Mailbag: New Apparel, Manball Metagame, Why NFL Guys Were So Wrong, Best Combos Comment Count

Brian

When can we fire this apparel company?

gr3[1]

What do you think will happen when the Adidas contract runs up? It's no secret around these parts the quality of garments that Adidas has put out have been sub-par to say the least. I know the majority of MGoBlog would prefer to go back to Nike, but there's a faction that would like Under Armour. Where do you see this going? Especially since I would anticipate the Nike contract not being nearly as lucrative as an Under Armour signing or a re-up with Adidas. Does Hackett (assuming he's still around) or a new AD listen to the fans or do you think they go for profit here?

I don't know. Nike isn't willing to spend bucks as huge as Adidas and Under Armor, which was a contributing factor in Miami's recent switch to the only incompetent Germans. Adidas has the four most expensive (FOIAable) contracts in college sports, with Michigan's whopping 8.2 million at the top of the list. That number is double what OSU gets from Nike.

Part of that premium is because Adidas isn't as cool to the whippersnappers and you have to weigh that, but this isn't a few hundred thousand a year Michigan is weighing. Switching to Nike would be a decision that costs Michigan a significant chunk of change.

The ideal situation may be Under Armour stepping in with an on-par offer. UA's done some wacky stuff with Maryland but they've been extremely reserved with Auburn's classic look. (An extensive Googling reveals no alternate uniform horrors.) I'm a huge fan of what they've done with Northwestern, incorporating a historical design element in a unique way.

Trevor Siemian Northwestern v Penn State 1FIeiF0y-4bl[1]

Aside from the excessive logo frippery* that plagues everyone these days, that is a fantastic, distinctive look. Even the font is on point. I'd rather have UA take a swing at—or just, like, sit quietly by and not do anything weird with—Michigan's uniforms than Adidas.

But I don't wear the stuff so I don't know. It seems like the players are gung-ho about Nike and Hackett is listening; plus it seems like there is some real recruiting impact in basketball.

*[The best thing Dave Brandon did with Michigan's brand is render the mandatory Big Ten logo in Crisler as faintly as possible.]

Rate the get

Hey Brian,

How big of a get is Harbaugh compared to Ohio state landing Urban? Obviously OSU's down time was smaller than Michigan's, and Urban won national titles at Florida, but in terms of hires it has to be close to comparable, right? Recruits lining up and all that.

Thanks,
Ben

In terms of difficulty of acquisition it's a much, much bigger get. Meyer was momentarily retired and looking to get back into coaching, and his preferred style of offense makes him unattractive to NFL teams. It probably took the two sides about a half hour to come to an agreement after Tressel got axed. Michigan was in a much more difficult situation with Harbaugh, who could have coached at about 20 NFL teams if he wanted to.

In terms of impact and probable success, it's close. I would still go with Meyer, who had already won two national titles, over Harbaugh. Harbaugh's done kickass things in his tenure as a coach but he hasn't had the kind of sustained run on the mountaintop that Meyer did at Florida. That's splitting hairs in any case.

[After the JUMP: manball an aid? best coaching combos, NFL reporters, Milhouse.]

Manball metagame

Apparently, Harbaugh told Chris Clark that he wants Michigan to become tight end U. This has me wondering whether there might be a comparative advantage to being one of the lone top programs to still espouse manball. For some positions and types of players, the rise of the spread must reduce the pool of programs we're competing against.

Do you think this matters at all?

Vincent

Maybe a little. Meyer's version of the spread is all about tight inside zone and the power you need to generate push there is pretty manball; meanwhile Michigan State is also running a pro-style system. There aren't going to be many recruits Michigan is after who won't be pursued by Ohio State, or Penn State for that matter.

The one exception is when a Midwest state pops out a Chad Henne or Gunner Kiel. OSU isn't going to recruit those guys and Harbaugh can use them. (Probably. People tend to forget that Harbaugh QBs tend to have 500 or so yards rushing annually.)

