forums

Nike deal

Advertisement
FuriousStyles said:
The ‘00-‘02 over the Adidas? Yes. But that’s not saying much because the more recent iterations just **** people off.

I may get dragged for this and that’s ok, lol. Those ‘00-‘02 jerseys have a nostalgic feel to them because we beat people’s asses while wearing them and we’ll forever love everything from that time. Outside of that, them ***** were ugly, lol. The ones right after them were a much better design
View attachment 240748
Click to expand...

I think neither was special. In particular the next set with the weird *** orange collar and those white lines on both.

****, none of it really matters. I barely pay attention to the uniforms aside from when viewing this thread.

Bar none though, the worst part of any uniform we had were those Christmas ornament helmets. Second would be the feathers. People love to **** on the prints or background Adidas has done, but that never bothered me in the slightest.
 
DTP said:
I also preferred the "bra-strap" jersey. It was cleaner and simpler than the 00-02 jerseys. I agree that people love those simply because we beat the crap out of everyone while we had them. Not because they were particularly good looking.
Click to expand...


This may be true of the "enduring" nature of people liking these jerseys in 2023, but they were pretty popular in 2000 as well, and we had just started beating the crap out of everyone back then.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
This may be true of the "enduring" nature of people liking these jerseys in 2023, but they were pretty popular in 2000 as well, and we had just started beating the crap out of everyone back then.
Click to expand...
They were definitely popular when they were new. I had a Green one and an Orange one. I just think the design looks dated now and I believe a lot of peoples' affinity towards them today has more to do with nostalgia for championship football. I wouldn't like to see the 2023 team wearing that style jersey if that makes any sense.
 
Advertisement
It feels like it’s an easier pitch in those rooms to move on from the design that the 6-6 team just wore or the 5-7 team when looking at sales. They think a new design is necessary to create a buzz and our Athletic Department feeds right into the nonsense.

I also remember reading an article where Pepsi and Coke employ people to monitor the color browns used in ads as each entity has copyrights to specific shades. I was surprised (but not really) to find out that one could “own” shades of color. I wonder if that’s why Adidas gives us this version of green because our green under Nike belongs to them?
 
FuriousStyles said:
It feels like it’s an easier pitch in those rooms to move on from the design that the 6-6 team just wore or the 5-7 team when looking at sales. They think a new design is necessary to create a buzz and our Athletic Department feeds right into the nonsense.

I also remember reading an article where Pepsi and Coke employ people to monitor the color browns used in ads as each entity has copyrights to specific shades. I was surprised (but not really) to find out that one could “own” shades of color. I wonder if that’s why Adidas gives us this version of green because our green under Nike belongs to them?
Click to expand...

This seems like a bat signal to call @Rellyrell
 
Advertisement
FuriousStyles said:
It feels like it’s an easier pitch in those rooms to move on from the design that the 6-6 team just wore or the 5-7 team when looking at sales. They think a new design is necessary to create a buzz and our Athletic Department feeds right into the nonsense.

I also remember reading an article where Pepsi and Coke employ people to monitor the color browns used in ads as each entity has copyrights to specific shades. I was surprised (but not really) to find out that one could “own” shades of color. I wonder if that’s why Adidas gives us this version of green because our green under Nike belongs to them?
Click to expand...
Yes. Brands own copyrights on certain shades. It's why Michigan had to use a different shade of maize for their pants under Adidas.
 
DTP said:
Is the Rock sponsored by Under Armor now? I didn't think they even made shoes anymore.
Click to expand...

Rock has been sponsored by them for a good while. He, Steph, & TB12 have been their longest tenured endorsers. Steph just signed a life time contract w/ them, which I hella ?’d, only due to UA’s commitment to him included stock options & I know for a fact, Steph lost earned revenue on that.

UA is in a real tricky situation right now. Their stock has plummeted to under $8/share again. They got up to close to $10 a few weeks ago, & now they are at around $7.50-$7.70/share. They r trying to dump as many team endorsements/sponsorships as possible. They’ve gone through several leadership changes in just a couple yrs alone.

The newest CEO, Stephanie, is someone I know that’s familiar w. She’s going to re-focus their branding on gear, & the female demographic. She wants to rebuild the brand in 2024, so it’ll be interesting to see. UA is one of my biggest head scratchers, but I’m not surprised either. Plank had a solid product, but he didn’t listen to his board or advisors about growing too fast w/o the proper infrastructure.
 
Angry Ibis said:
This seems like a bat signal to call @Rellyrell
Click to expand...

I told the board a while ago that due to Nike being our first exclusive apparel sponsor (And there’s quite a difference being an apparel sponsor vs. a company making jerseys like Russell Athletics did) they assumed all creative designs patents which included “shades” of colors used during that partnership.

I already knew the orange & green would be off w/ Adidas b/c they had to recreate our colors using different hues. They had to do the same with Michigan, as well.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
I told the board a while ago that due to Nike being our first exclusive apparel sponsor (And there’s quite a difference being an apparel sponsor vs. a company making jerseys like Russell Athletics did) they assumed all creative designs patents which included “shades” of colors used during that partnership.

I already knew the orange & green would be off w/ Adidas b/c they had to recreate our colors using different hues. They had to do the same with Michigan, as well.
Click to expand...

Now that I’ve lured you in…. From your experience … Is it possible for schools to retain their colors? Or negotiate the rights to them? (I think you know where I’m going with this…)
 
Angry Ibis said:
Now that I’ve lured you in…. From your experience … Is it possible for schools to retain their colors? Or negotiate the rights to them? (I think you know where I’m going with this…)
Click to expand...

I mean technically the patent is not on the school colors, b/c clearly Adidas is making orange, white, & green uniforms. The patent is on the hue used for said colors.
 
Rellyrell said:
I mean technically the patent is not on the school colors, b/c clearly Adidas is making orange, white, & green uniforms. The patent is on the hue used for said colors.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's a patent, I think it's a registered mark.

In any event, when I worked on newspaper/yearbook at UM in the 80s/90s, we had specific guidance on colors (this was back in the early days of Mac computers), so I don't know why we couldn't have registered these things for ourselves. ****, we were told that the UM green was called BISCAYNE GREEN. So, no, I don't think Nike (or anyone) should ever be able to aces us out on our own colors or logos.

I will say, the first Nike deal was signed when Sam Jankovich was our AD, and I have no idea if those were the contractual terms at the time (remember, we were the FIRST EVER all-apparel university Nike deal). I often wonder if these onerous terms regarding colors and logos came about later, under a different AD. I find it hard to believe that Paul Dee would have missed on this, he was a lawyer and the former General Counsel for UM before becoming AD.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I don't think it's a patent, I think it's a registered mark.

In any event, when I worked on newspaper/yearbook at UM in the 80s/90s, we had specific guidance on colors (this was back in the early days of Mac computers), so I don't know why we couldn't have registered these things for ourselves. ****, we were told that the UM green was called BISCAYNE GREEN. So, no, I don't think Nike (or anyone) should ever be able to aces us out on our own colors or logos.

I will say, the first Nike deal was signed when Sam Jankovich was our AD, and I have no idea if those were the contractual terms at the time (remember, we were the FIRST EVER all-apparel university Nike deal). I often wonder if these onerous terms regarding colors and logos came about later, under a different AD. I find it hard to believe that Paul Dee would have missed on this, he was a lawyer and the former General Counsel for UM before becoming AD.
Click to expand...

I was going to tag you with Relly for the panel discussion…
 
Advertisement
Back
Top