The New Adidas Sideline Collection
I was in AA today and visited the M-Den on State Street. First, let me say that I love that store. It's the single greatest collection of Michigan gear and accessories on the planet. I drove in from the west side with the family to get my 2010 Michigan gear.
I had not seen the new Adidas gear until today. Needless to say, I left the M-Den scratching my head as to the design of the sideline collection. Now I realize that one of the things that Michigan has that makes them unique is the winged helmet design. But Adidas tried to incorporate that into every coaches polo in this year's line.
Now, I'm not a wardrobe designer. But the designs flat out SUCK. The same way that I am sure Charlie Weis sucked down food in South Bend for the past five years. I do have to say that in no terms does this reflect anything on the M-Den. But if anyone from Adidas stumbles across this forum post, pick your shit up. Michigan deserves better than this shitty designed collection.
but the sideline collection polos aren't that bad. It's not like i'm gonna buy one but I wouldn't say they SUCK. I miss the Nike gear, however, I understand M couldn't pass up the deal.
They look a little cheesy, but i don't have a huge problem with them... I'm not planning to spend that much on a polo anyway, though.
http://mden.com/shopping/product.cgi?1049064796611784?1014?AD1035
Unless of course you were looking to buy the entire collection. Hopefully you had other things to do in town, otherwise you could have saved yourself the trouble by checking out the shirts online first.
I agree with the OP that the majority of the new sideline gear could look better; that said, the blue version posted by shirtless looks great.
I would buy this but it make my gut look like the troll from the first Harry Potter.
http://www.mden.com/shopping/product.cgi?1096805806828383?1504?AD1032
This polo gets me. I mean, this isn't State Penn adidas c'mon! Not even a little bit of maize in there! Hopefully somewhere I can still get last years white polo with the helmet on it. That was one of the best adidas Michigan products made yet I think.
As for the designs on the shirts, practice, sideline and etc they are boring and could be much better. The 2010 Season t-shirt I got in the mail yesterday is great and 100% better than that debacle of shirt last year with the pledge...
+1 for working a jab at ol' Weis-ie boy in there.
One thing I'm wondering here - are the stripes an attempt to blend in the helmet design, or a way to get in the 3-Stripe Adidas look, or both? I may be missing the point but since Adidas took over I've thought that was a bit too much of a coincidence.
Thanks, that was my initial impression but the OP here was talking about working in the helmet design so was wondering if it was conveniently some of both. Seems like a pretty bold manufacturer's logo for a team shirt, but since it is just the plain stripes they can get away with it. If the Nike swoosh were that large it would seem more out of proportion.
Just my considerably uninformed opinion.
I'm a fan of this one:
August 7th, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^
This shirt perfectly illustrates my huge pet peeve with Adidas. (That is, other than its general inferiority to Nike.)
The Adidas logo appears THREE TIMES on this shirt.
Logo on right chest, and the three stripes on each sleeve.
Compare that with the single block M on the chest.
Really, this is more of an Adidas shirt than a Michigan shirt. Much - if not most - of Adidas' team gear is like this. If I wanted an Adidas shirt, I'd buy an Adidas shirt. Adidas shouldn't be stealing the thunder of the teams that they make team apparel for, but that's exactly what they do when they make their corporate logo/imagery more prominent than the team logo.
In all honesty, this specific shirt isn't *that* bad....I just don't like that they plaster their damn three stripes over everything.
EDIT: Also, I don't like the yellow armpit-patches.
Looking at this shirt, it screams out 2 things at me:
1. ADIDAS!!!
and
2. "Hey, look at my armpits!!"
Michigan is a distant 3rd behind those 2 things.
August 7th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
I completely agree with every one of your points. I'd still wear the shirt though. :)
August 8th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
Don't know if you're being sarcastic here or not but Nike, in all honesty, is pretty subtle with their logo placement. Usualy the word "NIke" doesn't even appear....just a single, solitary, reasonably-sized "swoosh" logo.
