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

[Calinative]

You never disappoint.

Your dopey gullible swallowing of every Beta Blake lie about "how much money adidas gave us" would be unbelievable if it wasn't so true and consistently spewing from your mouth.

"adidas gives us money". I realize you don't want to admit that we WOULD HAVE gotten more money with Nike over the past 8 years, but you literally cannot deny that adidas tried to pay us LESS money than they were contractually obligated to pay us.

You really need to stop saying "we clearly received more money". I know you like to toss in "clearly" when you are trying to bull**** us, but nothing you say is true. I realize you have tried, for 8 years, to hang your hat on the "initial annual guarantee", but you have ALWAYS tried to deny the revenue that would have rolled in under the royalties structure that Nike offered.

It's time. Everyone has given you eight years to lie your way into some false "more money under the adidas contract" nonsense, but it's just not true. I think it's funny that you would try to pretend like the two contracts have not been compared, with the benefit of 8 years of sales data for mathematical purposes. Why in god's name do you think we are working to get out of the adidas deal 4 years early if it's "sooooo much more money"? Why do you think nearly every other school has tried to dump adidas? When the money is so good, as you keep trying to tell us...

I do find it funny that you always try to trash literally anyone you are arguing with. Instead of actually being honest about the argument they were making.

Again like I said when I discussed this with @Rellyrell who was completely unwilling to say that we would have actually made more money under Nike, Your entire premise that we would have made substantially more on the back end is that during a period where we suck ***, we would have sold like a top 10 program or something. Because clearly - and I know you now love that word - the initial guarantee from Adidas was substantially higher.

And I know you like to mislead like crazy so that anyone reading your post agrees with you, I’ve been agreeing the problem with the Adidas deal is the length. If this would have been a 8 year contract, I think it would have been a perfectly fine partnership. We would have made more money than under Nike. The merch would have been a little worse. I think the money was more important. Plus the uniforms were far superior. If any of your arguments are based on the uniforms i immediately ignore what you’re gunna say.

Because Unlike all you other Nike loyalists, I think the Adidas uniforms are like 10x better than the previous two uniform updates Nike gave us and had us looking ******* retarded.

Basically y’all wanna ***** about the merch all day just cause with adidas you’re buying like 10 less shirts over a decade lol. Go to dymelyfe and buy something then. **** buy the clear Miami Hurricane gear Nike is bringing back without paying us.

 

[Rellyrell]

I do find it funny that you always try to trash literally anyone you are arguing with. Instead of actually being honest about the argument they were making.

Again like I said when I discussed this with @Rellyrell who was completely unwilling to say that we would have actually made more money under Nike, Your entire premise that we would have made substantially more on the back end is that during a period where we suck ***, we would have sold like a top 10 program or something. Because clearly - and I know you now love that word - the initial guarantee from Adidas was substantially higher.

And I know you like to mislead like crazy so that anyone reading your post agrees with you, I’ve been agreeing the problem with the Adidas deal is the length. If this would have been a 8 year contract, I think it would have been a perfectly fine partnership. We would have made more money than under Nike. The merch would have been a little worse. I think the money was more important. Plus the uniforms were far superior. If any of your arguments are based on the uniforms i immediately ignore what you’re gunna say.

Because Unlike all you other Nike loyalists, I think the Adidas uniforms are like 10x better than the previous two uniform updates Nike gave us and had us looking ******* retarded.

Basically y’all wanna ***** about the merch all day just cause with adidas you’re buying like 10 less shirts over a decade lol. Go to dymelyfe and buy something then. **** buy the clear Miami Hurricane gear Nike is bringing back without paying us.

Actually I’ve stated that “paying more” is from an upfront $$ amount.

I’ve been very consistent that:

1. Nike allowed us to shop our deal
2. Nike chose not to match Adidas’ compensation
3. I gave the example of how up front $$ does not not necessarily mean more $$ b/c typically Nike’s contracts r filled w/ escalators that enhance back end $$ (& I used Bama as an example)

Finally, I’ve stated numerous times that more $$ ≠ better simply b/c u also have to factor in image, branding, effects on recruiting. I’ve also gave Tennessee as an example who chose less $$ from Nike to sign w/ to enhance all of the above.

I’ve shared privately what has happened w/ UCLA and how even though they lost $90m in up front total cash & uniform compensation from UA ******** them over + the new structured deal w/ Jordan Brand, they will overcome that $90m deficit much quicker than anticipated b/c escalators have been kicking in, & the merchandise sales have spiked exponentially.

I also know there’s one recruit from the 2023 class who chose a Nike affiliated school despite Mario giving his best efforts, & there’s a good chance 2 more from this class will be doing the same thing despite love tweets that’s been posted & visits coming. One I commented on, the two from this class I won’t blow up there spot.

So all in all, yes Adidas paid more upfront $$, & they also said all the right things to secure us, except they did the first wrong thing in just 5 months into our contract & it went straight over Blakes’ head. I’ve stated 1000x on here, switching didn’t make sense b/c of how the contract was structured for the length of time, especially now since it’s been posted how “unbroke” the school really was. It truly didn’t make sense.

What I agree w/ is if u’re going to make the switch, u don’t do a funky 12-yr deal. U do 6, 8, no more than 10. The reason, imo, that Blake did 12 is b/c it was a comfort deal where Miami can maintain mediocrity while being compensated as a tier 1 (And for that, I’m not mad), but it’s come w/ consequences which finally got exposed.

Again more $$ ≠ better, that’s all I’ve been stating along w/ back end $$ can trump up front $$.

 

[Rellyrell]

Adidas declined to make an offer to renew their NHL contract. They didn't bid. I guess they decided the ROI wasn't there, so maybe they are waking up, but I doubt it. ADIDAS and hockey in North America always seemed like a weird fit to me. The Beyonce deal is a disaster.

Fanatics beat out... I dunno who else bid for the NHL.

Yeah, it’s more than that, champ. Adidas not only didn’t make an offer, they let the NHL they will not be renewing, period, last yr.

U’re absolutely right, the ROI is not there. Hockey is #5 on popularity of the 4 major sports in the U.S. I though maybe Adidas could leverage the European market for so many foreign players that’s in the league, but that didn’t pan out.

Ppl thought Nike was going to make a run at the NHL, but that was foolish. Nike have only sponsored a small handful of Hockey Players (Ovechkin, Federov, Stamkos) & sold its subsidiary, Bauer, after losing $$. I knew that wasn’t going to happen, period. I think Fanatics will do a solid job; I’ve bought several non Adidas Canes’ products from them & it’s solid.

 

[Zombie-Cane]

Actually I’ve stated that “paying more” is from an upfront $$ amount.

I’ve been very consistent that:

1. Nike allowed us to shop our deal
2. Nike chose not to match Adidas’ compensation
3. I gave the example of how up front $$ does not not necessarily mean more $$ b/c typically Nike’s contracts r filled w/ escalators that enhance back end $$ (& I used Bama as an example)

Finally, I’ve stated numerous times that more $$ ≠ better simply b/c u also have to factor in image, branding, effects on recruiting. I’ve also gave Tennessee as an example who chose less $$ from Nike to sign w/ the enhance all of the above.

