10 years, $90 million. Surpasses our 10 years, $82 million contract.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
10 years, $90 million. Surpasses our 10 years, $82 million contract.
First the win percentage, now this? DB must be peeved.
But I'd love a switch to U A.
Agreed. Anything but Adidas plz.
Their shoes are not even comparable to Nike or Adidas. Number one priority should be equipment that at least gives our athletes a level playing field. Under Armour is not even in the same class as Nike and Adidas right now.
You honestly believe that Notre Dame (or any other school with an UA deal) is going to be at a competitive disadvantage because of the shoes they're wearing?
There's no way Benny gets that Babe Ruth signed baseball back if he's wearing Adidas.
LOL. I stand corrected.
Also, you play baseball like a girl.
People focus on jersey design, but that is nothing compared to shoes. Athletes train in these shoes year round, practice in them, and play in them. If you have the wrong shoes, all it takes is one injury to derail a season. Shoes are the most important piece of athletic equipment that you wear. Bad shoes can lead to problems in the foot/ankle all the way to the back.
Under Armour's quality, research, and experience in making shoes are lightyears from Nike and Adidas right now. They did not build their company from making shoes, and that is a bit of a problem. Ask any serious runner, soccer player, or basketball player if they would ever consider buying Under Armour shoes, and they will laugh in your face. And if you don't think that will affect you in recruiting, it will.
agreed, me too!
1 thing is yes they signed for more money but we have a deal with Adidas that if there is a deal for more money they have to up our deal. So thanks for the raise Notre Dame
that only applies for other adidas schools. notre dame went to UA because adidas would never pay them more than us.
I will take back every bad thing I've ever said about Dave Brandon, and promise to only praise his name in the future, if he signs a deal with I don't care which company for $90,000,000.01.
Really, you will forgive all the douchebagger of DB for a few million more? He has drawn you into his trap. Enjoy your 40% seat license raise
Some of y'all forget the power of their brand. Adidas is in the middle of a re-brand and they're willing to pay to play.. If we ever get a new apparel sponsor I'll buy everything Michigan with three stripes I can find. Also, I think they're done experimenting with our unis. Some big wig must have caught wind of the backlash
"It's just one of those things that is just so central to our identity," Swarbrick said. "We want to be Augusta-like in that way, and that's why after we discussed it one time it was never brought up in conversation again." - Swarbrick, on the idea of UA signage in the stadium
Augusta-like? I wonder if this means they will replace the "Play Like A Champion Today" sign with one that says "Replace All Divots"
Maybe he doesn't realize that Augusta is just trying to be Michigan Stadium-like.
of course ND wants to be Augusta-like. I mean, what an absoulte beacon for social justice and progressive human equality. Top notch, ND. Top notch indeed.
I hate it when ND out-smugs us.
From what I have been told, most of our student athletes do not like Adidas. They don't like there designs, and some say they don't fit well. I don't care the fit myself. The XXl fits like a XL in the chest, then a XXL is like dress.. JMT..
The Addidas fit is absolutely terrible for shirts. I am a size L in basically any other brand, but a size L from Addidas is huge, especially in the stomach / waist.
This is the buzz I've heard as well. My dad is acquainted with an assistant coach for a non-revenue sport, and his report was basically the Adidas gear fits strangely, the shoes don't feel right, the colors are off... Turns out to be a big headache for the players.
He gave me a pair of team issue training shoes that are now my primary running shoes (damn being a poor grad student), and they're just about the weirdest fitting shoe I've ever owned. The four block M's crammed on them look real solid, though.
Maybe that's our problem on offense. Are there any Adidas schools consistently in the BCS?
I'm mostly joking, but I suppose it's a possible factor. Bad shoes are a major problem in basically all competitive sports.
Just was thinking about it:
FSU(Nike), Auburn(UA), Bama(Nike), Oklahoma(Nike), Sparty(Nike), Stanford(Nike), Baylor(Nike), UCF(Unsure probably Nike), OSU(Nike), Clemson(Nike).
So there you go... none. Aboslutely disturbing if Adidas apparel may or may not be causing any recognizable dip in performance.
You mean it wasn't Borges after all? Sonofa,.....