Nationally, there may be an opportunity to pick off the occasional recruit who doesn't fit the spread but there we're fighting the spread trend on the high school level. Texas and Florida are full of spread teams and they pump out dual threat QBs and little dynamic WRs. I think running backs are increasingly agnostic about offensive systems. If you're good, you're good. A Carlos Hyde an be just as effective as a hambeast in a power spread as a pro-style offense.

So what do the guys who Michigan might have an advantage with look like? OL, WR, RB not so much. Tight ends might see more opportunity in a system that has room for two or three, and hybrid H-back types like Wyatt Shallman would look at a Michigan offer as nirvana. Other than that it's tough to see Michigan's style of play helping them significantly.

Not that it'll have to.

NFL reporter why

Brian

I think the NFL beat reporters have been led off the scent on purpose, so there'd be at least some contrarian opinion being espoused in the media.  It's likely that their "insider" sources are in fact very close to the situation, so my theory is the sources have been feeding the reporters negative information just to counter the M community positive information to thwart a feeding frenzy and premature reports of "it's done." It's one possible explanation for why these guys are seemingly so far off base - but I guess time will only tell who's right.  What do you think?

Regards
autostocks

Hanlon's razor applies to a lot of the NFL reporters: "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." Stupidity is harsh in some cases here—in others not so much.

Even when it is harsh, reporters like Schefter and Rapoport are chasing down a dozen different stories at once. They're not laser-focused on one thing and only that one thing as the Michigan folk were. They get a thing, they say the thing, and usually that's good enough because they're talking about intra-NFL stuff that does not have an external faction hearing the complete opposite. And few things are as murky as the kind of coaching search Michigan just undertook, especially when Harbaugh isn't saying anything to NFL people—including his agent.

You can have a great source that guy X is interviewing or that ankle Y is not good to go, but the NFL reporters main problem was taking the unknowable that is Jim Harbaugh's brain and reporting on it stridently. Their insider sources were nowhere near what was going on and nobody had the humility to admit that. Hubris and stupidity, all around.

Best combo punch?

It's possible I've missed this, but one thing I have not seen kicked around anywhere is the "Does Michigan have the best 1-2 coaching punch in the country?" conversation.  I think the number of schools who could even enter this conversation are quite small:

- MSU, OSU both offer solid arguments. 

- I don't think Mike Brey warrants ND's place in the discussion.

- Louisville/Duke both seem like the same story.  Legendary hoops coaches who would be carrying all the weight in the debate.   Petrino's on-field college success makes him interesting, but how much do you weigh drastically different NFL stints?

- UCLA? Both coaches seem like a tier down from M's.

To me tier one is M/OSU/MSU, with a significant drop after that.

Mike

I don't have much to add: it is close between the Big Ten's big three with no other competitors. There are no schools other than those three whose football coaches have won a BCS-level game and whose basketball coaches have made the Final Four except Louisville.

Louisville is axed anyway because Petrino's BCS win was against Wake Forest. Meanwhile his NFL debacle and motorcycle cheatin' freeride make his attractiveness as a head coach dubious. He's still good enough to make the next tier down with Duke. And then it's… hard to tell.

Until Andersen got poached Wisconsin would have had a case to be in that tier, and then it's hard to find anyone with a combination of proven big time coaches in both sports—largely thanks to the Pac 12 and SEC sucking in basketball of late. Florida would be a quick riser on this list if McElwain is a hit, and in the unlikely world where Kentucky or Syracuse got good at football they would be strong contenders.

But yeah, the Big Ten's big three are a cut above.

Everything coming up Milhouse.

Hi Brian,

I know it seems hard to believe that we might be underestimating the significance of what has happened over the last couple weeks, given the ecstatic levels of excitement on display. But it seems to me that there has not been enough discussion of three other events that further magnify the significance of The Harbaugh: Michigan State losing their DC, Ohio State losing their OC and all the turmoil at Wisconsin. Not that I think Dantonio and Meyer are going to be helpless, but it seems to me we have witnessed close to a perfect storm portending the ascendance of our program. How much do you think these other things matter in setting up Harbaugh for success?