I’ve shared privately what has happened w/ UCLA and how even though they lost $90m in total cash & uniform compensation from UA ******** them over, and the new structured deal w/ Jordan Brand, they will overcome that $90m deficit much quicker than anticipated b/c escalators have been kicking in, & the merchandise sales have spiked exponentially.

I also know there’s one recruits from the 2023 class who chose Nike affiliated schools despite Mario giving his best efforts, & there’s a good chance 2 more from this class will be doing the same thing despite love tweets that’s been posted & visits coming. One I commented on, the two from this class I won’t blow up there spot.

So all in all, yes Adidas paid more upfront $$, & they also said all the right things to secure us, except they did the first wrong thing in just 5 months of our contract & it went straight over Blakes’ head. I’ve stated 1000x on here, switching didn’t make sense b/c of how the contract was structured for the length of time. Especially now since it’s been posted how “unbroke” the school really was, it truly didn’t make sense.

What I agree w/ is if u’re going to make the switch, u don’t do a funky 12-yr deal. U do 6, 8, no more than 10. The reason, imo, that Blake did 12 is b/c it was a comfort deal where Miami can maintain mediocrity while being compensated as a tier 1 (And for that, I’m not mad), but it’s come w/ consequences which finally got exposed.

Again more $$ ≠ better, that’s all I’ve been stating along w/ back end $$ can trump up front $$.

Bro,
I am going to be like a **** kid in a candy store when we go back to Nike. Don't get me wrong, I love all my old Nike gear, but I am so ready to get some new ****!!!

 

[Rellyrell]

Does the new CEO seem to have a plan to address this? Seems to me that adidas needs to move away from MASSIVE deals with certain people, because they become overly reliant on those deals. Offer a platform opportunity that will allow certain guys to become massive IF IF IF they stuff they put out sells well. Even Michael Jordan wasn't offered so much in the mid-80s that Nike lived or died with him. Clearly, the first few years of Jordan went so well that it justified the expansion of the arrangement.

They are looking to scrap 2023 & move on to 2024. There’s too many variables affecting Adidas right now, including the Chinese market pushing them out. Nike is still king in China, but u also have Anta & Li-Ning that’s hyper accelerating over there that’s ate in to Adidas’ market shares.

B/c Nike has been ultra aggressive in protecting designs, technology, that little window where Adidas’ was able to vulture designs from former Nike employees closed off. So much leadership change is happening, too, so we’ll see how this goes. I just got word the CEO will have to wear two hats now, b/c a high ranking marketer is moving on.

 

[Rellyrell]

Bro,
I am going to be like a **** kid in a candy store when we go back to Nike. Don't get me wrong, I love all my old Nike gear, but I am so ready to get some new ****!!!

I promise u, the sales will be spike outrageously.

 

[HurricanePhilly]

I might even spend 100 on a pair of shoes when we go back to Nike!

 

[HurricanePhilly]

Last pair of Nike shoes I had to pay for(as a coach I got free shoes from people for about 10 years)....Still have these in pretty good shape. Probably around 2007ish.

 

[Rellyrell]

Last pair of Nike shoes I had to pay for(as a coach I got free shoes from people for about 10 years)....Still have these in pretty good shape. Probably around 2007ish.

Man, I didn’t even know we had the VC Shox in our color way! That’s another thing I miss, that Nike didn’t limit us on their shoes w our color way. It low key ****ed me off when I heard Rumph tell the kids we “were” going to have Miami Yeezy’s, but Kanye didn’t sign off on it. I’m like that made absolutely no sense, especially since it’s now come out that Adidas owns the line, just not the name.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I do find it funny that you always try to trash literally anyone you are arguing with. Instead of actually being honest about the argument they were making.

Again like I said when I discussed this with @Rellyrell who was completely unwilling to say that we would have actually made more money under Nike, Your entire premise that we would have made substantially more on the back end is that during a period where we suck ***, we would have sold like a top 10 program or something. Because clearly - and I know you now love that word - the initial guarantee from Adidas was substantially higher.

And I know you like to mislead like crazy so that anyone reading your post agrees with you, I’ve been agreeing the problem with the Adidas deal is the length. If this would have been a 8 year contract, I think it would have been a perfectly fine partnership. We would have made more money than under Nike. The merch would have been a little worse. I think the money was more important. Plus the uniforms were far superior. If any of your arguments are based on the uniforms i immediately ignore what you’re gunna say.

Because Unlike all you other Nike loyalists, I think the Adidas uniforms are like 10x better than the previous two uniform updates Nike gave us and had us looking ******* retarded.

Basically y’all wanna ***** about the merch all day just cause with adidas you’re buying like 10 less shirts over a decade lol. Go to dymelyfe and buy something then. **** buy the clear Miami Hurricane gear Nike is bringing back without paying us.

Once again, you bull****. You bull**** because that's all you've got. You bull**** because you know nothing.

As always, you make ad hominem arguments, because you've got nothing. I'm not trying to trash YOU, I don't care about you at all. I will, though, destroy your bullcrap argument. And before you go whining about what I did say about YOU, I just pointed out that you are a loyal foot-soldier for Beta Blake James and his false arguments about the adidas pot of gold under the rainbow. There may be other subjects on which you can contribute truthful and accurate points, but this isn't one of them.

And as for @Rellyrell , don't go putting words in his mouth. He has never once been "unwilling to say that we would have actually made more money under Nike". In fact, he has pretty much said the opposite. Does he have spreadsheet evidence? No he does not. But do I know someone who knows the sales figures? Yes I do. And, yes, some of this depends on what the final royalty terms would have been and how aggressive Nike would have been. But just to use a simple example...if you put a UM design on, say, a Pegasus or a Jordan 1, IT WILL SELL MORE THAN A COMPARABLE ADIDAS SHOE, thus making us MORE ROYALTY MONEY. This isn't complicated. If you honestly believe that we would NOT HAVE sold more Nike merchandise over the last eight years than what we sold in adidas merchandise, then we can't even have a conversation. Simply stated, a higher sales volume on a royalty model would have yielded us MORE MONEY.

And, hey, if you don't want to take my word for it, go back into this thread. Multiple posters have said that they DID NOT purchase any adidas merch (excpet for perhaps the Boost) during the past 8 years. Why? Did our colors change? Did the logo change? If people don't like adidas, they don't like adidas. If people don't want to buy adidas gear, they won't buy adidas gear. That doesn't mean people stopped buying stuff. As has been pointed out, you can buy other brands who put the U on merch. So, just right there, you have an immediate impairment of volume by people who would buy Nike but would not buy adidas. AND THIS ISN'T UNIQUE TO MIAMI FANS. Multiple schools have learned the same hard lesson, when switching FROM Nike to go to (literally) any other non-Nike company. The money sounds nice, until you check the sales figures. This is not about me being a "Nike loyalist", this is about me talking to people who actually know what the numbers are (both now and in the past).

