forums

Nike deal

Canedude08 said:
It sure as **** hasn't hurt Katie and L(When he had the program rolling). It hasn't hurt Dimare. You get a competent coach here in football, and they would be able to recruit at an acceptable level. There are plenty of kids that aren't married to brands, that can play. Find them.
Click to expand...
Majority of the kids going to Miami or these kind of schools prefer Jordan / Nike. That’s just facts. Every little bit helps in recruiting and this would help.
 
Advertisement
Cribby said:
Majority of the kids going to Miami or these kind of schools prefer Jordan / Nike. That’s just facts. Every little bit helps in recruiting and this would help.
Click to expand...
Kids follow trends. When Yeezy was crushing it, kids were all in. Now, people are migrating back to Jordans, despite them not having an original idea in well over 20 years. It's a cycle and what would help Miami more than the swoosh is hiring a top end coach and staff. Adidas with their additional support helps get us closer to that goal, compared to Nikes laughable offer.
 
Cribby said:
Majority of the kids going to Miami or these kind of schools prefer Jordan / Nike. That’s just facts. Every little bit helps in recruiting and this would help.
Click to expand...
Bro, it’s no point of reasoning. I mean we just had the ACC roadshow & the first thing one of the players from UNC said was when kids visit their campus, they show them the swag room w/ all the different Jordans they get & it helps.

Bro, I’ll just post this here since this is the latest Jordan Brand switch. Mind u, Jordan Brand is paying UCLA far less than UA’s contract,

247sports.com

The Jordan Brand Deal Should Have a Huge Impact on Recruiting

A deal that combines Nike, Jordan Brand and UCLA will have a huge impact in both UCLA football and basketball recruiting...
247sports.com 247sports.com
 
Advertisement
They did the Adidas deal cause they needed money. I have a hard time believing we are going to get out of the Adidas deal to take less money to go back to Nike. I don’t see Jordan a deal with ACC team cause UNC wouldn’t like that.
 
\
Rellyrell said:
Bro, it’s no point of reasoning. I mean we just had the ACC roadshow & the first thing one of the players from UNC said was when kids visit their campus, they show them the swag room w/ all the different Jordans they get & it helps.

Bro, I’ll just post this here since this is the latest Jordan Brand switch. Mind u, Jordan Brand is paying UCLA far less than UA’s contract,

247sports.com

The Jordan Brand Deal Should Have a Huge Impact on Recruiting

A deal that combines Nike, Jordan Brand and UCLA will have a huge impact in both UCLA football and basketball recruiting...
247sports.com 247sports.com
Click to expand...


All we get are dopey Hecht-adidas-Manny-Blake apologists making vague statements about more money, more support, and more merch. They tell us we can't trust our own eyes when we see things like UM merch on clearance or fewer UM offerings on Fanatics than what Nike schools are offering. They tell us not to trust what the recruits say or feel. They tell us to trust "their guy" and that the UM-adidas relationship has never been better.

Bunch of ******* lies.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Your vague, unspecific arguments are infuriating.

A "garbage" deal? WTF are you talking about? You have no idea what you are talking about. And you have no idea what the difference between "backloaded" and "incentive-driven" is.

Feel free to name ANY of the "schools with no national relevance whatsoever" who are getting better deals than Miami. Name these "complete garbage dump" programs.

You have no idea what the differences between a "cheap fanbase" and a "small fanbase" and a "national fanbase that buys UM merch when UM wins" are. And, yes, there ARE differences. Miami's fanbase is not "cheap". In fact, we probably spend more money, per capita, on merch than most state school fans do. BUT UCF'S ENROLLMENT IS FOUR TO FIVE TIMES LARGER THAN OURS. UCF'S ALUMNI BASE IS FOUR TO FIVE TIMES LARGER THAN OURS. Unlike you, I don't ignore facts and reality, and I don't get petty and call people "cheap".

But you keep yapping and yapping about things that you clearly don't understand.

Look, in a perfect world, it would be GREAT if there were a couple of other shoe companies that posed a serious competitive threat to Nike, and there was a roster of good schools signed on with a couple of shoe companies NOT named Nike. But, yeah, that is NOT the current reality. ****, I'd love to have a TV network other than ABC-ESPN too, but nobody is exactly lining up to cut huge checks to the ACC. So, yes, it sucks when there is really only one choice. I wish there was more competition. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO IGNORE REALITY AND RATIONALIZE TAKING A CHECK FROM THE SECOND-BEST SHOE COMPANY JUST BECAUSE MY FEELINGS WERE HURT BY THE BEST SHOE COMPANY.

