I like Nike Better

Submitted by the_big_house 500th on
One small thing that has bothered me about Michigan these past two years (and I'm sure I'm going to get a ton of "ONE SMALL THING?" kind of replies but I don't care because in my opinion it's an issue. I do not like Adidas being our sponsor for our team outfits. I could understand why Rich Rod like's them because of the whole "impossible is nothing" theme but I don't like it because Michigan has always worn Nike since the early 1990s. It has always been the official jersey sponsor of college football and in many ways still is. My question is why change it? We have won some of our best games wearing Nike inculding the thrashings of Osu and Msu. We won a National Championship in them, many other bowls and gave Carr his final win against Florida in them. Plus for the fans Nike's cheaper! I've looked online and Adidas charges way more for a replica jersey than Nike does! I don't understand and don't like the switch.
MGoBoard

mgopat

January 19th, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^

Well in my case, I think Adidas has the cooler "image," and Adidas is my personal brand of choice when it comes to athletic gear. Frankly I won't buy anything made by Nike. I find their athletic gear to be less comfortable and my feet can't stand their shoes. All true things. But I do feel like a lot more people were pissed about the change that elated, like I was.

Joined: 04/23/2009

MGoPoints: 118

mvp

January 19th, 2010 at 3:17 PM ^

It is always about the money. In addition to a huge annual sum, the contract states that Michigan will receive the most of any Addidas university during the contract period.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 2417

ameed

January 19th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^

1. Did anyone see all the Nike pro combat uniforms this year? Many of the changes that Adidas brought to our Uni have been a reaction to the changes across college football. Under Armor and the often ridiculous experimenting Nike does means there was a good chance our uniform would be evolving regardless of the company making them. 2. I'll take Adidas's money any day with the (tongue in cheek) side benefit of not funneling money into Oregon's program - who end up benefiting from any Nike success or sales. 3. Personal preference is a different issue, nothing wrong with that. However, some of the reasons for not liking Adidas being stated here are asinine. Either that or REALLY good sarcasm. Or the rantings of 14 year old boys. I really can't tell.

Joined: 07/01/2008

MGoPoints: 186

Six Zero

January 19th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^

It has always been the official jersey sponsor of college football and in many ways still is. Nike was officially founded in 1968, the same year that football started...?

Joined: 09/05/2008

MGoPoints: 10549

Bryan

January 19th, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^

Just curious, where did you get 1968 from? Wikipedia yields 1964 for the founding of Blue Ribbon Sports; 1971 for the soccer shoe named 'Nike'; and the company officially switched the name from BRS to Nike in 1978. This is only relevant to determine the proper start date of college football, obviously.

Joined: 07/10/2009

MGoPoints: 14777

the_big_house 500th

January 19th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – Michigan just did it. Athletic director Bill Martin said Tuesday night the school signed an eight-year contract with Adidas, ending a relationship with Nike. Adidas gave Michigan a US$6.5 million signing bonus in a deal worth $3.8 million in cash annually, with the school holding a five-year option when it expires following the 2016-17 season. The contract also includes shoes and equipment for all of its 25 teams, including the nation's winningest football program, making the deal worth $7.5 million each year in cash and merchandise. "We have a lot of respect for both Adidas and Nike, and we're looking forward to a great relationship with Adidas," Martin said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're going to be involved with a company with great products and a wonderful reputation.'' Michigan will make $1.2 million during the following athletic season in the final year of its relationship with Nike, whose iconic swoosh logo couldn't be missed on jersey and shoes the Wolverines wore for years. Notre Dame, UCLA, Tennessee, Indiana and Wisconsin are among the schools that have marketing agreements with Adidas. Adidas-produced Michigan gear will arrive in stores next summer, while Wolverines athletes will begin wearing the new products beginning in fall of 2008. Jason Winters, chief financial officer for Michigan athletics, said in a statement that funding from the new agreement will provide added resources to the university's long-term building improvement plan. The university said the contract also includes provisions to protect labor and human rights at factories. Nike has drawn criticisms over conditions at its overseas factories, and student groups at Michigan have long criticized the school for its relationship with the company. Michigan first entered into a contract with Nike in 1994. Its most recent contract, signed in 2001, had a value estimated at up to $28 million.

Joined: 09/04/2009

MGoPoints: -129

bouje

January 19th, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^

I'll quote the OP here: "I do not like Adidas being our sponsor for our team outfits." Outfits? Seriously are we talking about the cheerleaders or what?

Joined: 09/30/2008

MGoPoints: 4705

Greg McMurtry

January 19th, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^

as well for Michigan apparel. I also feel that Nike makes better shoes/cleats for football. I've been playing flag football for years and I just don't like the way that Adidas shoes fit. They seem too flat and bulky IMO, whereas Nike shoes are extremely lightweight and generally set the bar for cleats. On a side note, I think that Nike footballs are terrible and Wilson makes a much better football.

Joined: 02/25/2009

MGoPoints: 135563

Raback Omaba

January 19th, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^

I personally don't mind Adidas. I think their "Three Stripes" symbol goes well with the stripes on our helmet, somewhat of a complimentary type thing. Having said that, I think that both Nike and Adidas are reputable companies and do a great job of providing apparel. I think any talk of recruits liking Nike better or Adidas hindering our on field/court performance is ridiculous, or splitting hairs (with recruits) to say the least. Nike's got more of a following, most definitely, but it's also more played out. Nike reps everyone, from MSU, to USC, to App State for God's sake.

Joined: 03/07/2009

MGoPoints: 1629

icefins26

January 19th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^

I turned to Adidas when Michigan picked them up until I bought my Nike Free 3.0 shoes a month ago. I am never turning back to Adidas. I hate how Adidas makes our jerseys. They seem cheap looking and the maize does not match our helmets.

Joined: 02/01/2009

MGoPoints: 13108

el segundo

January 19th, 2010 at 11:47 PM ^

Is the one in charge It's just him that rock beats that are truly large So check out the master as he cuts these jams And look at us with the mikes in our hands Then take a count, 1, 2, 3 Jam Master Jay, Run DMC I got into hip hop when I saw Run DMC in the spring of 1984 at my college. I think it's still the best show I've ever seen. And Superstars are still my favorite shoes. But I lace mine.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 1102

Hard Gay

January 19th, 2010 at 9:56 PM ^

Realistically, they're all the same product, one just happens to have a swoosh and one happens to have 3 lines. I happen to like the 3 lines better.

Joined: 10/01/2008

MGoPoints: 1421

NHWolverine

January 20th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^

I love the Adidas gear but man does it look goofy on our hockey team. I'm having a lot of trouble adjusting to seeing what is primarily a soccer brand on the ice. That being said I still don't like Reebok's incursion into the NHL either, so maybe I'm just a little old school when it comes to puck.

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 79