Finally, as per usual, you go back to the argument that means the least, and one that I haven't bothered to make in quite some time. "The uniforms were crap". Again, I won't belabor the fact that I ALSO TRACED the poor oversight of the last few Nike designs to our TERRIBLE Athletic Directors, one of whom was your idol, Beta Blake James. Nobody is arguing that the last few Nike uniforms were the best. But unlike you, I'm not some childish little product of going to school at UM in the late-aughts when it comes time to analyze EVERYTHING in that limited 4-year-window of a prism. I know very well what we had under Russell. I know what happened when UM became the FIRST UNIVERSITY IN THE NATION to sign a Nike-exclusive deal. We had plenty of great uniforms, plenty of great merchandise, plenty of great support from Nike and Russell when Sam Jankovich and Paul Dee were the ADs at Miami.

And don't give me crap about Miami "being bad at football" over the past 8 years. We still sold a ton of Nike merch from 2005-2015. And we have had a couple of "irrational exuberance" purchasing periods, when Richt was hired (and we made the ACC-CG), when Manny was hired, and now when Mario has been hired. Stop acting like we sell merch like we're Vanderbilt or something.

Keep turning this into a personal battle. It's ridiculous. This has nothing to do with whether I PERSONALLY want to go back to Nike. That is obvious. But my point of view means nothing in the big picture. NUMBERS DON'T LIE. You can sit here and trumpet the ONE DIMENSION of the up-front annual payment from adidas, while the rest of the building burns down. Sales are down. Interest is down. Designs are crap. Annual shoe offerings are mostly crap (unless its's an Ultraboost model).

And that's the thing. While every intelligent far-sighted university (not named Miami) continues to dump the adidas and Under Armour deals, you keep showing up like clockwork to tell us how awesome this deal was 8 years ago. In spite of how adidas tried to underpay us. In spite of the FBI investigation. In spite of Kanye. In spite of the poor sales. In spite of the terrible designs. In spite of saving the best designs for "team-only" release. IN SPITE OF THE OVERALL NUMBERS.

But, yeah, keep telling us about Beta Blake's one shining moment back in 2015, when he really stuck it to Nike. Continue to mock those of us who have both personal AND BUSINESS reasons for wanting to go back to our original FIRST-IN-THE-NATION relationship. And keep denying what the world around us sees, that Nike is DESTROYING adidas in the marketplace.

You want to make fun of the UM jerseys at the end of the Nike partnership? Hold my beer, and let me show you some of the ****** shoes that adidas has produced for Miami.



This was a special-edition "bowl game" shoe:

This was the special UM "ZX 5000" model:

This is the terrible UM "Supernova":

The even worse UM Pro Bounce Low:

And please allow me to say, I OWN EVERY ONE OF THE SHOES PICTURED ABOVE. And while they all look terrible, with the exception of the bowl-game AlphaBounce, THEY FIT EVEN WORSE THAN THEY LOOK. It's as if adidas paid a bunch of blind Asian children to both design and construct those shoes.

So, from now on, just keep your mouth shut when it comes to "the last few Nike jerseys" that they produced (and you conveniently forget about the FIRST BATCH of adidas jerseys). Because the adidas shoes are far FAR worse.

AND ADIDAS IS A SHOE COMPANY. But, hey, adidas is really knocking it out of the park with a basic jersey using block letters and simple sleeve stripes. Kudos. We could pay Russell to make a jersey comparable to what adidas has given us since the "feather sleeves".



THANKS ADIDAS, YOU MAKE A GREAT JERSEY THAT NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY REPLICATE...

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I promise u, the sales will be spike outrageously.

Exactly.

But calinative betablakestan is going to keep telling us about some annual guaranteed amount from 8 years ago.

 

[Calinative]

Once again, you bull****. You bull**** because that's all you've got. You bull**** because you know nothing.

As always, you make ad hominem arguments, because you've got nothing. I'm not trying to trash YOU, I don't care about you at all. I will, though, destroy your bullcrap argument. And before you go whining about what I did say about YOU, I just pointed out that you are a loyal foot-soldier for Beta Blake James and his false arguments about the adidas pot of gold under the rainbow. There may be other subjects on which you can contribute truthful and accurate points, but this isn't one of them.

And as for @Rellyrell , don't go putting words in his mouth. He has never once been "unwilling to say that we would have actually made more money under Nike". In fact, he has pretty much said the opposite. Does he have spreadsheet evidence? No he does not. But do I know someone who knows the sales figures? Yes I do. And, yes, some of this depends on what the final royalty terms would have been and how aggressive Nike would have been. But just to use a simple example...if you put a UM design on, say, a Pegasus or a Jordan 1, IT WILL SELL MORE THAN A COMPARABLE ADIDAS SHOE, thus making us MORE ROYALTY MONEY. This isn't complicated. If you honestly believe that we would NOT HAVE sold more Nike merchandise over the last eight years than what we sold in adidas merchandise, then we can't even have a conversation. Simply stated, a higher sales volume on a royalty model would have yielded us MORE MONEY.

And, hey, if you don't want to take my word for it, go back into this thread. Multiple posters have said that they DID NOT purchase any adidas merch (excpet for perhaps the Boost) during the past 8 years. Why? Did our colors change? Did the logo change? If people don't like adidas, they don't like adidas. If people don't want to buy adidas gear, they won't buy adidas gear. That doesn't mean people stopped buying stuff. As has been pointed out, you can buy other brands who put the U on merch. So, just right there, you have an immediate impairment of volume by people who would buy Nike but would not buy adidas. AND THIS ISN'T UNIQUE TO MIAMI FANS. Multiple schools have learned the same hard lesson, when switching FROM Nike to go to (literally) any other non-Nike company. The money sounds nice, until you check the sales figures. This is not about me being a "Nike loyalist", this is about me talking to people who actually know what the numbers are (both now and in the past).

Finally, as per usual, you go back to the argument that means the least, and one that I haven't bothered to make in quite some time. "The uniforms were crap". Again, I won't belabor the fact that I ALSO TRACED the poor oversight of the last few Nike designs to our TERRIBLE Athletic Directors, one of whom was your idol, Beta Blake James. Nobody is arguing that the last few Nike uniforms were the best. But unlike you, I'm not some childish little product of going to school at UM in the late-aughts when it comes time to analyze EVERYTHING in that limited 4-year-window of a prism. I know very well what we had under Russell. I know what happened when UM became the FIRST UNIVERSITY IN THE NATION to sign a Nike-exclusive deal. We had plenty of great uniforms, plenty of great merchandise, plenty of great support from Nike and Russell when Sam Jankovich and Paul Dee were the ADs at Miami.

