landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
No, UCLA, Nebraska and Indiana will switch before we do...
That michigan was going to sign a deal with jerzees brand in the future.
It's gonna be Zubazz. The tournament jerseys last year were just a trial balloon.
Frankly I'd like to see them go really outside the box and open up talks with Joseph A. Bank.
Buy one jersey, get the next 15 uniforms free.
I almost choked on a mouthful of rice I was laughing so hard.
You magnificient bastard.
I wouldn't mind seeing them in some lulu lemon
I'm hearing classic cycling clothing brand Nalini is being considered.
It's up to Nike, adidas and Under Armor. I'll be shocked if Michigan doesn't go to the highest bidder that keeps M the highest paying deal.
adidas just let 2 of their biggest university deals walk away. ND got a lot of money from Under Armour, but I highly doubt Nike offered Tennessee much as their college contracts have been much smaller than adidas. Either Tennessee really wanted to get rid of adidas or adidas may be shifting their priorities with respect to university apparel deals.
My maize Fab Five Nike shorts and #2 Woodson jersey are still in great shape...the quality was so much better.
Highly doubt Michigan settles for less than having the best deal.
Now that notre dame is gone, Michigan is #1 for adidas. They're going to throw everything at them to keep them.
If adidas just let ND and Tennessee walk, why do you think they are now going to shell out some outrageous deal for Michigan?
The only major schools left with adidas are now Michigan, UCLA, Kansas, Nebraska, Indiana, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Louisville, and Cincinnati. Half of them are basketball first programs.
I love college sports and Michigan sports in particular. I am a die-hard. But, for the life of me, I can't figure out why people care about the apparel companies so much.
The reasons I have seen:
1. Certain game worn jerseys tear and are bad quality.
I just don't think that is different among the companies and even if it was, they work to fix the problem.
2. Fans prefer the style and fit of certain fan apparel.
That just seems like an extremely minor thing to care about.
3. Certain companies do better with recruits.
That just sounds insane to me. A kid who even lets that influence his college choice is probably not smart enough to be academically eligible to finish HS.
It's the same crap for all companies. They all try new styles to sell more jerseys.
So, how can people care about this stuff? I mean, I see more reason to care about Dave Brandon's facial hair than apparel contracts. Is it just me?
I've never understood the obsession either. Yet there seems to be a thread everytime anyone switches companies.
It affects recruiting and marketing of the Michigan brand. It's not just about fan preferences.
When someone can find a recruit that's ever said, "I'm going here because that's a Nike school" then I'll believe this.
It's not an end all factor but I'd guess 90% of kids prefer Nike to Adidas.
You would guess that 90% of kids prefer Nike to Adidas?
That's fantastic. What is this guess based on?
i wouldn't say 90%, but market reports show nike is still the dominant brand.
Go look around a gym. Guarantee you say tons more people sporting the swoosh. Obviously it's just a guess but Nike is certainly more popular. Hell, Under Armour has more than likely passed Adidas at this point.
you go to a gym you will See Under Armor has far surpassed everyone.. including Nike
Shoe companies have a huge role in basketball recruiting from sponsoring AAU teams and coaches. It's a slimy business. And I think it is only a matter of time until it spreads into the growing 7 on 7 summer football tournaments.
Surprise, who did Muhammed and McLemore sign with after turning pro: adidas
Given that John Beilein jumps right out of a recruitment if sliminess is going on, I don't think this will affect us one tiny bit.
Kentucky is a recruiting powerhouse. They wear Nike. Kansas is a recruiting powerhouse. They wear adidas. Anyone claiming some kind of correlation between recruiting success and wearing a particular brand is full of it. We pulled Mitch McGary away from every elite basketball school in the country. I bet it wasn't because of adidas.
The AAU coaches and teams are sponsored by shoe companies. They may promote certain schools to the prospect or take them to that university's camp. The prospects grow up wearing a certain brand. It has an effect, and Nike is the dominant player in the market. I am not saying it is always the primary or only reason a recruit chooses a school, but you are making a big mistake if you ignore its impact. How would you feel if Anthony Davis had chose OSU partially due to Nike? Yes, we got McGary, but the margins can be very small between winning and losing. Personally, I would prefer to be with the major player in the market.
