OSU's Unis/Pads today

this guy gets it.

I was unaware the difference in the financial terms were that substantial. In light of that, it makes more sense. Adidas made Martin an offer he couldn't refuse.

Regarding this:

"I will say that when it comes to marketing, Nike does probably
have the edge. They seem to have brainwashed you and a few other posters into seeing differences that don't exist."

Re. Equipment: Oh, right, differences that don't exist. I forgot about the cutting edge technology in Michigan's pads. To say there's no difference is completely silly and blattantly ignoring the facts that are out there in plain view.

Re. Marketing: You can take as much pleasure as you want in thinking you're above being affected by good marketing, but if you can't see how being affiliated with a company that does good marketing is beneficial to M, then you're blind. Even if you are not affected by that, guess who is? That's right, teenage kids. Like, say, the kids we're recruiting to come play football for us.

Re. Fan apparel: Cite consumer testing all you want. The stuff Adidas makes for us is crap. I have never bought an Adidas made M item, probably never will. I bought *tons* of Nike M stuff, and still have it. I'm not the only one. I don't know anyone that actually buys the Adidas made M apparel. I knew tons of people that bought the Nike made M apparel.

Here's a great example. Around last Christmas time, I recieved a $20 gift card for Dunham's. I went there and wanted a new Michigan hoody. I saw an array of crappy, generic Adidas ones that other than the Adidas logo and the expensive price, didn't differ at all from the off-brand hoodies.

Then, I saw a Nike hoody... On clearance for $30.

It was more well-made, better looking, was water resistant, felt as soft as cashmere on the inside, and had an extra zippered pocket for an iPod so for convenience if you wear it to go running.

Hmmm... which do you think I went with? That? Or the Adidas sweatshirt that wasn't much different at all from what I'd get for $5 at Steve and Barry's?

This is why I will probably never buy Adidas made M gear. I'm not the only one.

Further, whatever happened to Adidas making lots of custom-made, uniquely designed stuff for us, as they were allegedly going to do? That never happened. Instead, we get the same generic stuff they make for every other school, which, is the same generic stuff as the regular things Adidas makes, just with a school logo attached, almost as an afterthought in most cases.

No one buys the Adidas stuff. Lots of people were buying the Nike stuff. That should be factored into the financial considerations of contractual negotiations once our contract w/ Adidas expires. Hopefully we're back on top of the football world by then so that Nike shows us the money.

I did some digging because what you posted in the first paragraph regarding financial terms didn't sound right to me based on what I remember from around the time the switch from swoosh to stripes initially happened.

This article that features an interview w/ Bill martin is useful:

http://blog.mlive.com/jim_carty/2007/07/bill_martin_talks_adidas_part.html

(If people want, they can blast that I got this from mlive, or blast Jim Carty, or whatever, but keep in mind this is Martin talking.)

You said, "For the record, Adidas offered us twice as much money as we were making in our previous Nike deal," (emphasis mine.)

Exactly. *Our previous deal* with Nike. As far as I'm aware, it's unknown how much Nike's counter-offer to the new Adidas contract was. The fact that the *new* Adidas deal was worth twice as much as the *old* Nike deal is apropos of nothing in determining how much more financially advantageous the *new* Adidas deal was over Nike's *counter-offer*.

Was the Adidas offer better than Nike's counter-offer? Very likely. But we don't know exact figures. But citing the above facts as evidence that the Adidas deal was hugely, far and away a better deal is a distortion and a misleading use of facts.

You continue, "a 'most favored university' clause that automatically increased our deal to match that signed by any other school, with any other apparel company."

Let's let Bill Martin answer this one.

Martin, from the above interview:

"We got a most favored program clause. There's never going to be an Adidas school that gets a nickel more than us, either in product or money."

In other words, what you cite above about us getting more money than any other program with any supplier is patently false.

I'm not suggesting you were trying to be misleading with your post, but, it's kind of ridiculous that you came on this thread trying to demonstrate that the Adidas deal is clearly, way, way better than what we would have gotten with Nike, based on facts, and then get the facts completely wrong.

So much for reason. You seem just as irrationally committed to the notion that Adidas is a better supplier for us to have than Nike as you allege that I am to the opposite position.

Calling for the University of Michigan to tear up its Adidas deal and go back to its Nike deal, which paid half as much money and offered fewer other perks (like no on-site rep), just because you have some personal attachment to Nike, is irrational. (And again, you can drop the "Nike performs better" argument because consumer comparisons have consistently found no measureable difference in performance among any of the leading brands.) The school has to do what's best for itself, even if that goes against your personal whims.

The swoosh is not featured as prominently on as many of the apparel items as the three stripes are on the Adidas items.

Yes. Nike has swooshes on their stuff. They are usually not big though. As I mentioned, I have tons of M stuff made by Nike. On *all* of them, the swoosh is maybe an inch long by a half inch tall.

Contrast this with adidas that has three strips plastered ALL OVER there stuff.

CASE IN POINT: Look at the right side of this very web page and the "All in for Michigan" towel!!! There is evidence right in front of your eyes that debunks what you say, and yet you have the nerve to insult *my* intelligence with your, "obviously Nike has gotten to you through these methods."

You're right it's probably not *that* important.

Will we lose games because we're wearing Adidas? No.

I just figure you want every edge you can get, and Nike makes better products.

As for me "defending Nike" I don't really know where I've "defended" them in the thread. I've stated why I prefer them.

Also, in my post above, I defend the notion that Adidas isn't as hugely preferable to Nike as some think, because of a distortion and mis-statement of the facts in someone else's post, but, stating why I think there are good reasons having Nike as opposed to Adidas as our supplier is beneficial to the university is different from defending Nike.

Some people on this thread (not you, but some people) are responding to my posts as if I've somehow been brainwashed by Nike's corporate propaganda and that's just ignorant. I think Nike makes a better product than Adidas. How does that amount to being brainwashed by marketing? I'm sure the very people who wrote those things have brand preferences themselves.