And don't give me crap about Miami "being bad at football" over the past 8 years. We still sold a ton of Nike merch from 2005-2015. And we have had a couple of "irrational exuberance" purchasing periods, when Richt was hired (and we made the ACC-CG), when Manny was hired, and now when Mario has been hired. Stop acting like we sell merch like we're Vanderbilt or something.

Keep turning this into a personal battle. It's ridiculous. This has nothing to do with whether I PERSONALLY want to go back to Nike. That is obvious. But my point of view means nothing in the big picture. NUMBERS DON'T LIE. You can sit here and trumpet the ONE DIMENSION of the up-front annual payment from adidas, while the rest of the building burns down. Sales are down. Interest is down. Designs are crap. Annual shoe offerings are mostly crap (unless its's an Ultraboost model).

And that's the thing. While every intelligent far-sighted university (not named Miami) continues to dump the adidas and Under Armour deals, you keep showing up like clockwork to tell us how awesome this deal was 8 years ago. In spite of how adidas tried to underpay us. In spite of the FBI investigation. In spite of Kanye. In spite of the poor sales. In spite of the terrible designs. In spite of saving the best designs for "team-only" release. IN SPITE OF THE OVERALL NUMBERS.

But, yeah, keep telling us about Beta Blake's one shining moment back in 2015, when he really stuck it to Nike. Continue to mock those of us who have both personal AND BUSINESS reasons for wanting to go back to our original FIRST-IN-THE-NATION relationship. And keep denying what the world around us sees, that Nike is DESTROYING adidas in the marketplace.

You want to make fun of the UM jerseys at the end of the Nike partnership? Hold my beer, and let me show you some of the ****** shoes that adidas has produced for Miami.



This was a special-edition "bowl game" shoe:
View attachment 233479



This was the special UM "ZX 5000" model:
View attachment 233480



This is the terrible UM "Supernova":
View attachment 233481



The even worse UM Pro Bounce Low:
View attachment 233482




And please allow me to say, I OWN EVERY ONE OF THE SHOES PICTURED ABOVE. And while they all look terrible, with the exception of the bowl-game AlphaBounce, THEY FIT EVEN WORSE THAN THEY LOOK. It's as if adidas paid a bunch of blind Asian children to both design and construct those shoes.

So, from now on, just keep your mouth shut when it comes to "the last few Nike jerseys" that they produced (and you conveniently forget about the FIRST BATCH of adidas jerseys). Because the adidas shoes are far FAR worse.

AND ADIDAS IS A SHOE COMPANY. But, hey, adidas is really knocking it out of the park with a basic jersey using block letters and simple sleeve stripes. Kudos. We could pay Russell to make a jersey comparable to what adidas has given us since the "feather sleeves".



THANKS ADIDAS, YOU MAKE A GREAT JERSEY THAT NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY REPLICATE...
View attachment 233486

Man You love to talk and say basically nothing regarding what my actual point is. I’ve said I disagreed with the contract length. That is the biggest issue with the adidas agreement. If this deal would have been up, I really wouldn’t have had many problems with switching from Nike who clearly didn’t value us all that much when we were renegotiating.. I’m not a Blake James fanboy lol, but keep pushing your made up narrative. Apparently with your tiny brain you have to hate everything about a guy otherwise your I love with him. It’s weird.
Im glad we agree Adidas payed us way more than Nike. I never said we wouldn’t make more in royalties from Nike than Adidas. I never said we wouldn’t sell more volume from Nike than adidas. I said can you state for certain we would have made more TOTAL with what Nike was offering. The answer was, “well if you compare Alabama….” Lol. As if we are gunna sell merch like Bama when they just had an absolute dynasty and we were objectively pretty trash. Not to mention we don’t have anywhere near the size of their alumni base… the answer is obvious, that we very likely have STILL made more with Adidas than we would have under Nike.

And again I really don’t give a **** what Nike did for us 20+ years ago when the last ******* 2 uniform combos they gave us had us looking like clowns. At least Rellyrell makes points that aren’t financial. Those I agree with. But then again the biggest non-financial point for me is what are the actual uniforms we are wearing, which imo Nike gave us trash and Adidas has given a great uniform. I value that + more money more than some fans on a forum *****ing about merch not being the best lol. Because while some of y’all Nike loyalists clearly care a lot, the majority of fans buying merch really arent nearly as invested. They buy the jersey/shirt/whatever. I do find it weird some of y’all can’t understand the thought that someone wouldn’t drop to their knees for any deal Nike offered us. If tomorrow Nike or Jordan came to us with a **** deal and trash uniform like last time, I’d still rather stick with Adidas have better uniforms and more money.

 

[The U is back to work]

99.9% of the shoes in these 74 pages are so **** hideous

 

[Calinative]

Actually I’ve stated that “paying more” is from an upfront $$ amount.

I’ve been very consistent that:

1. Nike allowed us to shop our deal
2. Nike chose not to match Adidas’ compensation
3. I gave the example of how up front $$ does not not necessarily mean more $$ b/c typically Nike’s contracts r filled w/ escalators that enhance back end $$ (& I used Bama as an example)

Finally, I’ve stated numerous times that more $$ ≠ better simply b/c u also have to factor in image, branding, effects on recruiting. I’ve also gave Tennessee as an example who chose less $$ from Nike to sign w/ to enhance all of the above.

I’ve shared privately what has happened w/ UCLA and how even though they lost $90m in up front total cash & uniform compensation from UA ******** them over + the new structured deal w/ Jordan Brand, they will overcome that $90m deficit much quicker than anticipated b/c escalators have been kicking in, & the merchandise sales have spiked exponentially.

I also know there’s one recruit from the 2023 class who chose a Nike affiliated school despite Mario giving his best efforts, & there’s a good chance 2 more from this class will be doing the same thing despite love tweets that’s been posted & visits coming. One I commented on, the two from this class I won’t blow up there spot.

So all in all, yes Adidas paid more upfront $$, & they also said all the right things to secure us, except they did the first wrong thing in just 5 months into our contract & it went straight over Blakes’ head. I’ve stated 1000x on here, switching didn’t make sense b/c of how the contract was structured for the length of time, especially now since it’s been posted how “unbroke” the school really was. It truly didn’t make sense.

What I agree w/ is if u’re going to make the switch, u don’t do a funky 12-yr deal. U do 6, 8, no more than 10. The reason, imo, that Blake did 12 is b/c it was a comfort deal where Miami can maintain mediocrity while being compensated as a tier 1 (And for that, I’m not mad), but it’s come w/ consequences which finally got exposed.

Again more $$ ≠ better, that’s all I’ve been stating along w/ back end $$ can trump up front $$.

Yes, so you won’t state that we would have made more money from Nike. And given how bad we have been at football these last 8 years, I doubt we would have been some top 10 merch seller that it would take to offset the SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER up front money Nike was offering. Sure backend money can make up for lower front end money. Doesn’t mean it would have for us.

Your reasons for preferring Nike have basically nothing to do with money. I disagree that branding and football recruiting are impacted even 1/10th as much as **** uniforms - which Nike had us wearing their last 2 redesigns. Maybe basketball recruiting.