And for the record, I use words for a reason. I am calling Nike the best company because they are the largest, the most stable, with the largest roster of endorsing athletes, with the largest roster of universities, with the best marketing, with the strongest market share and market reach. Any given adidas shoe can be fine, any given adidas jersey can be fine, but as a COMPANY, adidas is firmly stuck in second place behind Nike.

That's just reality.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about apparel contracts, but I’d think the fact that even in the last 5 years, Miami has played in several of the highest TV rated games matters to some degree. … the logo being on screen for 3.5 hrs in those situations must count for something
 
Advertisement
TallyCane said:
They did the Adidas deal cause they needed money. I have a hard time believing we are going to get out of the Adidas deal to take less money to go back to Nike. I don’t see Jordan a deal with ACC team cause UNC wouldn’t like that.
Click to expand...


Can you describe how UM "needed money"? We joined the ACC, which gave us more money than we ever had, plus we came out ahead financially by moving from the Orange Bowl to Joe Robbie.

@Rellyrell has already explained how the adidas offer was just a bit more than Nike's, and with the Nike incentives, we COULD HAVE made more (we probably would not have, given how we have played since 2015). And Blake was busy slashing expenditures since he was hired. So where was the "money need"?

As for "take less money", where are you getting that from? I PERSONALLY said we should pay Nike to take us back. I PERSONALLY said we should offer Mario $10 million per year (and I said that months ago). If someone can't figure out that I'm being partially sarcastic to make a point, then I don't know how to help you. The problem with signing TWELVE YEAR DEALS for apparel or TWENTY YEAR DEALS for TV is that the market changes. The world changes. The only reason we got ANY more money from adidas is because we had to re-remember that we had a most favored nation clause. And unless we foresee adidas going out and signing some better schools (they won't), then we are locked into a set price for the next 5 years.

Look, I know how these things happen. When I interviewed at NASCAR in December of 2007, they had been a Pepsi company for 40 years. When I started working in January 2008, everything had changed to Coke. The family had a fatwa against Coke because the local bottler had snubbed them 40 years prior. And the only reason the Coke deal happened was because the family member that hated Coke the most...died.

Nobody knows what Nike is willing to pay, so let's stop negotiating against ourselves. Whether it takes 1 year or 5 years, I'm willing to bet that it will happen. And I hate betting.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Can you describe how UM "needed money"? We joined the ACC, which gave us more money than we ever had, plus we came out ahead financially by moving from the Orange Bowl to Joe Robbie.

@Rellyrell has already explained how the adidas offer was just a bit more than Nike's, and with the Nike incentives, we COULD HAVE made more (we probably would not have, given how we have played since 2015). And Blake was busy slashing expenditures since he was hired. So where was the "money need"?

As for "take less money", where are you getting that from? I PERSONALLY said we should pay Nike to take us back. I PERSONALLY said we should offer Mario $10 million per year (and I said that months ago). If someone can't figure out that I'm being partially sarcastic to make a point, then I don't know how to help you. The problem with signing TWELVE YEAR DEALS for apparel or TWENTY YEAR DEALS for TV is that the market changes. The world changes. The only reason we got ANY more money from adidas is because we had to re-remember that we had a most favored nation clause. And unless we foresee adidas going out and signing some better schools (they won't), then we are locked into a set price for the next 5 years.

Look, I know how these things happen. When I interviewed at NASCAR in December of 2007, they had been a Pepsi company for 40 years. When I started working in January 2008, everything had changed to Coke. The family had a fatwa against Coke because the local bottler had snubbed them 40 years prior. And the only reason the Coke deal happened was because the family member that hated Coke the most...died.

Nobody knows what Nike is willing to pay, so let's stop negotiating against ourselves. Whether it takes 1 year or 5 years, I'm willing to bet that it will happen. And I hate betting.
Click to expand...
You worked for NASCAR? Interesting…
 
1mg of Epi said:
I don’t know anything about apparel contracts, but I’d think the fact that even in the last 5 years, Miami has played in several of the highest TV rated games matters to some degree. … the logo being on screen for 3.5 hrs in those situations must count for something
Click to expand...