Haha, I think ND in 2012 was also the only Adidas school that really belonged in a BCS game. So it must not be Borges after all.
But, now that you mention it...
Bama(Nike), ND(Adidas), FSU(Nike), Cincy(Adidas), Oregon(Nike), KSU(Nike), Stanford(Nike), Wisconsin(Adidas BUT... they Should NOT have qualified, OSU was real B1G champion in 2012), Florida(Nike), LVille(Adidas).
So that's really only three teams that were outfitted by Adidas which included the Big East champ (LVille) and an non-AQ team. Every team from the Big Ten, SEC, PAC12, and BigXII that were a BCS team were outfitted by Nike except ND. All signs are now pointing to Adidas being the main culprit I think. You Figthing Irish fans are lucky to be off the hook now (that's not a typo back there).
Clearly next time we face Bama it will be an equal playing field. Also I expect to UA to out fit the ND cleats with oil slicks and side ankle wings. As well as auto matic adjusting cleats that retract or get longer with the condition of the field, in real time.
Cloaking device jerseys are next.
Cloaking Device... I think we both have been there and seen that...
they would hate Under Armour. Nike or Adidas are the only options at this point in time. Under Armour still has a ways to go to catch those two in terms of quality of equipment.
When does our contract with Adidas renew? With a larger fan base than ND, you can bet the $$$$ will renew.
This is a couple of years old, but a good read, none-the-less:
See http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/01/study_michigans_apparel_contra.html for an article on the contract. It states that it expires in 2016.
With the departure of Notre Dame from the Adidas brand, Michigan is now one of 23 schools that the company outfits. Some of these programs are pretty small (Manhattan, UW-Milwaukee, St. Mary's, Santa Clara), but there are some larger clients as well, including three other Big Ten programs (Wisconsin, Indiana, Nebraska).
As we all know, there's a provision in the contract that states Michigan will be the highest paid of all the Adidas schools. If UM re-ups with Adidas, I imagine the contract will be more lucrative than the ND deal with UA and would keep that same provision.
As far as the uniforms are concerned, it's pretty clear that Michigan's adaptation of "neon yellow" over maize is a reflection of high definition television and a refreshed look that's different from the past.
What I truly do not understand, is how Brandon thinks it is okay, the job that Adidas does with our football uniforms. They are truly Mickey Mouse, and sparty-like of old..... and why Brandon doesn't see this, is truly incredible....... until we go back to Nike, this has got to change...
1. Remove the M above everyones nameplate on the back of the uniform, at the collar...... this started with the basketball uniforms....making seem like everyone has the first name that starts with M... I f*cking hate this.
2. Do a better job with stitching the numbers and nameplates..... for one can constantly see frayed threads, as if it were a hack job.
3. Rid of the Legends patch...... I don't need a patch to remind me that Tom Harmon wore 98... nor do I like the patches making it seem that we live in the past.
Note how that for whatever reason, Nike uniforms look far more professional, case in point, MSU.... Boy I hope Brandon reads this.
Our Nike uni's of old looked sweeeet.
1. Boy you must sure get things confused alot considering the size of the M and the last name is pretty much like mistaking something in 10 font for 64 (e.g. they are not even close to given that impression).
3. You do realize that this was a athletic department addition right and not an Adidas thing? Getting rid of Adidas wouldn't solve anything.
I understand it fine....
1. the M is plenty big enough to see, enough to know that IT DOESNT BELONG THERE..... did Da Vinci put a ML on Mona Lisa's forehead? Or why don't we put "Univeristy of Michigan" above the numbers like sparty does? All any of it does CLUTTERS our traditional uniform.
3. Yes, I know that... nonethless it clutters the uniform.... the beauty of our uniform has been its purity.... now it is polluted with stuff that shouldnt be there.... and isnt it ironic that this seems to have coincided with no Big Ten titles and a down decade....
Adidas comes up with the designs, but UM has final say. If someone important enough in the AD really hated the little M, it wouldn't be there. Enough people thought it was cool that it remains. And of all the things you could have mentioned - fabric which is prone to tearing, uniformz, neon yellow - you key in on this? Seems fairly minor...