And again for like the 100th time I agree the length is a killer with the Adidas deal. I just straight up don’t give nearly as much of a **** as y’all seem to a bout your perceived quality of merch. Again YOU think our current uniforms and merch and branding are trash and it offsets more money. I think current uniforms are better, don’t care as much about the merch, and agree the branding is worse. Point is I don’t think that offsets the extra money. And if in this alternate scenario the deal was only 8 years, I think it wouldn’t have even been close. Adidas would have been the far superior deal. But we had a trash AD so that didn’t happen. Hopefully Rad can get us an objectively great deal with Nike or Jordan. And if they lowball us? Guess what I’d be right back to Adidas

Lastly, I really don’t get why y’all can’t just accept people aren’t as loyal to Nike and can possibly not hate adidas lol.

 

[Rellyrell]

Once again, you bull****. You bull**** because that's all you've got. You bull**** because you know nothing.

As always, you make ad hominem arguments, because you've got nothing. I'm not trying to trash YOU, I don't care about you at all. I will, though, destroy your bullcrap argument. And before you go whining about what I did say about YOU, I just pointed out that you are a loyal foot-soldier for Beta Blake James and his false arguments about the adidas pot of gold under the rainbow. There may be other subjects on which you can contribute truthful and accurate points, but this isn't one of them.

And as for @Rellyrell , don't go putting words in his mouth. He has never once been "unwilling to say that we would have actually made more money under Nike". In fact, he has pretty much said the opposite. Does he have spreadsheet evidence? No he does not. But do I know someone who knows the sales figures? Yes I do. And, yes, some of this depends on what the final royalty terms would have been and how aggressive Nike would have been. But just to use a simple example...if you put a UM design on, say, a Pegasus or a Jordan 1, IT WILL SELL MORE THAN A COMPARABLE ADIDAS SHOE, thus making us MORE ROYALTY MONEY. This isn't complicated. If you honestly believe that we would NOT HAVE sold more Nike merchandise over the last eight years than what we sold in adidas merchandise, then we can't even have a conversation. Simply stated, a higher sales volume on a royalty model would have yielded us MORE MONEY.

And, hey, if you don't want to take my word for it, go back into this thread. Multiple posters have said that they DID NOT purchase any adidas merch (excpet for perhaps the Boost) during the past 8 years. Why? Did our colors change? Did the logo change? If people don't like adidas, they don't like adidas. If people don't want to buy adidas gear, they won't buy adidas gear. That doesn't mean people stopped buying stuff. As has been pointed out, you can buy other brands who put the U on merch. So, just right there, you have an immediate impairment of volume by people who would buy Nike but would not buy adidas. AND THIS ISN'T UNIQUE TO MIAMI FANS. Multiple schools have learned the same hard lesson, when switching FROM Nike to go to (literally) any other non-Nike company. The money sounds nice, until you check the sales figures. This is not about me being a "Nike loyalist", this is about me talking to people who actually know what the numbers are (both now and in the past).

Finally, as per usual, you go back to the argument that means the least, and one that I haven't bothered to make in quite some time. "The uniforms were crap". Again, I won't belabor the fact that I ALSO TRACED the poor oversight of the last few Nike designs to our TERRIBLE Athletic Directors, one of whom was your idol, Beta Blake James. Nobody is arguing that the last few Nike uniforms were the best. But unlike you, I'm not some childish little product of going to school at UM in the late-aughts when it comes time to analyze EVERYTHING in that limited 4-year-window of a prism. I know very well what we had under Russell. I know what happened when UM became the FIRST UNIVERSITY IN THE NATION to sign a Nike-exclusive deal. We had plenty of great uniforms, plenty of great merchandise, plenty of great support from Nike and Russell when Sam Jankovich and Paul Dee were the ADs at Miami.

And don't give me crap about Miami "being bad at football" over the past 8 years. We still sold a ton of Nike merch from 2005-2015. And we have had a couple of "irrational exuberance" purchasing periods, when Richt was hired (and we made the ACC-CG), when Manny was hired, and now when Mario has been hired. Stop acting like we sell merch like we're Vanderbilt or something.

Keep turning this into a personal battle. It's ridiculous. This has nothing to do with whether I PERSONALLY want to go back to Nike. That is obvious. But my point of view means nothing in the big picture. NUMBERS DON'T LIE. You can sit here and trumpet the ONE DIMENSION of the up-front annual payment from adidas, while the rest of the building burns down. Sales are down. Interest is down. Designs are crap. Annual shoe offerings are mostly crap (unless its's an Ultraboost model).

And that's the thing. While every intelligent far-sighted university (not named Miami) continues to dump the adidas and Under Armour deals, you keep showing up like clockwork to tell us how awesome this deal was 8 years ago. In spite of how adidas tried to underpay us. In spite of the FBI investigation. In spite of Kanye. In spite of the poor sales. In spite of the terrible designs. In spite of saving the best designs for "team-only" release. IN SPITE OF THE OVERALL NUMBERS.

But, yeah, keep telling us about Beta Blake's one shining moment back in 2015, when he really stuck it to Nike. Continue to mock those of us who have both personal AND BUSINESS reasons for wanting to go back to our original FIRST-IN-THE-NATION relationship. And keep denying what the world around us sees, that Nike is DESTROYING adidas in the marketplace.

You want to make fun of the UM jerseys at the end of the Nike partnership? Hold my beer, and let me show you some of the ****** shoes that adidas has produced for Miami.



This was a special-edition "bowl game" shoe:
View attachment 233479



This was the special UM "ZX 5000" model:
View attachment 233480



This is the terrible UM "Supernova":
View attachment 233481



The even worse UM Pro Bounce Low:
View attachment 233482




And please allow me to say, I OWN EVERY ONE OF THE SHOES PICTURED ABOVE. And while they all look terrible, with the exception of the bowl-game AlphaBounce, THEY FIT EVEN WORSE THAN THEY LOOK. It's as if adidas paid a bunch of blind Asian children to both design and construct those shoes.

So, from now on, just keep your mouth shut when it comes to "the last few Nike jerseys" that they produced (and you conveniently forget about the FIRST BATCH of adidas jerseys). Because the adidas shoes are far FAR worse.

AND ADIDAS IS A SHOE COMPANY. But, hey, adidas is really knocking it out of the park with a basic jersey using block letters and simple sleeve stripes. Kudos. We could pay Russell to make a jersey comparable to what adidas has given us since the "feather sleeves".



THANKS ADIDAS, YOU MAKE A GREAT JERSEY THAT NOBODY COULD POSSIBLY REPLICATE...
View attachment 233486

Can’t lie, I was taken aback when the words were put in my mouth. I’ve been very consistent that Adidas paid us more up front $$ than Nike was willing to match. ****, even UA didn’t match it. I’ve always stated more $$ upfront ≠ better deal. It may be better in the initial or the interim, but long term how Nike’s business models have been with both endorsements of clubs, teams, and individual players, the backend $$ have the potential to exceed that upfront $$.

