jblaze

May 21st, 2015 at 9:40 AM ^

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.

The Mad Hatter

May 21st, 2015 at 10:36 AM ^

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.

WorldwideTJRob

May 21st, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^

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

The Mad Hatter

May 21st, 2015 at 11:00 AM ^

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?

MichiganMAN47

May 21st, 2015 at 9:55 AM ^

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.

jblaze

May 21st, 2015 at 9:58 AM ^

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.

the real hail_yes

May 21st, 2015 at 10:12 AM ^

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?

jblaze

May 21st, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^

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.

the real hail_yes

May 21st, 2015 at 11:56 AM ^

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.

Clarence Boddicker

May 21st, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^

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.

MichiganMAN47

May 21st, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^

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.

alum96

May 21st, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^

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.

Zarniwoop

May 21st, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^

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.

Danwillhor

May 21st, 2015 at 10:40 AM ^

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.