DH

This is an ask again later kind of situation. The Wisconsin turmoil seem to be the least likely to have a major impact. Wisconsin is barely in Michigan's conference—next year will be the fifth consecutive in which the two teams don't play—and now that they've got Chryst in place it seems likely they'll just keep being Wisconsin. Gary Andersen had zero connections and ran a spread option at Utah State and even he was unable to make Wisconsin anything other than itself. UW retained its DC and is importing a guy who made the Badger offense really really good for a minute there; I expect them to keep on.

Herman leaving is something I would normally dismiss since Meyer has a terrific track record of hiring assistants, but the whole Addazio thing does make you wonder if a somewhat more disengaged Meyer could be vulnerable to the wrong hire. Still seems unlikely with three more years of JT Barrett on the way.

Narduzzi's departure has the potential to be the most impactful, but Michigan State had a bunch of stuff to figure out even if he stuck around. The Spartan defense was repeatedly bombed this year, giving up 46, 49, and 41 in games against Oregon, OSU, and Baylor. All three took advantage of one on one matchups in the slot against MSU safeties—it seems like the hyper aggressive quarters approach has a book on it. This didn't impact MSU for much of the year because, like Michigan, they benefited from a series of horrendous Big Ten offenses. Once you take schedule strength into account like the advanced systems do they fell off a cliff: MSU went from 2nd in defensive FEI to 40th(!) this year.

Now they're trying to fix that without the guy they came to prominence under, in an environment with less raw talent to paper over things than OSU and less of a long-term track record than Wisconsin. Could get a little bumpy.

Comments

Bando Calrissian

January 5th, 2015 at 12:45 PM ^

A question, because I don't know one way or the other: if Michigan does switch back to Nike, couldn't they theoretically make up a lot of the contract's difference in merchandising? It really seems to me that the Adidas stuff isn't flying off the shelves nearly as fast as the Nike gear did. Michigan switches to Nike at the egg of a Harbaugh renaissance, we could be looking at a lot of cash.

Alton

January 5th, 2015 at 1:43 PM ^

My understanding is that a big part of what Adidas is paying for is the right to sell Michigan gear.  The money you spend when you buy a Michigan shirt is almost entirely going to Adidas, because they are paying Michigan $8MM for the right to sell the shirt.

So I don't think going to Nike would make Michigan any money with sales--merchandise sales are already accounted for in the contract.  One reason that Michigan has such a high $$ contract:  not their TV exposure (which isn't that different from Penn State's TV exposure), but their merchandise.

LBSS

January 5th, 2015 at 1:48 PM ^

I was gonna say, no, the reason merch isn't flying off the shelves as fast as it used to is because we suck. But then I realized, wait, I hate adidas gear and would have bought more UM gear over the past 6-7 years if we'd been with Nike. 

So perhaps you're right, sir. Perhaps you're right.

mgoblue0970

January 5th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^

So does Nike own Michigan's shade of maize (as some have speculated recently)?

If so, what would a potential switch to UA do? We wouldn't be rid of the highlighter unis then, right?

If the players hate the cheap feel of Adidas, I cannot imagine UA would be any better in that department.

mgoblue0970

January 5th, 2015 at 4:22 PM ^

Ugh. I guess I should have been more precise in my original post.

I hope the U-M's lawyers didn't screw up -- especially since we are considered a top tier law school. I should have noted the difference between ownership and licensing in my question.

Perhaps the colors are trademarked by Michigan and the licensing is elsewhere (for whatever reason). I don't know, I haven't seen the contract, I doubt any of us will.

Legal-ese aside, it would be nice to return to Desmond Howard "The Catch" maize from Sharpie Accent Highlighter yellow.