And like I pointed out above, it seems like adidas is invested in basketball. Half of their major college contracts are historically basketball schools (Kansas, UCLA, Indiana, Louisville, and Cincinnati). I am more worried about the football effect especially with adidas losing 2 of their major football contracts. The only real football schools left with adidas are Michigan, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. Especially with the rise of these AAU like organizations like Core 6 and Maximum Exposure in football, I think shoe companies could start to play a bigger role in college football.
Ahem . . . what makes you think we are not a basketball school?
It's worked for Oregon. Oregon is Nike, Nike is Oregon.
I kid, I kid...kind of.
MJ's son was the driving for that made UCF switch from Adidas to Nike, because he wanted to wear his father's shoes. Adidas wouldn't allow it, and Lil' Jordan wouldn't wear anything else, soooo.... Bye bye Adidas.
This is just false. The only and I will say ONLY school that I believe gets impacted by apparel in a significant way on the recruiting trail is Oregon (hehe Oregon trail). If you want Michigan to move in the direction of Oregon, go ahead, but I have absolutely no desire for Michigan to wear 15 different jerseys per season. Some may hate the current alternate jerseys (none this season), but it's nothing like Oregon. It works for them, but not for Michigan.
For those of you who actually still believe a recruit selects a school based on an apparel company, how about considering this - with the money Adidas pays Michigan, they can invest in all sorts of different things. All those renovations at Michigan do not come for free. Adidas did not fund all of them, but they certainly helped. So people would rather take "cooler jerseys" over better facilities and resources for the athletes? For me, the choice is obvious and to 99.9% of recruits, I think the choice is pretty obvious as well.
Nike has a clear advantage in recruiting. Shoe companies have a huge role in recruiting especially basketball where they sponsor AAU teams and coaches. I have a feeling this is going to spread to football now with the growth of these 7-on-7 football tournaments. Nike for the most part dominates the AAU scene right now
It's why I pointed out above that most of adidas' large contracts are with basketball schools. That is not a coincidence. I think adidas has a lot more invested in basketball than football right now.
So because a single recruit (who massively underachieved) was partially influenced by a shoe company, that's the overall trend? Mitch McGary came to Michigan largely due to the facility renovations. In fact, you can tie a huge hunk of Michigan basketball's rise on the recruiting trail to the facility renovations.
Try again. Read the whole article. It's not about Shabazz Muhammad.
I did read the article. They just blindly listed off some names of elite recruits Coach Cal had landed and tried to link them to Nike relations. I can do that too. GR3, McGary, Zeller, Irvin, and Ferrell all must have selected their schools based on Adidas relations. You know what, Booker must have picked Kentucky because they have Nike. How could he possibly have two different shoe companies in his top group?
Ok, enough ranting and let's be serious about it. As I said before, I have absolutely no doubt that shoe companies are a factor. Kids surely want to look cool, but does it have a significant impact on the recruiting process? I highly disagree. The most important categories that determine who you get are the performance of the program and your facilities. If the shoe companies were that significant, Nebraska should have been in the race for Muhammad and if they were that significant, how was Kentucky even in the race at all? For 99% of recruits, they are not going to select their school based on the shoe company. Maybe it plays a small role, but for the massive majority of recruits, it is not the deciding factor.
and why I linked it. You have twice now misinterpreted what the author is talking about. The author (who is pretty well respected in college basketball circles) was pointing out that Muhammad picking UCLA because of adidas was not a big deal like some people were making it out to be at the time as the influence of shoe companies is widespread in college basketball. The reason it made news was because usually adidas is the one that loses out on these high profile prospects and the fact Calipari lost out on a highly rated recruit. The reason he lists all those Calipari prospects was not to link them to Nike but to show how successful Calipari has been recruiting prospects in the late period which was when he was recruiting Muhammed. The prospect he does link to Nike was Anthony Davis who pretty much won Kentucky a National Championship and was the #1 overall draft pick, just another underachieving player who made no difference again. I don't think anything I post here is going to change your mind as it seems you are completely fixed on your view despite evidence to the contrary.
