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

Shaqsquatch

January 19th, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^

I own one of these due to my job, and it's not a windbreaker, but really a fantastic sideline jacket. The thing is windproof and very water resistant, and thin but very, very warm. It's been my only coat for most of the winter. In person it looks much less like a windbreaker and much more like a track jacket as well, it looks a little goofy on TV. Comparing the Nike and Adidas Michigan gear I've got from my job the last few years, the Adidas stuff is far superior, except for the fleece jackets. I may be one of the few who actually likes the switch, but I feel like Adidas is a much better fit than Nike.

Joined: 04/08/2009

MGoPoints: 4117

EDJ85

January 19th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^

It's my understanding that Adidas' deal with U of M was a record (at least at that time) contract for a university athletic department.

Joined: 07/19/2009

MGoPoints: 17

GOBLUE4EVR

January 19th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^

is michigans contract ended with nike... adidas jumped in and offerded michigan a shit ton of money... nike didn't want to match it... michigan has the largest contract with adidas out of any other college that is sponsered by them... there is a clause in the contract that says if adidas re-ups with any other school, thus giving that school a larger contract than michigan, adadias HAS to redo michigans contract so that there contract will always stay the largest...

Joined: 01/09/2009

MGoPoints: 4273

davelewis21

January 19th, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^

I agree that I like Nike jerseys more. I also think that a few recruits will take that into account, especially basketball. We all remember the fab five with the baggy nike shorts and the black sneakers and socks, I wish we would go back to that.

Joined: 11/21/2009

MGoPoints: 620

Blue-Chip

January 19th, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^

Resources. Pretty much money, but money that can go to improved facilities, stadium rennovations, and all kinds of things that make Michigan a more attractive destination for top tier players.

Joined: 01/06/2010

MGoPoints: 9718

MH20

January 19th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

Maybe that isn't what you were insinuating with your comment, but still, it's inaccurate. Besides, WV was (and continues to be) a Nike school. The decision was made purely in terms of dollars and cents. I also think Adidas was willing to have a rep be more exclusive to Michigan than what Nike had in the past. I seem to recall that Michigan was one of many schools the Nike rep had in his region.

Joined: 10/30/2008

MGoPoints: 40453

Sgt. Wolverine

January 19th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

"Michigan has always worn Nike since the early 1990s." Considering the long history of Michigan football, that's really not that long. I'm pretty sure we had some great games prior to the Nike contract, too. Anyway. As long as they're not wearing Members Only, I don't think it really matters one way or another. Bonus points (which I have no authority to give) to anybody who photoshops a Members Only Michigan jersey.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 3742

MGoJen

January 19th, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^

Cheri? YES! She was awesome. We were totally going to go shopping one day at Briarwood. I should shoot her an e-mail. Also, Nick Steneck is amazing. The History of UM class was actually the third class I had taken with him. I remember walking out of the exam and thanking him for everything slash begging him not to retire. For the last few years before he retired for good from the University, he was teaching at UM during the Fall semester and working in Washington as a government consultant in research integrity/ethics the rest of the year. I wonder if he's still doing that, I should e-mail him too. I distinctly remember one of the short answer questions on the final being "Explain the Fab Five Scandal..." Maybe I'll dig up my notes from that class--the self-guided UM history tour was awesome and would be fun to post here.

Joined: 11/23/2008

MGoPoints: 1833

MaizeSombrero

January 19th, 2010 at 5:02 PM ^

If I remember correctly, the "practicum" was available online somewhere, but that was back before CTools, when courses had their own websites. I actually never did the tour while I was in the class, I just did it online (google is great). I did use that practicum on a date-type outing. Definitely a good buy. Cheri took me up to the Bentley library one day because I was afraid of the mean librarians up there. Turns out they were nice, but they didn't have wi-fi.

Joined: 07/19/2008

MGoPoints: 2109

jmblue

January 19th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^

1995 was the first year we wore Nike uniforms. So in the 130 seasons of Michigan football, we've sported Nike uniforms exactly 10% of the time (1995-2007). We seemed to do okay most of the other 90% of the time. (And in basketball, our Nike years neatly corresponded with the extended period of suckiness we had.)

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102712

el segundo

January 19th, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^

It wasn't his decision. It was made before he was even interviewed. In any event, it's a decision made by the athletic director, the president, and (maybe) marketing types. I wouldn't be surprised if they never consulted any coaches.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 1085

el segundo

January 19th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^

RR is not to blame for the economy. Beilein is. Don't you see? He puts too much faith in those risky long shots. Very bad ROI on three-pointers. It's all so speculative. All of those bankers who thought mortgage-backed securities were a good idea -- they learned risk-taking at Beilein's feet.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 1085

the_big_house 500th

January 19th, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^

I just liked Nike because Nike replicas were cheaper. I don't like the fact of shelling out for a jersey that's 70 to 80 bucks when Nike sells for around 40 to 60. Sometimes you get lucky and they go on sale for around 30 bucks! But I can see why Michigan changed when it came to Nike's drop and in a way it's good to see a company that wanted to step up and sponsor us.

Joined: 09/04/2009

MGoPoints: -129

Blue_Bull_Run

January 19th, 2010 at 3:09 PM ^

That's true on many levels - I think our team looked better in Nike and performed better in Nike gear. Moreover, I think Nike has the cooler "image," and finally, Nike is my personal brand of choice when it comes to athletic gear. Frankly I won't buy anything made by Adidas. I find their athletic wear to be less comfortable and my feet can't stand their shoes - personal preference, I suppose.

Joined: 11/25/2008

MGoPoints: 4410

Blue_Bull_Run

January 19th, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^

Though I currently own both shoes and prefer Nike by a long shot. As far as shorts and shirts go, I don't like the Adidas cuts, and I really dislike the material that they use in most of their shorts. Though, now you've motivated me to go out and give them another chance. Maybe I'll buy some this weekend. I'll tell you one thing that I absolutely love, though: the Under Armor "Cotton" shirts.

Joined: 11/25/2008

MGoPoints: 4410