I'm not married to the vendor... hell, make it Russell to keep it in country for all I care -- a 'R' versus a swoosh on my clothes makes ZERO difference to me (I am married to Adidas shoes though, superior to Nike for soccer and trail running).

FabFiver5

January 5th, 2015 at 1:02 PM ^

Nike absolutely owns that shade of Maize. That's why when you see generic Michigan shirts at the M-Den, they're frequently random shades of yellow because they can't use the true Maize that Nike patented.

They also own Texas' "burnt orange" and other schools' colors that they've developed. Apparel companies that wish to use that burnt orange must pay Nike royalties to use it.

FabFiver5

January 5th, 2015 at 1:15 PM ^

To clarify on my post above, Nike's shade of burnt orange for Texas athletic apparel is slightly different from the official school color, which is owned and patented by Pantone. 

http://www.utexas.edu/brand-guidelines/visual-style-guide/color

 

Same thing for Michigan, with their colors coming from Pantone as well...

http://vpcomm.umich.edu/brand/style-guide/design-principles/colors

Alton

January 5th, 2015 at 1:20 PM ^

There is no mention in the link of either Nike or Pantone "owning" that color.  Texas can use burnt orange--whatever shade they want--without permission from either Nike or from Pantone, right?

Also, what shade of maize do you allege is owned by Nike?  Colors change all of the time.  Colors of things change all of the time.  What if a Michigan Adidas uniform was non-Nike Maize, but then was washed with a red cap, or was left out in the sun, or whatever, and changed into Nike Maize?  Could Nike then claim an intellectual property infringement?  That strikes me as preposterous on its face. 

Is Nike really defending this alleged trademark from infringement by all of the high schools in the nation, or all of the athletic teams in the world?  I'm sure Michigan wasn't the only athletic team in the world using that exact shade of Maize, so how could Nike claim that it owns it now?

So many questions, all of them seem to me to point to the fact that neither Michigan nor Nike "own" a shade of a color.  This is easily FOIA-able, isn't it?  Wouldn't it have been in the initial Nike contract?

Bando Calrissian

January 5th, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^

You can trademark a color (or combination of colors) for use within a specific industry, such as sports apparel.

See: http://www.businessinsider.com/colors-that-are-trademarked-2012-9

"Don't confuse the term "trademark" with ownership of color though. Trademarking a color simply allows a company to use a particular combination and shade of color in its own industry."

And there you go.

Also see:

http://www.businessinsider.com/colors-that-are-trademarked-2012-9#burnt…

Alton

January 5th, 2015 at 1:41 PM ^

I saw that earlier today while clicking around.  I don't think it applies here, though:  all of the colors given are examples of brand identity (Coke and the color of their cans, UPS and that shade of brown; they mention John Deere but they don't mention that John Deere ultimately lost their lawsuit trying to keep another company from using green & yellow on their tractors).

Those are examples of brand identity.  Maize is not part of Nike's brand identity.  The fact that they mention Texas' burnt orange & UNC's Carolina blue shows that the identity stays with the schools, not the temporary owner of a contract.

I don't think the link supports your position very well.

Bando Calrissian

January 5th, 2015 at 1:47 PM ^

Sure it does. It proves that it is indeed legally possible to trademark a specific color or color combination and prohibit competitors from using it for similar reasons. We all know Nike is about as litigous as it gets--if they wanted to trademark the shade of maize they used for Michigan, they would do it. And, apparently, they did, because Adidas has consistently and intentionally used a different shade.

Proclus

January 5th, 2015 at 3:25 PM ^

I should also point out that, if one has trade-dress rights in a certain color, someone seeking to avoid an infringement claim would have to do more than change the Pantone shade a little bit. The relevant question in a claim would not be "is this exactly the same color as the one associated with the trademark owner?", but rather "is there a likelihood that consumers would be led to believe that the defendant's product or service is affiliated with the trademark owner?" If you wanted to manufacture pink fiberglass, it would do you no good to argue that yours is a slightly different shade from Dupont's.