I thought that there was strong emphasis on the block "M" which seems to show up everywhere. I suspect there are some IP issues that go with the use of the "M" where they want the "M" prominently displayed.
of the past 30 years. If the athletic department is so in love with the block M, why not try something similar to this:
I suppose they tried with the Dallas and Outback Bowl jerseys but did not succeed.
"and isnt it ironic that this seems to have coincided with no Big Ten titles and a down decade.." Yep. Ironic, like rain on your wedding....oh what the hell... nevermind
1. I don't have any problem differentiating the block "M" from the player's name on the back of the basketball or football jerseys. But beyond this, the "M" is there because those jerseys are sold to the public and in most cases, the ones you get at M Den, etc. are without a name on the back.
2. The numbers are pressed onto the jersey--they aren't stitched. If you do have a problem with the name plate stitching, then you need to contact the Michigan Equipment Manager, since his outfit is responsible for those name plates.
3. I think the legends patch is a unique and fitting way to honor past Michigan players. I don't think any other school does this and it helps differentiate UM from the pack. I suppose Michigan could go the traditional route with some sort of ring of honor in the stadium or statues. But I have no problem with it.
I don't want uniforms to look professional--I want them to look collegiate. If you had said some of the one off uniforms don't work (like the uni worn at the bowl game against South Carolina) and Michigan should stay away from that look, then I would completely agree with your sentiment.
Can we discuss the fact that the stupid nameplate M on the road jerseys are two shades brighter than the navy blue we actually use? Makes it look even cheaper than it already is.
Yeah, uniform hysteria is something I'll never understand. I don't really care who sponsors us or the details of the contract, or if there's an extra stripe on the XYZ/whatever.
I'm more a sports fan, less a fashion guru
Because of the psychology of it. Things tend to favor those that look the part, right or wrong. Msu with nike....they now look the part., and coincidentally have played the part. The opposite with us.
Yeah, we've sucked at basketball since we switched to Adidas.
Honestly, ever since the Adidas contract, I've just hated a lot of the uniform experimentation. The cardinal sin in my opinion is switching from maize to that god awlful bright yellow. My understanding is that the whole "Nike trademarked mazie" thing is an urban legend. Which means even if Michigan stays with Adidas, they have the ability to go back to something resembling the original color scheme.
Whether we got back to Nike, Under Armor, or stick with Adidas or some other contract, what I want is us to stop messing too much w/ the uniforms. It makes sense to be truly innovative at a school like Oregon or Baylor where their "tradition" is basically "innovation." But not at a Michigan or Notre Dame. Obviously revolutionize stuff in terms of comfort and safety. But when it comes to the asthetics, we need to stick with the classics.
Yeah, well get off my lawn.
The unis of 10,20,30 years aren't coming back and they shouldn't. I look back at past uniforms and they just look terrible. The maize that you like just doesn't look good. Like it or not, highlighter yellow is more popular with younger fans and recruits and I don't think it will change. It's a much sharper look.
Recruits love highlighter maize? Now I've seen it all.
over Adidas. I've always liked their fan gear. Today's athlete does consider what brand they will have to wear at the university they choose. I wear Nike shoes because they fit my feet different than Adidas. The Adidas uniform is jinxed. Time to go back! Nike Nike Nike!!!
Want promises that we will never ever wear those bumble bee outfits we adorned vs. staee 3 years ago.
And someone tell Adidas the color is Maize not highlighter yellow. It's so off and it's everywhere.
Pretty sure Nike has a copyright on the color combo of Maize and Blue.
The Adidas yellow is not far from the "maize" we wore in the last years of the nike contract.
The one thing that I defiantly appreciate about the AD office and the equipment staff (or whoever makes the decision on this) is the actual adidas uniform style they wear. Despite the fact that we are the highest paid school with adidas we haven't been asked to wear the "stretch mark" uniforms and we didn't have to wear the "shrink wrap" uniforms. Other than that I mean it is aesthetics. Yeah, I think the Nike fan gear is more comfortable and would like to see Michigan wearing the Pro Combat template because IMO it just looks cleaner. But remember it could look a lot worse. Just look at any of the other adidas schools.
We didn't say no when they wanted the basketball team to participate in every monochrome camo stupid aqua shoe promotion they pulled last year... And we're sticking hard with their WE EVERYTHING bullshit, too.