Go ask Magic how he felt turning down back end $$ from Nike vs. taking up front $$ from Converse. He’ll tell u that he lost about $4b in revenue by looking at the up front figures. I specifically used Alabama as an example showing how even though on paper their contract is minuscule compared to our contract, the escalators + royalties dwarfs the total compensation between the two schools.

My point of contention was seeing the bigger picture vs. short sighted views. Saying Adidas paid us more, ergo it’s a better deal is thee most Straw man, short sighted argument going on this board. The other argument is that Nike treated us bad to justify this move was another point of contention. I’ve highlighted how besides the University of Oregon, no other program besides us had more jersey designs, combos, updated templates, helmets, shoe color ways; not Michigan, OSU, VaTech, any of them. U can debate about some of the designs that weren’t favorable, but it’s the notion of we were a 2nd thought that irked me.

I’ve heard we practiced w/ torn jerseys; to that, I’ve highlighted that schools have the option to convert equipment $$ into pure cash. UCLA is doing that next season, from what I understand, to help off-set the punitive damages created from UA. W/o confirmation, just assuming from the inner workings from the past regimes, I’m going to assume they made an executive decision to limit equipment products, & convert to cash…plus, u had an equipment mgr stealing product to cash in on.

The funniest part about this back n forth u’re doing w/ @calinative umstudent, K, is u were very pro Adidas & Fck Nike. I still remember when we first linked & all I said started coming to fruition & we discussed it privately. Ur eyes became open like “oh chit, this chit is not as pretty as Adidas x Blake is making it seem.” Poor product release, having chit on their website for purchase, just to get an email saying it was a mistake; ****, I bull chit u not, Texas A&M’s site had Indiana University T-shirts posted for sale!!! I guess b/c some tech saw red & said fck it, it matches. Lol.

Anyways, I know this:

Adidas branded schools record from 2022-23 (FBS Only):
237-278 (3 conference champions: UTSA, Fresno, Troy)

Nike/JB branded schools record from 2022-23 (FBS Only):
504-410 (6 conference champions: Clemson, UGA, KSU, UofM, Tulane, Toledo)

Do with this as u will, but perception matters, & so does branding.

 

[Rellyrell]

Yes, so you won’t state that we would have made more money from Nike. And given how bad we have been at football these last 8 years, I doubt we would have been some top 10 merch seller that it would take to offset the SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER up front money Nike was offering. Sure backend money can make up for lower front end money. Doesn’t mean it would have for us.

Your reasons for preferring Nike have basically nothing to do with money. I disagree that branding and football recruiting are impacted even 1/10th as much as **** uniforms - which Nike had us wearing their last 2 redesigns. Maybe basketball recruiting.

And again for like the 100th time I agree the length is a killer with the Adidas deal. I just straight up don’t give nearly as much of a **** as y’all seem to a bout your perceived quality of merch. Again YOU think our current uniforms and merch and branding are trash and it offsets more money. I think current uniforms are better, don’t care as much about the merch, and agree the branding is worse. Point is I don’t think that offsets the extra money. And if in this alternate scenario the deal was only 8 years, I think it wouldn’t have even been close. Adidas would have been the far superior deal. But we had a trash AD so that didn’t happen. Hopefully Rad can get us an objectively great deal with Nike or Jordan. And if they lowball us? Guess what I’d be right back to Adidas

Lastly, I really don’t get why y’all can’t just accept people aren’t as loyal to Nike and can possibly not hate adidas lol.

¿Que Dijo?

Listen, when I tell u I know PERSONALLY that a recruit chose a Nike branded school b/c it was a Nike branded school, and u’re rebuttal is I disagree w/ that; like how can u disagree w/ a fact? Lol.

How about this; how bout I provide some unbiased data & u tell me if u see Adidas in any of these polls:

Gen Z's Favorite Brands 2022 | Morning Consult

The definitive measure of Gen Z brand favorability, showcasing the companies and products that earned high marks with Gen Z in 2022

morningconsult.com

https://www.comparably.com/news/best-brands-of-2021-according-to-gen-z-millennials/

How about we look at clothing brands: Notice Nike maintained its top spot, notice that Nike’s fashion house collaborator has moved in to #2. U know what used to be # 2? Gucci. U know who Gucci linked up w/? Adidas. Notice how both Gucci & Adidas dropped their respective spots simultaneously.

Apparel 50 2023 | Brand Value Ranking League Table | Brandirectory

The annual report on the most valuable and strongest apparel brands

brandirectory.com

U can feel the way u do, and I’ll tell u’re dead wrong. I’ve said many times that branding, wait for it, can have an effect on recruiting.
So again, I’ll post another unbiased link so u can read for urself that I literally just stumbled across. And for the record, our uniforms have been horrible from aesthetics.

Should a School's Brand Deal Influence Where Recruits Commit? | 2aDays

Three main athletic apparel brands dominate the NCAA Division I landscape: Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. Although schools will transition between these

www.2adays.com

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Man You love to talk and say basically nothing regarding what my actual point is. I’ve said I disagreed with the contract length. That is the biggest issue with the adidas agreement. If this deal would have been up, I really wouldn’t have had many problems with switching from Nike who clearly didn’t value us all that much when we were renegotiating.. I’m not a Blake James fanboy lol, but keep pushing your made up narrative. Apparently with your tiny brain you have to hate everything about a guy otherwise your I love with him. It’s weird.
Im glad we agree Adidas payed us way more than Nike. I never said we wouldn’t make more in royalties from Nike than Adidas. I never said we wouldn’t sell more volume from Nike than adidas. I said can you state for certain we would have made more TOTAL with what Nike was offering. The answer was, “well if you compare Alabama….” Lol. As if we are gunna sell merch like Bama when they just had an absolute dynasty and we were objectively pretty trash. Not to mention we don’t have anywhere near the size of their alumni base… the answer is obvious, that we very likely have STILL made more with Adidas than we would have under Nike.

And again I really don’t give a **** what Nike did for us 20+ years ago when the last ******* 2 uniform combos they gave us had us looking like clowns. At least Rellyrell makes points that aren’t financial. Those I agree with. But then again the biggest non-financial point for me is what are the actual uniforms we are wearing, which imo Nike gave us trash and Adidas has given a great uniform. I value that + more money more than some fans on a forum *****ing about merch not being the best lol. Because while some of y’all Nike loyalists clearly care a lot, the majority of fans buying merch really arent nearly as invested. They buy the jersey/shirt/whatever. I do find it weird some of y’all can’t understand the thought that someone wouldn’t drop to their knees for any deal Nike offered us. If tomorrow Nike or Jordan came to us with a **** deal and trash uniform like last time, I’d still rather stick with Adidas have better uniforms and more money.

Look, I've tried to stick to the topics, but I have to say it.

You are a liar. You are stating falsehoods over and over and over again.