And compared to Adidas, NIke's logo placement is downright stealthy.
August 8th, 2010 at 12:56 AM ^
Sorry, but If there is anyone that should be wearing things with less Addidas and more Michigan on it, it's the coaches and players.
From what I hear, many programs have jumped ship as well.
I think you're stretching the definition of "logo" a bit. The word "adidas" appears on the shirt exactly once.
As much as I love M-den, dont you guys think there prices are way too high?
i'm not defending the previous company who michigan recently cut ties with, as lousy as they were with fullfilling everyones orders(they did have great sales, and very reasonable prices). For example, the rich rodriguez football was $36 on the previous Msupplier website.......M-den is charging $89!!!! I mean come on, that is nuts. its the SAME exact ball, same signature.
I know people are fans of M-den, but i've always found them to overcharge on EVERYTHING! keep in mind, the previous guys even offered sales, discounts etc.....you rarely ever see that at M-den. The profits these guys are making must be very high, atleast margins wise. the previous guys did screw up peoples orders, or not even deliver, but i think for a good majority they offered great products at decent prices.
I don't like the addidas looks. I was talking to a high schooler who holds a UM offer and he says he likes State more becuase they are a Nike school. The Nike stuff is just cooler.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^
I understand Phil Knight comes up with some nice product but, seriously....a top level education, the greatest ncaa football program in history, unbelievable facilities and you'd give that up for Sparty (for Sparty!) because it's a Nike school.
Obviously, I'm getting old. Well, I'm going outside now to tell the kids to get the hell off my lawn.
August 7th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
Personally, I think Michigan's uniforms and apparel look better than MSU's, especially when you consider State's new, incredibly ugly football uniforms.
Especially if they'd kept this:
August 7th, 2010 at 11:57 PM ^
...of defeat. Those are bad.
August 8th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^
Steve and Barry's?
August 7th, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^
I do not like many of the clothes that Adidas has been coming out with. As toomer18 said there have been a few recruits lately that have mentioned liking State more because of the Nike stuff. Now with people saying MSU is being a Nike test school, we could see more of that.
Personally, I think that their sideline polo's look much better.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:26 PM ^
I hate adidas's stuff and I think the jerseys are poorer quality, I've they rip and they seem to bunch up and crinkle a lot on the players. And it's something acutal small concern when players are saying that they want to wear Nike. We should cut ties with Adidas when the contract is done in 2016.
August 7th, 2010 at 11:54 PM ^
Adidas gives us more money than Nike did.
Double the money, in fact - with a "most favored university" clause that automatically increases the dollar amount to match any program's contract that might exceed it. Plus an on-campus rep, as opposed to just being on Nike's Rolodex. We were kind enough to offer Nike the chance to match Adidas's offer. They spat in our face. I have no burning desire to come back to them.
(BTW, MSU is getting ripped off by Nike in their current deal. We get about as much in one year from Adidas as they'll get over the length of their entire Nike contract.)
I hate to admit it, but those shirts are sweet. Not overdone, just stylish and cool. I'd love it if we went back to Nike.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^
August 7th, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^
I'm not a fan of the adidas sideline stuff, but I wouldn't say it's terrible. I would have thought that adidas would put out some nicer looking stuff, but I'm not going to get mad about it. I kind of wish we still had Nike, but Martin clearly recognized the benefits of Adidas. FWIW, my dad got one of the polos from last year during the season and it is pretty awesome.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
August 7th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
The adidas stuff sucks compared to Nike, bottom line.
They say the contract from adidas is worth more money, but, I wonder if that's been cancelled out by a decline in apparel sales since the adidas stuff isn't as good.
I own TONS of Nike-made Michigan gear. I have bought nothing since the switch to Adidas because none of it's that good, and I already have enough Nike-made stuff to get by. If they were still w/ Nike though, it'd be a different story, I'd probably be buying more stuff on the regular. My guess is I'm not the only one in this situation.
