names.

This one is not even arguable. And that's nothing against you, personally. I like and respect you personally. But this one happened.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I knew you'd **** in here with your adidas-water-carrying bull****. I just knew it.

1. As per usual, you act like "hey, dude, I agree with you on the LENGTH of the contract" is the same thing as acknowledging that we got shafted on the "guaranteed money" portion. GTFOH with that. We've had years of discussion on this vital point, and you continue to deny deny deny. But I'm right, and I know I'm right. And I'm fully aware that you know next to nothing about how apparel/merch deals are structured and paid in the sports industry, while I know way more than you do on this subject (because I dealt with it for YEARS at NASCAR).

2. This one was not about the "current state", but was an explanation TO THE GUY WHO ASKED THE QUESTION as to why the intelligent Miami fans are unhappy with our adidas prison sentence (no time off for good behavior). So, you know, a bit of reading comprehension and CONTEXT on your part would have made your Rebuttal #2 unnecessary.

3. Again, like in #2 above, this was NOT about "the renegotiation", it was explaining to the poster who asked WHY the intelligent Miami fans have grievances against adidas. I was more than fair in stating the obvious, that adidas has belatedly and begrudgingly improved. And, as per usual, you bring up a bunch of bull**** about some of the later Miami uniforms. I also knew you would do this. You ignore Miami's great Nike uniforms in the 1980s and 1990s and the early 2000s. Your focus is on the bra-straps and the one-off special uniforms. I could have predicted that you would overlook the Smokes, which was an amazing jersey design that the players and the fans loved, but suffered a premature death when Beta Blake picked adidas, when none of the players or alums wanted adidas.

4. It's so cute how you attack me for "personal opinion", when your rebuttal #4 is ENTIRELY your personal opinion. It's hilarious that you think Bryant "picked" the camo jersey. Yeah. Whatever. We don't have 99 different jerseys in each color for them to pick through. Based on the number they want to rock and the size of the jerseys available (and the fact that we are lining guys up to take pictures), they don't have infinite time and wardrobe choices. And it's also cute how you wave off all the adidas uniform complaints of the past 10 years as "they take swings, a few will be misses, not a big deal imo". Oh, really? Then why don't you apply those EXACT SAME STANDARDS to the University of Miami uniforms from, say, 2006 to 2013? Why can't Nike have a couple of mulligans? Why won't you blame our dip**** ADs at the time for APPROVING such ****** uniforms? But, yeah, adidas gets a pass while you continue to crucify Nike for the same exact thing.

5. Thank you, next.

6. As stated above in multiple points, you don't get the point of my post. While I'm happy that adidas has found religion in Year 10 of a 12-year contract, I am still bothered by their performance in Years 1-9, which is where the dissatisfaction (that the poster asked about) came from. And, as ALWAYS with you, you turn it into a one-sided comparison. "adidas is doing it, Nike isn't". And, actually, Nike is doing the same thing, but at other schools. So, sure, right now "2026 adidas" is going to look better for UM than "2006 Nike". The game has changed. I give credit to adidas for belatedly getting into the game, but it's credit nonetheless. But I also don't act as if Nike will do nothing if they were to get the contract back.

7-8. I'm just going to be direct with you on this. What in the **** do you think "the rest of the value and pay" is? WHAT IS IT? You don't ******* know and you won't ******* admit it. The "equipment/PE/uniforms" portion is about 1/3 of the total announced deal price, AND WE WOULD GET BETTER QUALITY WITH NIKE. So, before you even get started making a side-by-side comparison, approximately 1/3 of the deal is equivalent from a dollar standpoint and favors Nike from a quality standpoint. OK. Now, another 1/3 of the deal is "activation/co-branding/NIL and branding" money. Now, on this part, if adidas offered "more" in absolute dollars, I'd be the first to acknowledge that. If it was $1 more, who cares. But if it was millions more, I'd be fair and honest and defer to that. Now, if we were to analyze that by VALUE, given the superior position of Nike, the same "$100K Heisman" campaign by Nike is going to get more eyeballs and ears and have more VALUE impact. But, whatever, maybe you won't acknowledge that. Therefore, the BIGGEST driver of "this company has a superior offer to that company" comes down to whether we get a fair cut of our merch sales. So while you will never admit that an UPSIDE contract that gives a generous royalty is better than a lazy-man's "guaranteed annual amount" contract, I don't give a ****. The proof is in the pudding. Most people simply prefer the Nike merch to the adidas merch. If you can't see how that will net Miami more money, then you never will.