First, you have rarely (if ever, and maaaaybe recently) said anything about "the length of the contract". The first, second, and third arguments out of your mouth CONSISTENTLY have been the nonsense about how much money we got paid. So you can say "duration" is the "biggest issue with the adidas agreement", but that doesn't even matter, because YOU have ALWAYS made it about the annual guaranteed payments. That's just the truth. You have ALWAYS told the misleading story about how we got soooooo much more money from adidas.

As for you and Blake James, I don't give a **** about all of your misleading misdirection. The fact is, you parrot Beta Blake's false statements about the money, therefore you are supporting him. I don't need a lengthy point-by-point summary of everything you liked and didn't like about Beta Blake. The fact remains, if you CONTINUE to repeat his lies once everything has been exposed, then you have adopted his lies. Everything else is just you running your mouth trying to distance yourself from an AD who was FIRED for his misfeasance and malfeasance.

And, again, you try to put your FALSE WORDS into my mouth the same way you did with @Rellyrell . No. It's simply NOT TRUE that "we agree" on anything regarding payments to UM. You are DELIBERATELY trying to mislead people by focusing on the "annual" number and IGNORING and BELITTLING the royalty flow that would have come from a Nike contract. Not to mention trying to muddy the waters with your "but we sucked at football" misdirection. As I pointed out, we sucked from 2005 to 2015 and we still sold a TON of Nike merch. And the sales volume has continued to DECLINE under adidas. The funniest part is that you have no idea who I know, and that the person I've talked to about Nike vs. adidas sales volume is about as authoritative as they come. So keep speculating about how we wouldn't have sold **** if we had kept Nike, a guy who should know (and has been doing it for decades) directly contradicts your baseless speculation.

I'm not going to go point-by-point on your ONGOING LIES. Like the crap you spew about how "adidas has given us a great uniform", when multiple people with more knowledge than you have CONSISTENTLY rebutted this falsehood. Sure, maybe on a hanger the adidas replica jersey looks nice, but there has been YEARS WORTH of discussion on how badly the actual PLAYERS' jerseys are in real life. How they do not fit right, hold their shape, hold their numbers and logos, etc. So just stop lying about this "great adidas jersey". IT'S NOT. If you actually knew anyone at UM anymore, or any players, you could get the truth in about five minutes, but you just don't give a **** about the truth, so you don't care to learn.

Thank goodness that @Rellyrell is an honest person who tells the truth. As he accurately points out, I once (mistakenly) believed that the adidas deal was a good one and paid us a lot of money, until I found out what was really going on. So stop pretending that I'm saying what I'm saying because I love Nike so much. I want UM to be paid more and sadly (and belatedly) I have realized that we would have made a lot more money over the past 8 years if we had chosen to stay with Nike.

Fortunately, you are a nobody with no connections and no impact on any of the UM decision-makers, so you can continue to spin your lies about the big money that adidas pays or the amazing quality of the adidas junk, and it won't have any bearing on anything.

But could you at least STOP LYING? Literally, everything you have said has been disproven and/or rebutted, and now you are falsely claiming that @Rellyrell and I have said things that we never actually said. JUST STOP LYING.

 

[Calinative]

¿Que Dijo?

Listen, when I tell u I know PERSONALLY that a recruit chose a Nike branded school b/c it was a Nike branded school, and u’re rebuttal is I disagree w/ that; like how can u disagree w/ a fact? Lol.

How about this; how bout I provide some unbiased data & u tell me if u see Adidas in any of these polls:

Gen Z's Favorite Brands 2022 | Morning Consult

The definitive measure of Gen Z brand favorability, showcasing the companies and products that earned high marks with Gen Z in 2022

morningconsult.com

https://www.comparably.com/news/best-brands-of-2021-according-to-gen-z-millennials/

How about we look at clothing brands: Notice Nike maintained its top spot, notice that Nike’s fashion house collaborator has moved in to #2. U know what used to be # 2? Gucci. U know who Gucci linked up w/? Adidas. Notice how both Gucci & Adidas dropped their respective spots simultaneously.

Apparel 50 2023 | Brand Value Ranking League Table | Brandirectory

The annual report on the most valuable and strongest apparel brands

brandirectory.com

U can feel the way u do, and I’ll tell u’re dead wrong. I’ve said many times that branding, wait for it, can have an effect on recruiting.
So again, I’ll post another unbiased link so u can read for urself that I literally just stumbled across. And for the record, our uniforms have been horrible from aesthetics.

Should a School's Brand Deal Influence Where Recruits Commit? | 2aDays

Three main athletic apparel brands dominate the NCAA Division I landscape: Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour. Although schools will transition between these

www.2adays.com

My response to the one recruit you say we lost for football is - Who cares? Seriously idk why it is that complicated. If us being Adidas in football is the sole reason we aren't getting a recruit, I really don't care. Unlike Basketball, one recruit doesn't make or break a football team. And again, if you really read what I wrote I said I think that having garbage uniforms is worse than some perception problem that could eliminate us from a handful of football recruits, we probably weren't getting anyways. I never said you were lying or that I didn't believe you. I just don't care.

 

[Calinative]

Look, I've tried to stick to the topics, but I have to say it.

You are a liar. You are stating falsehoods over and over and over again.

First, you have rarely (if ever, and maaaaybe recently) said anything about "the length of the contract". The first, second, and third arguments out of your mouth CONSISTENTLY have been the nonsense about how much money we got paid. So you can say "duration" is the "biggest issue with the adidas agreement", but that doesn't even matter, because YOU have ALWAYS made it about the annual guaranteed payments. That's just the truth. You have ALWAYS told the misleading story about how we got soooooo much more money from adidas.

As for you and Blake James, I don't give a **** about all of your misleading misdirection. The fact is, you parrot Beta Blake's false statements about the money, therefore you are supporting him. I don't need a lengthy point-by-point summary of everything you liked and didn't like about Beta Blake. The fact remains, if you CONTINUE to repeat his lies once everything has been exposed, then you have adopted his lies. Everything else is just you running your mouth trying to distance yourself from an AD who was FIRED for his misfeasance and malfeasance.

And, again, you try to put your FALSE WORDS into my mouth the same way you did with @Rellyrell . No. It's simply NOT TRUE that "we agree" on anything regarding payments to UM. You are DELIBERATELY trying to mislead people by focusing on the "annual" number and IGNORING and BELITTLING the royalty flow that would have come from a Nike contract. Not to mention trying to muddy the waters with your "but we sucked at football" misdirection. As I pointed out, we sucked from 2005 to 2015 and we still sold a TON of Nike merch. And the sales volume has continued to DECLINE under adidas. The funniest part is that you have no idea who I know, and that the person I've talked to about Nike vs. adidas sales volume is about as authoritative as they come. So keep speculating about how we wouldn't have sold **** if we had kept Nike, a guy who should know (and has been doing it for decades) directly contradicts your baseless speculation.