Of course, shoe companies are not the only reason a prospect will choose a school. But it is one of the factors in play and you can't ignore that. Nike is the dominant player, and the schools that are contracted with them have an edge in that area. That does not mean a school like Michigan can't overcome it, but why play at a disadvantage when the margins between winning and losing can be small. Comparing Nebraska with Kentucky and Kansas is comparing apples and oranges. Compare Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Syracuse, UConn, MSU, Florida and OSU basketball (Nike) with Kansas, UCLA, Louisville, Indiana, and Michigan basketball (adidas). And this is a sport that looks like adidas is heavily invested in. How do you think it will affect football where adidas is not heavily invested? The gap may be even wider in football where adidas is nowhere near the player that Nike is.
Shoe companies have an effect, and it is bigger than you make it out to be. For example, AAU coaches control what tournaments the teams play in and sometimes what universities their prospects visit on college tours. Hypothetical: How would you feel if Core 6 attended OSU & MSU camps and avoided taking their kids to Michigan because they were affiliated with Nike? You don't think that would have an effect? Little things like this happen.
You're contradicting youself. First you say that shoe companies impact ingrecruting is false. now you say that it is a factor. No one is arguing that every recruit's decision is solely based on the shoe company.
Let's set aside the major football powers for now. Other college football programs without large budgets and product-only contracts with Nike still align themselves with Nike because of Nike's strong brand influence. in their recruiting pitch, they do play up the fact that they have nike prouducts. The major football powers will have other factors like facilities, education, tradition that should trump the logo on the shoe, but for some recruits, it's still a factor.
Another aspect that is not being discussed is that these shoe companies can help build the school brand. Oregon would not be where they are without Nike's help. Notre dame jumped to under armour with the expectation that UA will help market/build/maintain their brand. With a program like Michigan with so much tradition, we may not think much help is needed, but with so much competition, every little bit helps.
We want the University of Michigan football program to be sucessful, so for me the question isn't what logo do I want to wear for me, but what associations should Michigan make to bring the highest chance of success? Every detail matters.
It affects recruiting? You seriously believe this?
in my line of work, i've spoken with college football players and in casual conversation they have said the brand did have an effect on their college choice.
georgia knows the brand has an impact and proudly displays the nike swoosh on their twitter page: https://twitter.com/footballuga
of course, not every recruit cares about the apparel/footwear brand, but to say it doesn't have an impact on recruiting is an uninformed statement.
Our very own steve breasting once mentioned that he probably wouldn't have considered michigan if they were with Adidas. Anyone who knows steve or is even familiar with him knows that he is a sneaker head. I do no think he is alone with those feelings.
It's not just you. I could not give a shit what apparel logo is on the jersey if I tried.
or they don't care. But all of this fake hooha when both companies are producing so much crap is ridiculous. I can still remember being introduced to the concept of consumer consciousness in a class at UM--this is the farthest thing from it.
People should read this, good piece that debunks a lot of this crap:
If you're referring to nikes labor/production standards then Adidas is no better. They had a similar issues at many of their factory's last year
...you have never owned both Michigan and Adidas gear and felt the difference.
I've heard this argument before and I just don't get it.
I've owned plenty of Nike and Adidas apparel. They both make products with varying quality levels.
If you want a cheap Nike golf shirt, they make one. If you want to spend more, they make a higher quality version that is obviously nicer.
The same goes for Adidas. They make different products for different budgets, just like a lot of other manufacturers out there.
Disagree. In my experience, the "pricier" Adidas stuff is still a far lower quality than the equivalent Nike product. This has contributed to me reducing the amount of apparel that I buy.
And a lot of the replica stuff they produce is a joke. The Hockey jerseys are embarrassing, and the basketball unis are pitiful.
Yeah, I can't comment on the replica jerzees, etc. I'm not into that stuff, so I've never shopped for them (or compared their quality).
I was only commenting on the retail apparel in general.
In that regard, I think the differences are negligible and not worth all of the hullabaloo on this here blog.
Adodas sells is crap in comparison. I have 2 nike jerseys and 2 Adidas jerseys...there is also no comparison. From a fan perspective I want Nike back....and I would spend a lot more on Michigan gear.
I mostly agree, but I totally get why people care about fan apparel because why wouldn't you? Some people like to wear a lot of Michigan stuff, and in particular favor official gear. I'm not really a fan of Nike's official gear for most schools either, but it's certainly better than Adidas. When you're spending anywhere from 20-100 or more dollars on each item of official team apparel, I can understand why you would have a preference.