M is the leaders and best.
Nike is the leaders and best when it comes to athletic apparel.
The two belong together.
Hopefully the AD has learned its lesson and goes back to Nike next time the contract is up.
Even if Nike offers a little less, so friggin what. It's not like the AD is hurting for money.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
and Nike is the leader and the best in sweat shops
August 7th, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^
Oh please.
Seriously, get a new gig.
Look, nearly every major huge corporation has shady and exploitative labor practices if you take a close enough look. I bet Adidas isn't squeaky clean either.
Is it right? No.
Do I endorse it? No.
But the bottom line is those practices are part of how we get cheap consumer goods in America. That's a part of the reality of our economy, so, to single out Nike as some sort of unparalleled force of evil as so many often do smacks of hypocrisy.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:51 PM ^
true i revoke my statement. Also I like both adidas and the nike stuff.
$150 Air Jordans that cost roughly $8 to make when I did my Business Ethics paper on Nike. GM cars have gone down so much since they started exporting jobs for cheap labor. That cheap labor resulted in something corporate America wasn't smart enough to see- skyrocketing cost for natural resources. Add in the loss of decent paying jobs and you have America in the shape it is now currently in.
I do agree with you that Nike isn't it the only company that said "just do it".
OK, maizenbluedevil, we've been through this a few times, but you never seem to remember the details.
Nike didn't offer "a little less." They offered HALF of what Adidas did - and there were no escalation clauses whatsoever, whereas Adidas offered a signed guarantee that we'd always be the highest-paid school in the country. They also promised (and have delivered) an on-campus rep to make sure the equipment is working, something Nike does only for Oregon. Maybe in your view we have "enough money," but David Brandon, facing a $150 million debt from the stadium renovation, would certainly disagree. Our resources have allowed us to already retire $76M of it. It's very, very important that we keep our yearly budget in the black.
Beyond all that, according to pretty trustworthy sources, the Nike people were complete dicks during the whole negotiation process. Bill Martin went into it assuming we'd renew with them and couldn't believe how unprofessional they were.
August 7th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^
For me the biggest problem is there is too much "Adidas" in it. Comparing it to the sparty shirt, the Adidas logo is larger than the Nike swoosh, it has the name "Adidas" in print, and we have the Adidas stripes on the sleeves.
The underarm stripes may be a little large depending on your taste but mostly I think the Adidas presence is probably too intrusive.
One thing remains undeniable - our colors and the block M dwarf all others, especially sparty.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:55 PM ^
I actually expected them to be much worse. The shirts are kind of ugly, but the hats are all okay.
Compare those to these pictures: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=&=&q=bo%20schembechler&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1281&bih=563--Bo always had on a solid blue hat with maize M, and a solid blue shirt/jacket, sometimes with stripes on the collar or sleeve. No crazy stripe or piping pattern, and no maker's mark anywhere (No, not http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Maker-s-Mar… that Maker's Mark).
I'm taking the opposite on this. I think Adidas has improved since their debut in 2008. I think that they have taken a better step with branding and have been more consistent with their designs. Maybe it's just me, but I think everything looks much better this year. I remember seeing random junk Adidas t-shirts mixed in with no-name brand t-shirts at Meijer. I think Adidas needed to stop slapping Adidas on a product but rather take the time to market quality products. I think this year they are improving from the Nike/Adidas transition of 2008-2009.
I don't see what the problem is with them.
I own 2008 sideline gear that I really like. It's very comfortable and has lasted very well through many wears and washes. I like Adidas designs for the most part, and I love the fact that they don't pester us to go all Oregon with our unis like Nike did. I even like the three stripes on the arms here which may be "the logo", but if you saw them not in the context of the shirt, would simply be three stripes. I think the fact that our helmets have three stripes really helps it blend in and I won't always see those stripes and think "Adidas".