OT: UGA Re-signs With Nike
Glad to see someone is pumped about this.
Didnt know Bruce Jenner went to Georgia....
he switched teams.
+100 lol
I don't find women with arms like that sexy at all. yuk
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Why isn't she playing linebacker or tight end?
She can be my tight end any day.
Hayoo!
She's more likely a wide receiver.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
She doesn't look like the kind that's usually on the receiving end.
Be careful as that is a possible shemale alert.
why some of us don't visit so much anymore. Hopefully, we get a more reflective mgoblog spin-off some time that's a little more challenging intellectually and everyone can be happy.
Those muscles look east german to me
I wish my arms looked like that.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
They are getting close to $4M, and apparantly the most Nike has paid anyone is $4.4M (to FSU).
Adidas pays Michigan $8.2M, so it's not even close.
Put another way, even if Nike comes in and pays Michigan $5M (which would be their most expensive school), Michigan is still short $3.2M per year or $32 million in the 10-year period, assuming Adidas doesn't up their offer.
As long as they give us jerseys that don't rip and all our road jerseys match I would take the dip down in cash
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
to see us take less than we get currently, but only if Nike is willing to pay us more than they pay anyone else for the life of the contract. It's important that we're the flagship school for whichever apparel provider we choose.
EDIT: I retract this statement. If the difference in money is more than 10%, we should go with the highest bidder.
Why??? We blast athletes and coaches who sell out to the highest bidder but it's ok for institutions to do so? Whatever the people on the field want is the apparel company they should go with. It's nothing more than a pissing contest trying to be the school that gets the most money from a certain shoe company, just do what's right by the athletes wearing the gear. Their opinion should hold the most weight.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
But I sure don't. Like it or not, money is the most important thing in our society. I'll never fault a guy for taking a gigantic payday. Now if you're talking about a marginal amount, say 10% or less, then sure, take other factors into consideration.
Michigan has a gigantic athletic department with a lot of debt and expenses. The AD would be negligent in his duties if he left millions on the table just because athletes and fans prefer a swoosh.
Or would you prefer more giant noodles in Michigan Stadium to make up for the revenue shortfall?
we will sell more than $30 million in additional apparel sales with Nike over a 10 year period, more than making up a few guranteed $3mil/year difference. Raback it.
end on the sales? Do we get 20%, 40%? I honestly don't know.
If $5 million more in gear is sold each year, but the AD only gets 20% of the revenue, that's only $1 million.
I'm sure you'll be getting a call any day now.
We are prominent in two major sports, FSU only is prominent in one. Plus now that we have Harbaugh, our brand is much more attractive. Nike could probably justify spending 5 million, if not simply to give a huge hit to adidas's market position.
We could probably get $5 out of Nike, but I don't think much more. Nike doesn't seem to want to jump into the race with Adidas and UA for paying tons of cash. My guess is that their strategy is to spend money on other things.
Regardless, >$30 million to choose Nike is crazy and there is no way Hackett can justify this when tuition is going up and state funding is going down.
Does this money actually impact tuition or any other activities outside of the athletic department?
I would sincerely like to pretend I care about the extra 32 million, but how exactly will it affect me?
I don't care about the "Chinese walls", but the fact is that a $3M+ a year drop in revenue needs to be offset somehow.
It could be as simple as student fees going to places other than the AD or not needing the school to subsidize band scholarships or travel costs.
You don't just lose $3M+ a year and continue as if nothing happened.
but the AD makes money, right? Why should the 'school' have to subsudize the band scholarships and travel costs?
I tend to be cynical when it comes to money... or maybe naive/ignorant is a better description, either way I doubt that a change from Adidas to Nike impacts student life or costs.
They don't care about you. They care about making money and the facts are Adidas pays a SHIT TON more!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Simply absurd. The athletic department generates $100 mil a year. The school does not support the program and the program will not become impoverished by missing out on the difference between an Adidas and Nike contract.
finally someone gets it.
full rate-card out of state tuition to the University for all of its athletes on scholarship. The expansion of teams and athletes over the past decade has driven this cost up considerably. The Dept. is self-supported, yes, but it needs to make smart financial decisions to stay that way.
It has nothing to do with tuition or government spending. On the other hand I agree with you that it will be tough to justify missing out on that much money regardless. There is a good chance Adidas is willing to pay even more than their previous contract. Considering all the renovations and hires, we could use the money.
gahhh, please stop saying this without at least bringing this up...
I don't see it. OSU is more prominent in football now and the 2 programs are about equal in bball nowadays and OSU has a 46M, 11 year deal. $4M-$4.5M is the Nike #. Yes you can argue brand but that's probably going to push UM closer to $4.5M.
Adidas sure as hell paid up.
come up with some uniforms for Coach Richt that can combat against cold weather in case they ever play north of the mason-dixon line.
Are those right? I seem to remember multiple September games that were at least 80 in the past. Not one big ten game was over 70 last year?
I think that chart is for the 2009 season.
It is from 2009!
No need to prepare for things that'll never happen.
I am so sick of hearing about Nike and Adidas, or is it Adidas or Nike....
Puma and Russell Athletic.
K-Swiss vs. Saucony.
UnderArmor or Converse
Pro Keds or British Knights?
MTA Pro
Chick Fil A or In N Out?
We will end up with Addidas again.
I don't know why we're continuing to focus on this.
Money, especially that much money, will absolutely be the deciding factor.
Yes, our wonderful AD is getting feedback from all areas, but they'll pay MUCH more than anyone else will. UA is going with ND as it's flagship. Nike relies on its brand and underpays by millions. Addidas will make us their flagship and pay an outrageous fee to supply us with athletic gear.
You don't need to be a genius to already know the outcome.
I find it fascinating that people think that some ethereal percieved quality variable will tip the balance in Nike's favor. Because there's very little difference between them.
This is the correct answer. I retract my previous statement. We would be stupid to leave that much money on the table. Nike might be better, but they're not that much better.
I agree that money talks & Adidas paying us double what Nike will should make the choice simple. Then again, how much does the AD value the Swoosh? What value does or AD put in recruiting, with better players usually meaning more wins? Kids, sadly, do care about that and Nike is overwhelmingly preferred. What value do they put on increased apparel sales? The question won't be who offers more but if Nike gives us anything over $4.4 and if our AD sees the makeup (and potential gains) in lost money elsewhere.
We went to the Final Four with Adidas and never with Nike. We signed the #2 football recruit in the country and won a BCS bowl with Adidas. We can recruit and win with Adidas or UA.
We won a national football title, a few B1G football titles with Nike, and a Heisman or two with Nike