I'm not going to go point-by-point on your ONGOING LIES. Like the crap you spew about how "adidas has given us a great uniform", when multiple people with more knowledge than you have CONSISTENTLY rebutted this falsehood. Sure, maybe on a hanger the adidas replica jersey looks nice, but there has been YEARS WORTH of discussion on how badly the actual PLAYERS' jerseys are in real life. How they do not fit right, hold their shape, hold their numbers and logos, etc. So just stop lying about this "great adidas jersey". IT'S NOT. If you actually knew anyone at UM anymore, or any players, you could get the truth in about five minutes, but you just don't give a **** about the truth, so you don't care to learn.

Thank goodness that @Rellyrell is an honest person who tells the truth. As he accurately points out, I once (mistakenly) believed that the adidas deal was a good one and paid us a lot of money, until I found out what was really going on. So stop pretending that I'm saying what I'm saying because I love Nike so much. I want UM to be paid more and sadly (and belatedly) I have realized that we would have made a lot more money over the past 8 years if we had chosen to stay with Nike.

Fortunately, you are a nobody with no connections and no impact on any of the UM decision-makers, so you can continue to spin your lies about the big money that adidas pays or the amazing quality of the adidas junk, and it won't have any bearing on anything.

But could you at least STOP LYING? Literally, everything you have said has been disproven and/or rebutted, and now you are falsely claiming that @Rellyrell and I have said things that we never actually said. JUST STOP LYING.

I honest to God think you're making up your own argument for what I'm saying and then debating that. Yeah man I'm spinning up a web of lies lol. I know **** well you're just one of them always right people. Don't even care what the other people actually says, you just Insult+say whatever the **** you were gunna say anyways+and then just continue on being a **** who acts like just because you said something it makes it right lol.

Nike deal

Most schools sign apparel deals for anywhere from 8-12 years. Miami signed on the longer end of that span, and even then, with the money Adidas was offering at the time, along with the escalator clauses and the like(Which Miami legal should have known about, seeing that they helped draw up the...

www.canesinsight.com

Notice I've been saying literally the exact same thing for a year.

Now, I'll ask the same ******* question I asked a year ago that you avoided like the ******* plague:

After 8 years of being signed with Adidas, after you account for Up-Front payments, Equipment, Royalties, and whatever the **** else you want to count, Have we made more MONEY from Adidas than we would have with Nike? This has been the one ******* question I asked a year ago that yall never wanted to answer (which is an answer by itself). Since you are such and insider and know so many people, answer that question. Yall wanna keep saying "apples to oranges" acting like you can't estimate what it would take in merch sales (top 5? top 10? top 25? top 100?) to earn enough from royalties on the backend to offset the substantially higher up front money from Adidas. I've never seen such a simple and easy to understand question get spun so ******* hard acting like it's as complicated as the moon landing to figure out. Go look through that thread again and see if I was open to believing yall as insiders if you were to say that the total money would have been higher from Nike lol. I was 100% willing to accept that, yet yall have repeatedly refused to say so. Lol, doesn't take a ******* rocket surgeon to assume why.

Secondly, I've already made abundantly clear I really don't give a **** what argument yall make regarding merch quality or uniform quality. If yall want to say THAT is the reason Nikes contract was better than Adidas, go right the **** ahead. But that doesn't make it a fact, that makes it an opinion regarding what is more important. And for over a year now I have been saying the contract length was bad - and the proof is right there in those comments from a year ago. ... but I'm the one lying, right? lol.

Anyways I'll just keep wishing for the best outcome for the school and that we'll get as much money as possible, whether that be from Nike or Adidas. I personally hope it's Jordan.

 

[Rellyrell]

I honest to God think you're making up your own argument for what I'm saying and then debating that. Yeah man I'm spinning up a web of lies lol. I know **** well you're just one of them always right people. Don't even care what the other people actually says, you just Insult+say whatever the **** you were gunna say anyways+and then just continue on being a **** who acts like just because you said something it makes it right lol.

Nike deal

Most schools sign apparel deals for anywhere from 8-12 years. Miami signed on the longer end of that span, and even then, with the money Adidas was offering at the time, along with the escalator clauses and the like(Which Miami legal should have known about, seeing that they helped draw up the...

www.canesinsight.com

Notice I've been saying literally the exact same thing for a year.

Now, I'll ask the same ******* question I asked a year ago that you avoided like the ******* plague:

After 8 years of being signed with Adidas, after you account for Up-Front payments, Equipment, Royalties, and whatever the **** else you want to count, Have we made more MONEY from Adidas than we would have with Nike? This has been the one ******* question I asked a year ago that yall never wanted to answer (which is an answer by itself). Since you are such and insider and know so many people, answer that question. Yall wanna keep saying "apples to oranges" acting like you can't estimate what it would take in merch sales (top 5? top 10? top 25? top 100?) to earn enough from royalties on the backend to offset the substantially higher up front money from Adidas. I've never seen such a simple and easy to understand question get spun so ******* hard acting like it's as complicated as the moon landing to figure out. Go look through that thread again and see if I was open to believing yall as insiders if you were to say that the total money would have been higher from Nike lol. I was 100% willing to accept that, yet yall have repeatedly refused to say so. Lol, doesn't take a ******* rocket surgeon to assume why.

Secondly, I've already made abundantly clear I really don't give a **** what argument yall make regarding merch quality or uniform quality. If yall want to say THAT is the reason Nikes contract was better than Adidas, go right the **** ahead. But that doesn't make it a fact, that makes it an opinion regarding what is more important. And for over a year now I have been saying the contract length was bad - and the proof is right there in those comments from a year ago. ... but I'm the one lying, right? lol.

Anyways I'll just keep wishing for the best outcome for the school and that we'll get as much money as possible, whether that be from Nike or Adidas. I personally hope it's Jordan.

So u want me to answer from 1987 - 2014 have Miami made more money w/ Nike than Adidas? Lol. Yes, we did.

All that other chit u talking bout, including that post link u included, I’m not even sure y u think u’re making a point.

What u parrot is not what was argued. U may “think” branding doesn’t play a role in recruiting, yet I provided an unbiased link that agreed w/ something I’ve said on a podcast before that article even came out. U may “think” we lost one recruit b/c of branding, & I can tell u that’s a lie. I only spoke of a personal one I knew, that had chit to do w/ other conversations I’ve had w/ others.

Again, small picture vs. big picture. I see big picture, I see that in all that I do b/c my profession doesn’t allow for small picture or I lose credibility & clientele.

But there’s a rule I have; I don’t go back & forths on matters I’m certain of. For the last time, yes Adidas gave us the most up front money in our history…bravo, but that didn’t mean it was a better deal simply b/c the lack of POTENTIAL back end $. As I stated in that post u provided, that meant Blake James actually had to get off his lazy *** to push excellence, yet he did what he always did, stayed Beta & retained the same guy who AWOL’d on him b/c he didn’t get the PSU job & proceeded to stink it up in 2014.