Proclus

January 5th, 2015 at 3:30 PM ^

This is thoroughgoing nonsense based on a misconception of the nature of intellectual property. It is not possible to patent or copyright a color. It is possible to claim trademark rights (or, to use the more common term for this kind of thing, trade-dress rights) in a color, but as with any other trademark right it entails creating an association between that color and a product or service. For example, arbitrarily coloring fiberglass insulation pink or painting parcel delivery trucks brown could create a trade-dress right to the extent that those colors became associated with specific providers of insulation or parcel delivery. Those rights, however, would not apply to prevent anyone else from doing anything with those colors in themselves, only if the manner of use would create confusion as to whether the person using them was associated with DuPont or UPS.

In theory it might be possible for the University of Texas to claim some kind of trade-dress right in burnt orange (though trade-dress rights in a color usually revolve around the use of a color in a very specific context, and I'm not sure what that context would be with UT) but nobody associates burnt orange with Nike. The common misconception people have about trademarks is that they merely entail calling "dibs", when in fact that is neither necessary nor sufficient to obtain trademark rights.

Alton

January 5th, 2015 at 1:07 PM ^

They certainly don't own the word Maize; that is still public domain:  the word existed for almost a century before Nike existed, and Michigan and Crayola, among others, both still use the word.  So this "Sun" thing that you hear sometimes is clearly false.  Mgoblue.com, for example, often refers to Michigan teams as "The Maize and Blue."

They certainly don't own the color Maize; courts don't let companies own colors.  Even John Deere's distinctive colors don't belong exclusively to them.  Even if you could, Michigan never owned the color to give away, so Nike certainly doesn't own it now.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/12/can-you-trademark-a-color/

Bando Calrissian

January 5th, 2015 at 1:19 PM ^

"Sun" is the particular shade Adidas uses. They had to put a name on it.

This isn't that hard to understand. It's clear the maize Adidas uses is entirely different than the shade Nike uses. They've never been the same. 

But, hey, the players who actually use the "Sun" gear, who have talked to Athletics about what's going on, clearly don't know what they're talking about.

Alton

January 5th, 2015 at 1:35 PM ^

I hate to give the impression that I think Lexi Zimmerman and Courtney Fletcher (who wrote the article you linked) "don't know what they're talking about."  They were both great volleyball players.  And yet... I don't think they are right about this one specific thing.  They are right that the color of the volleyball uniforms was quite ugly, especially in the 2010 season (by 2012 it seemed to improve slightly).  I agree it isn't hard to understand; it is just hard for me to believe.  There is a difference between understanding and believing. 

Of course the colors are different.  I think every new uniform is a little different from the one before it.  I also think the blue is much darker today than it was in the 1970s--the baseball team back then had especially light blue, I thought--but nobody seems to disagree with that direction the color blue is taking.  Or does Nike also own a shade of blue?

Sites selling official Adidas gear use the word "Maize":

Link: http://www.campusden.com/michigan/adidas.html

"...just like your favorite coaches and players on the maize and blue sideline..."

 

Alton

January 5th, 2015 at 1:50 PM ^

http://www.colormatters.com/color-and-marketing/color-branding-legal-rights

"[...] U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that a single color can indeed be a brand, so long as the public strongly associates the color and the specific product and that the color is in no way functional."

So UPS brown--yes.  Owens Corning pink--yes.  Those colors are totally identified with the brands they represent (but again, not John Deere green, because tractors are often green for obvious reasons).

Nike is not "strongly associated" with any shade of Maize in the eyes of the public.

GoBlueDenver

January 5th, 2015 at 1:26 PM ^

You can't copyright a color. You can probably trademark the name of the color, like Texas' "Burnt Orange," but legally owning the actual hue is impossible.

As far as who is turning out the design: the university versus the product manufacturer, the university has the final say. They'd never sit back and say "go for it." Oregon's marketing/design team is probably way more robust than M's and has a the best possible relationship with the product manufacturer (obviously), but there is definitely a party at Michigan pulling strings and making approvals.