Good night.
Click to expand...
You got a real victim complex lol.

So going forward, will adidas be good or bad for us if we re-sign. Okay if pt 1-4 is irrelevant/mitigated or now “good” with adidas going forward…. That’s a positive. So Negatives we can still expect upon an extension are 5 and 7. Okay…. But if expected pay + pts 1-4 and pt 6 are good for Adidas…. I don’t think this is shaping up for us to go back to Nike.
 
Calinative said:
You got a real victim complex lol.

So going forward, will adidas be good or bad for us if we re-sign. Okay if pt 1-4 is irrelevant/mitigated or now “good” with adidas going forward…. That’s a positive. So Negatives we can still expect upon an extension are 5 and 7. Okay…. But if expected pay + pts 1-4 and pt 6 are good for Adidas…. I don’t think this is shaping up for us to go back to Nike.
Click to expand...


I don't give a **** about "going forward, will adidas be good or bad for us if we re-sign". Because AS ALWAYS, you ignore whether Nike will be "good or bad for us if we re-sign". Yeah, we should just forget about getting ****ed for the first 9 years of a 12 year contract because the last 2 years were so much better. You act like a woman who has accepted her physically abusive boyfriend. "But I can change him..." Yeah, right.

You are just like Harry. "Oh, I like adidas for the last 2 years, and all I'm gonna do is ***** and moan about how Nike was 15 years ago". It's the same-old, same-old from you, as you **** Nike for the past while giving adidas a free-pass for doing the same things, or worse.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I don't give a **** about "going forward, will adidas be good or bad for us if we re-sign". Because AS ALWAYS, you ignore whether Nike will be "good or bad for us if we re-sign". Yeah, we should just forget about getting ****ed for the first 9 years of a 12 year contract because the last 2 years were so much better. You act like a woman who has accepted her physically abusive boyfriend. "But I can change him..." Yeah, right.

You are just like Harry. "Oh, I like adidas for the last 2 years, and all I'm gonna do is ***** and moan about how Nike was 15 years ago". It's the same-old, same-old from you, as you **** Nike for the past while giving adidas a free-pass for doing the same things, or worse.
Click to expand...
I don't care if we stick with Adidas or go back to Nike. Id hope Nike doesn't change the uniforms. And in either deal I'd hope we get the most money and greatest NIL support possible. If the school determines that's through Adidas, then all those negatives being mostly in the past, is quite important. If all those criticisms you laid out were still active - like your pr 5+7 are, then it would make it so Adidas shouldn't be extended, cause at that point even a little less money if that were the case from Nike, would still be worth switching over. But because those aren't the case any more it makes Adidas extension much more tolerable.
 
DMoney said:
I get the complaints about the adidas gear, and Nike is definitely considered the premier brand.

But our uniforms from 2000-2015 were mostly garbage. Adidas was a breath of fresh air when they took over.
Click to expand...


Another hot-take that isn't based on reality.

2015 was an adidas jersey that is probably the worst of all-time.
2014 we got the Nike Smokes, an incredibly popular jersey with both the players and fans.
2008-2013 were not bad jerseys. The only thing that people could question would e the stripes on the back of the jersey.
2004-2007 were the horrendous "bra strap" jerseys.
2000-2003 were classic jerseys. Yes, they were the first non-traditional jerseys, but they had the strongest storyline of any of our jerseys ever.

On the other hand, the "alternate" jerseys from 2004-2014 were almost always terrible.

I'll grant anyone on this board "2004-2007". But, seriously, please explain how 2000-2003 and 2008-2013 were "mostly garbage". That's just nuts. Look, I laugh when people wear knock-off 2008-2013 jerseys with super-wide stripes that do not match what our players actually wore on the field. And I realize all our 2000-2003 jerseys are getting threadbare from wear.

But let's not complain about "Pro Combat" and all the other one-offs that our idiot ADs approved.