Uniforms on the field and court don't do much for me, but what I wear to the game does. Adidas stuff is poorly made, and varies sizes way too much. If I could choose, I would totally go to Under Armour, because all of their stuff is extremely nice.
When Michigan, as the #1 flagship school, has to resort to wearing last years jerseys because the new model is shit and rips/tears at the slightest use. Yet Adidas refuses to fix the issue and rush order/prodcue another batch of jerseys in time for the current season then I think that speaks volumes about the company and their inability to react to the marketplace.
Maybe they should spend less time designing jerseys with sleeves/zubaz stripes on them and bit more on R&D.
I'll have what they're having, please.
Just anything but adidas. All their stuff looks like a old man would wear it!!
I look forward to having nike again.
please bring back NIKE... please
My Nike stuff is in great shape; can't say the same for the newer Adidas M gear.
I can while my old Nike gear looks like garbage.
Go with whoever pays the most. The more money the university has the better!
Would the increase in merchandise sales from Nike products offset a potential smaller contract? I have no idea, but it's worth thinking about.
I've wondered the same thing. Following the Fab Five's freshman season merchandise sales jumped from around $2 million to $10 million (around $15M today). I believe our current gives us around 8M annually, and only half of that is cash.
I have not bought one piece of Michigan apparel made by Adidas. All of my michigan jerseys and apparel are nike.
I couldn't care less what company is used for the uniforms
These don't have the deal we have. With schools leaving Adidas they will make every effort to keep us when our deal ends. Nike won't give us a deal like Adidas. I fear we are stuck with Adidas.
And it makes me very disappointed.
Following Tennessee's win, Adidas' record in college football has been disastrous. They managed to win contracts to a number of perennial powers; all of them suffered through uncharacteristic periods of extended mediocrity.
Those teams include, but are not limited to: UCLA, Nebraska, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, and Michigan.
End the reign of error.
Obviously no one can make the argument of causation but it is extremely odd that no Adidas sponsored team has won a BCS championship since Tennessee in the inaugural go round in 1998. I hate to acknowledge a fear of curses but damn we have bottomed out since going from swoosh to stripes.
I don't really care who makes our jerseys, but I wish the NCAA would make them take their logos off the front of the jerseys. It looks especially bad in basketball. If the NBA and NFL don't allow the swoosh, three stripes, etc., on the front of their jerseys, why is it acceptable for the NCAA and its "amateur" competition?
The NBA and NFL logos are what sell the sports in the pro game. In collegiate athletics, sponsors and shoe companies are what sell the sport. They pay big bucks to have their name plastered all over. And also in the NBA or NFL, although they may license Nike or Champion or other companies to sell official gear, teams have more control on who design/manufactures their uniforms. Old Navy at point was the designer/manufacturer of the Pacer unis.
I don't agree. We don't speak of "Michigan football brought to you by Adidas" or anything like that. What does Adidas do to "sell" our sports teams?
You can make a case that the individual conferences sell their schools' sports more than the NCAA does, but I wouldn't say that about the shoe companies. It just seems to be an oversight on the part of the NCAA to allow the logos front and center.
you are right in saying that you don't see UM athletics brought to you by Addias. But you do have Addias and Nike and the like paying hefty sums money to schools basically for advertising. That's why their logos are front and center. That is not necessarily the case in the NBA or NFL.
that switch away from Adidas, the more money Adidas will have to offer Michigan when the contract comes up. Not necessarily great news if you loathe Adidas gear.
I know I'm in the minority (at least the vocal minority), but I like Adidas. Nike is definitely a bigger brand, but I have always preferred the three stripes and what my son refers to as the Adidas "flower." With that said, I don't own any M Adidas gear, just non-team Adidas gear.
Some of you need to stop thinking that if we went back to Nike we'd be ''forced to wear UNIFORMZ'' all the time! Every single uniform outside of the norm has to be approved by the AD first. The only alternate uniform Alabama has ever worn was when they had houndstooth pattern in the numbers.
Plus the alternate uniforms adidas has shown us so far have been awful anyway. If we're going to go out in something different, it might as well not look like shit.
PLUS I agree with many people on here and say that I don't like the apparel in genral adidas puts out. A lot of the stuff I have from adidas is already fading where it's taken ten years for the stuff I bought from nike to start fading.
If it's good enough for the Norwegian curlers.....