Could Michigan hire a couple apparel designers and kick some aesthetic-ass while still being under contract with Adidas? Hell yes.

Rickett88

January 5th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^

Even though we might hate to admit it around here, Arizona with Rich Rod and Sean Miller have to be in the conversation in terms of Tier 1 Combos, or at least right up top with Tier 2.

I think Rich Rod this year proved many doubters in this area wrong, and Sean Miller seems to be a great coach and recruiter that seems to be in the mix for the Final Four year in and year out.

UMaD

January 5th, 2015 at 12:57 PM ^

I don't think Miller has made a Final 4 but he has been to the elite 8 with different teams and will very likely be there given how Arizona is recruiting.  I love JB but national prestige-wise Miller is on equal footing and has killed it in recruiting.

Af for football, you me and every other MIchigan fan would rather have Harbaugh but Rich Rod has a better college football resume than Harbaugh.  Except for ya know, his time in AA, Rodriguez has done some amazing things.

I'd take our guys, but Arizona is in the conversation.

Hardware Sushi

January 5th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^

I agree about Arizona entering the conversation, although I think they are still a little behind the top 3 Brian mentioned. Here was my list when WD originally posted the question on the MGoBoard a week or so ago (and I assume is the genesis for the mailbag question).

OSU: Meyer/Matta

MSU: Izzo/Dantonio 

Duke: K/Cutcliffe

Louisville: Pitino/Petrino

Arizona: RR/Miller

Wisconsin: Ryan/Chryst 

Stanford: Shaw/Dawkins

Florida: Donovan/Jim Bob Duggar

Texas: Barnes/Strong

UCLA: Mora/Alford

Washington: Peterson/Romar

ND: Kelly/Brey

Utah: Willingham/Krystkowiokadsodfsodjfasodjfaosdi

Cincinnati: Tuberville/Cronin

UNC: Roy/Fedora

Maryland: Turdgen/Rangoon HAHAHAHA nope, although they are honestly not too much further down.

SDSU: Fisher/Long

UMaD

January 5th, 2015 at 2:29 PM ^

Can't argue with Izzo's track record but he has struggled the last few years and recruiting has really gone south.  I would honestly prefer to have Miller in 2015.

As for Dantonio -- let's see how he does without his ace DC.  Rodriguez struggled without Casteel.  Rodriguez's track record is better  By FEI, MSU and Arizona were equals this season (#17 and 18).

Texas and UNC are in the conversation too IMO.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

January 5th, 2015 at 2:37 PM ^

UNC can be in the conversation when Fedora fields a defense.  He's gotten worse every year in Carolina and his resume mainly boasts one big season at Southern Miss.

I'd be far more inclined to add Auburn to the list than UNC.  Florida State, too, as I like what Leonard Hamilton's done down there.

CRISPed in the DIAG

January 5th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^

Nortwestern's uniforms are ok, but I don't want a similar design (i.e. shoulder stripe across the torso) for Michigan's jerseys.

Solid blue on home jersey, solid white on away jersey.  Maize pants.  Block M on shoulder.  Stripes on the "arms" of away jersey ( if we want to get crazy).  Why is this so hard to do? 

East German Judge

January 5th, 2015 at 1:03 PM ^

I personally like Nike over Adidas, but am not sure it would be worth seveal million dollars to go away from Adidas and back to Nike, especially since we seem to have a hard time getting the assistants the JH wants.  But why can't we have nice things?

Detwolverine2009

January 5th, 2015 at 12:54 PM ^

To chime in, I've always disliked Adidas gear. I played 3 sports a year in high school and everyone I knew either wanted Nike or Under Armour with the exception of shoes. Under Armour shoes sucked then, don't really know how they perform now. And then Michigan went with Adidas, their uniforms really took a step down in classiness after that change. All said, would much rather see Under Armour or Nike back as well.