The we on slogan was team generated I believe. They all flipped a switch before practice with what they brought to the team.
The rise to the occasion ones are the Adidas created ones.
We did say no to the jerseys with sleeves.
And this is probably the most important thing decision Michigan has ever made about their uniforms. Seriously, I hate those damn things sooooo much.
1) The players loved the maize "bleed out" jerseys from last season. Pretty sure they don't care what you think nor should they.
2) "WE ON" was a player-inspired slogan and had nothing to do with Adidas. Sure, they crafted up some nicer-looking warmup tops after Michigan wore the initial ones during the Preseason NIT (I believe that was the first time I remember seeing them), but Adidas did not come up with the idea AFAIK. I'd wager a guess that this season's "WE WORK" is another player-generated mantra. I have seen no other Adidas schools wearing shirts bearing that slogan.
"I guess they'll offer more than 9/million a year when the contract expires in 2 years."
Maybe. Maybe not
I'm not sure what UM's leverage is to force Addidas to pay more. UM's 8.2 million dollar a year deal is the 2nd largest in the industry. If Addidas offers 8.2 million again I don't see where UM goes to get a better deal.
Nike isn't an option. They are the market leader. As such they don't pay what Addidas and UA pay.
UA would be an option, but only if UM wants to play 2nd fiddle to ND, because after what happened with Addidas you can bet you life that ND has MFN rights with UA for the length of their contract.
Secondly, ND is getting at least 9 million a year. What people have not mentioned is that THEY HAVE STOCK OPTIONS with the fastest growing apparel company in the market.
ND's stock options make the financial aspects of their deal with UA almost unmatchable for any other company.
UM's leverage is that Adidas just lost over 100million in revenue from a client going to someone else. If UM does the same, that would be over 200mm lost in college athletics clients. Heads would roll...
They can have under armour
And you can have that team...
They keep Auburn well equiped and looking traditional.
I can't imagine having to wear under armour shoes as a college basketball player. I guess the clothing is nice but the uniforms are terrible and beside cleated shoes, the stuff is hideous and looks like junk.
My UA running shoes are excellent and much better than any adidas or Nike shoes I've owned.
I would prefer starter or champion, keep it real.
Of course ND would have to get a contract for $8 mil more than UM. Now UM needs to go back to Adeeduz and twist their arm for $8,000,001...just to piss off old man Swarbrick.
I have Adidas shoes and an Adidas jacket that I love. I don't own any Adidas M gear, all my M gear is mgoblog or store bought. I've always liked the three stripes over nike and I don't like the uniformz, but that stuff is approved of by the university. Just my two cents....
I don't really get into the uniform debate when it comes up on here because it usually deals with the football team and other than those away "bumblebee" jerseys at MSU a few years back, it hasn't bothered me that much. But after someone brought up that Adidas is using the same template for most of their basketball teams, i paid a bit more attention this season to the basketball teams wearing Adidas. The poster was right, a lot of the Adidas schools have the exact same basketball jersey, just in different school colors. That seems ridiculous to me. Its like something you would buy from Eastbay when the only customization you can do is the colors of the uniform. We should at least get an original jersey design instead of one 25 other schools also have.
Any chance Russell Athletic could match a deal like the Adidas deal? Their only BCS school is Georgia Tech and I've heard those are high quality uniforms. They have in the past done deals with MLB and NFL so you can bet they are itching for another big name.
Maybe UM's athletic department will go with LA Gear next time around...Michigan will be the only program with light up shoes.
Yeah that's about what I figured. Russell has pretty much died compared to the old days. Though blue light up shoes would be amusing for one time only ...
Or British Knights. We could get Marc Summers to do commercials for us.
Lots of money. Seems like the kids ought to get a cut of this cheese.
Dave Brandon, take notice:
"Texas Tech is different from Maryland is different from Notre Dame," [UA CEO Kevin] Plank said. "We don't have to invent any new history. We don't have to tell any new stories. Notre Dame is quite simply Notre Dame."
Let Michigan be Michigan, too.
Absolutely love these Kansas "throwback/alternate" uniforms:
vs. Penn State last year and vs. OSU in 2009.
Both were really sharp, I'd love to see them in the current uniform rotation.
We need more hearts, I mean, money.