I know you're a company guy, @DMoney, but please stop with "adidas was a breath of fresh air". RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX, adidas gave us the worst Miami jersey of all-time, an execrable piece of **** that was gone in ONE YEAR. Even the bra-straps lasted for 4 seasons.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Another hot-take that isn't based on reality.

2015 was an adidas jersey that is probably the worst of all-time.
2014 we got the Nike Smokes, an incredibly popular jersey with both the players and fans.
2008-2013 were not bad jerseys. The only thing that people could question would e the stripes on the back of the jersey.
2004-2007 were the horrendous "bra strap" jerseys.
2000-2003 were classic jerseys. Yes, they were the first non-traditional jerseys, but they had the strongest storyline of any of our jerseys ever.

On the other hand, the "alternate" jerseys from 2004-2014 were almost always terrible.

I'll grant anyone on this board "2004-2007". But, seriously, please explain how 2000-2003 and 2008-2013 were "mostly garbage". That's just nuts. Look, I laugh when people wear knock-off 2008-2013 jerseys with super-wide stripes that do not match what our players actually wore on the field. And I realize all our 2000-2003 jerseys are getting threadbare from wear.

But let's not complain about "Pro Combat" and all the other one-offs that our idiot ADs approved.

I know you're a company guy, @DMoney, but please stop with "adidas was a breath of fresh air". RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX, adidas gave us the worst Miami jersey of all-time, an execrable piece of **** that was gone in ONE YEAR. Even the bra-straps lasted for 4 seasons.
Click to expand...

Company guy? I don't work for adidas and I'm not as passionate about fashion as some of the other old men on here.

But the Nike jerseys of this millennium were clownish garbage. Even the early 00s. We were laughing about the Clam logo until we killed everyone on the field.

We aren't Oregon. We're a traditional power that should be wearing a clean, traditional jersey. The jersey switch in 2016 was a godsend. Leave the fashion shows to the ringless schools.
 
This thread was exactly what i expected. Glad CIS never disappoints. The announcement of the adidas extension going to provide months of entertainment. And these apparel deals are about far more than just "that uniform looks nicer" in this era. Adidas is being more aggressive and miami should pick best deal, regardless of whose going to be upset. Also there's adidas athletes we've gotten in the door with due to the relationship. It works both ways.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Another hot-take that isn't based on reality.

2015 was an adidas jersey that is probably the worst of all-time.
2014 we got the Nike Smokes, an incredibly popular jersey with both the players and fans.
2008-2013 were not bad jerseys. The only thing that people could question would e the stripes on the back of the jersey.
2004-2007 were the horrendous "bra strap" jerseys.
2000-2003 were classic jerseys. Yes, they were the first non-traditional jerseys, but they had the strongest storyline of any of our jerseys ever.

On the other hand, the "alternate" jerseys from 2004-2014 were almost always terrible.

I'll grant anyone on this board "2004-2007". But, seriously, please explain how 2000-2003 and 2008-2013 were "mostly garbage". That's just nuts. Look, I laugh when people wear knock-off 2008-2013 jerseys with super-wide stripes that do not match what our players actually wore on the field. And I realize all our 2000-2003 jerseys are getting threadbare from wear.

But let's not complain about "Pro Combat" and all the other one-offs that our idiot ADs approved.

I know you're a company guy, @DMoney, but please stop with "adidas was a breath of fresh air". RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX, adidas gave us the worst Miami jersey of all-time, an execrable piece of **** that was gone in ONE YEAR. Even the bra-straps lasted for 4 seasons.
Click to expand...
I agree, the initial Adidas jerseys were pretty awful (2015 in particular). However, our current jerseys are probably better than anything we had with Nike between 2000-2014
 
Beside some quality issues.. adidas hasnt been as bad as many of you make it out to be imo.

Them not being prepared for the championship run we went on did **** me off as far as special merch and commercials.. they also for sure could give fans more and better options.. all that I agree with. But the jerseys the players wear are fine for the most part to me.

I’m with D$.. for a while Nike gave 2 ***** about this program and was just coming up with clown designs like we was some Arena Football Team or some ****.

Ideally I would like us to go to Jordan brand (owned by Nike.. I know).. but I could see the Gators trying to block that
 
Back
Top