First, while the UM-ND game a few years ago was pretty good, Miami has NOT been logging "highest rated TV games" as we did 10 and 20 years ago. Our ratings are down, which explains noon games and Bally Sports games.

As for "the logo being on screen for 3.5 hours", unless adidas spends money for ads during those games, it's really not such a huge impact. And let's not forget to take into account...losing a heavily-watched game, which we've done with some frequency. I'm not sure 3.5 hours of adidas logo exposure helped much in 2020 when North Carolina tore us the fvck up.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
Jordan Brand Schools:

Michigan
Oklahoma
UNC
Houston
UCLA
UF
Click to expand...


Interesting thoughts...Jordan Brand is about to have TWO schools in the SEC (Oklahomo and the Gaytors)...perhaps they are willing to consider TWO schools in the ACC, now that conferences are becoming ginormous...and I'm not sure if they want Houston to be their only Big 12 school...or would they turn down Notre Dame if ND was in the ACC?
 
Canedude08 said:
Kids follow trends. When Yeezy was crushing it, kids were all in. Now, people are migrating back to Jordans, despite them not having an original idea in well over 20 years. It's a cycle and what would help Miami more than the swoosh is hiring a top end coach and staff. Adidas with their additional support helps get us closer to that goal, compared to Nikes laughable offer.
Click to expand...

1. The Yeezy trend started b/c of Kanye’s rant. He still has a very popular shoe & he is the Adidas portfolio

2. Again, U do not understand marketing, perception, nor global stability & influence. The fact that u continue to vouch for a company that tried to ***** us on our own deal, language they put in to secure us away from Nike is unbelievable. The fact u continue to vouch for a company that also got us in the cross hairs of the FBI is puzzling.

3. You fail to acknowledge that had Miami, & more importantly Blake James not pacified a toxic culture w/ Golden, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
 
Advertisement
AUcane said:
Sadly, the Jordan brand is diluting with every new school they add on. I mean, Houston? Wtf

Doesn’t hold the panache it once did IMO.
Click to expand...

Let’s peep the response:

1. Michigan (vying for a CFP spot)

2. Oklahoma (a constant Big12 champion, will be moving to the SEC)

3. UNC (iconic b-ball school, plus it’s his Alma Mater, lol)

4. Houston (currently 10-1 & their basketball team is constantly in the top 15)

5. UCLA (a ridiculous amount of Nat’l Championships, one of the best schools in the nation, and a resurgent b-ball team that was just in the Final Four & projected as a potential National Champion this yr)

6. UF (booty juice…HAVE ZERO REASONS WHY THEY ARE W/ JB!)
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Can you describe how UM "needed money"? We joined the ACC, which gave us more money than we ever had, plus we came out ahead financially by moving from the Orange Bowl to Joe Robbie.

@Rellyrell has already explained how the adidas offer was just a bit more than Nike's, and with the Nike incentives, we COULD HAVE made more (we probably would not have, given how we have played since 2015). And Blake was busy slashing expenditures since he was hired. So where was the "money need"?

As for "take less money", where are you getting that from? I PERSONALLY said we should pay Nike to take us back. I PERSONALLY said we should offer Mario $10 million per year (and I said that months ago). If someone can't figure out that I'm being partially sarcastic to make a point, then I don't know how to help you. The problem with signing TWELVE YEAR DEALS for apparel or TWENTY YEAR DEALS for TV is that the market changes. The world changes. The only reason we got ANY more money from adidas is because we had to re-remember that we had a most favored nation clause. And unless we foresee adidas going out and signing some better schools (they won't), then we are locked into a set price for the next 5 years.

Look, I know how these things happen. When I interviewed at NASCAR in December of 2007, they had been a Pepsi company for 40 years. When I started working in January 2008, everything had changed to Coke. The family had a fatwa against Coke because the local bottler had snubbed them 40 years prior. And the only reason the Coke deal happened was because the family member that hated Coke the most...died.

Nobody knows what Nike is willing to pay, so let's stop negotiating against ourselves. Whether it takes 1 year or 5 years, I'm willing to bet that it will happen. And I hate betting.
Click to expand...
I agree with the length amount of the deals, the ACC TV is an anchor that will hold the conference down unless they can bring in ND. Where are you getting this 10 million to offer Mario?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top