Its both a quality and stock issue and my original comment addressed both. Again i'm not getting into a debate on apparel with anyone on the merits of the apparel itself. I was simply stating that things being spewed here and accepted as fact are incorrect.
You can laugh at Miami dade county having an open bid, but it doesn't change the fact. Again i don't care who wins this bid as long as miami gets best deal. But don't say i'm mixing and matching as a way to deflect when i was quite clear on what i was speaking to and even said fanatics was a completely different subject we could get into.
I was simply trying to correct misconceptions being spread on this board by bias parties who are reacting emotionally vs based on facts. I again have 0 interest in this topic as a whole and wont be commenting further on this circular argument.
I asked a question on the World Cup jerseys because I was confused, it's no big deal. Having not purchased a World Cup jersey, I was unfamiliar with any quality issues. Almost all of my soccer jerseys are adidas (MLS). But, yes, Nike has had some quality issues in the recent past, like other similar companies.
As for Miami-Dade County, the motherlode of corruption, I won't go into great detail. It is great that Miami-Dade got the sponsorship, everything that helps the players is wonderful. I'd also point out that UM has been screwed over by deals that our local government repudiated. Somehow, UM always seems to get the short end of the stick.
As you know, I was originally a fan of the adidas deal. When I learned certain things that were in conflict with the "Nike doesn't love Miami anymore" myth, I detailed these things. Not out of emotion, but out of a desire to offset the fake emotions generated by a story that wasn't true.
We had an Athletic Director who decided to keep the uniforms that we already had and convert some of the contractual allowances into straight cash payments. And then he circulated stories about how Nike wouldn't give us uniforms and equipment that he had already swapped out for extra money. That is the foundation of the older emotional reaction that led many UM fans to conclude "**** Nike, long live adidas".
So forgive me if I don't just focus on what has happened recently, but I also look at the origin of the problems. This is not a circular argument. It has always been an apples-to-oranges argument. People try to compare "2026 adidas" to "2014 Nike" and it isn't the same.
I can accept an adidas renewal if adidas honors the contract. I've said that many times. But I want an RFP given to Nike (and maybe Under Armour) that asks for all the same elements that adidas might provide to us. Until we have apples-to-apples bids, it's not a fully open bidding process similar to what large companies do.
Just my 2 cents on this process. Which seems fairly well determined and made at this time anyhow.
