Recruiting and Adidas
I talked to a recruit [one who committed to somewhere other than Michigan] who told me that one of the biggest mistakes UM has made was changing from Nike gear to Adidas. It struck me as a pretty silly thing to say - he was implying that a reason he decided against M was that the Adidas gear doesn't stack up to Nike gear. I've also seen and heard current and former M players talk about how they don't keep any of the Adidas gear they've received and how they greatly prefer the Nike gear.
Just wondering what you guys thought about this and the effect of the Adidas gear on recruiting.
Although I don't have a problem the Adidas stuff, I still prefer Nike.
I played soccer and I can tell you that we were a little more happy with Nike than we were with Adidas. We had a shortage of gear that never happened while we had Nike. Also the quality of the soccer cleat was not great for Adidas. About 80% of the team preferred Nike cleats. When your that young as a recruit I can see how that (Nike vs Adidas) would make a LITTLE difference when picking a school, because I came in knowing that Nike would be my supplier and I was pretty excited about it, since that was what I preferred over the years. Just my $00.02
Equipment shortages and similar issues are common when you change suppliers. I remember when we signed on with Nike in 1994. Most of our team uniforms had been made by Russell Athletic and there were a bunch of complaints at first. For one of our women's teams, Nike used the wrong shade of blue in the uniforms (it was UCLA's shade), and there were a bunch of problems with jerseys having poor stitching and whatnot (a consequence of being rushed into production), along with some other problems. They were corrected within a year or two and I'm sure these will be, too.
Adidas cleats make my calves look smaller... FWIW
That's strange. I wouldn't have imagined that the brand of equipment would factor into a recruit's decision. I've always been partial to the Nike stuff, but that's because it was more popular when I was young.
I play hockey; all of my pads - elbow, shoulder, shin, etc - are Easton and I simply can't stand other brands. Doesn't fit me right, doesn't give me mobility, etc etc.
If I were a football recruit, proper equipment would definitely be a factor for me.
Yeah, I guess I'm making the assumption that the quality is pretty similar. If there really is a difference in the quality, then I completely understand how that would play into a recruit's decision.
I've always preferred Easton hockey as well. Easton Equipment is very comfortable and last for years.
shoulder pads or helmets so you're hockey analogy is all washed up. The most important football gear isn't made by either Nike or Adidas. Don't know who the recruit is/was but if he is basing his decision on that he probably doesn't belong in college.
By the way, Adidas gear sure seemed to work for the Bball team!
This is a quote from an article about Brandon Gainer about a month back
"I'm very confident because they are already in the top three for me as of right now," Gainer said. "I used to watch the Wolverines back in the day when they were sponsored by NIKE and had Charles Woodson. I like a lot of tradition and they've got a good program that will push me to get better. I like a challenge."http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=880&CID=962862 Not saying it's the overriding factor but they are aware. However, I don't think it's to the point of AAU and Basketball (hopefully it never gets there).
from Nike to British Knights.
I guess I never thought it would matter either. I've never had serious issues with any of the major companies gear...is it just a style preference or are there legitimate performance differences in gear?
I would say its mostly style, but there is also some performance differences. Nike is usually more expensive, and therefore you would expect better performance. Not a huge difference, though.
The only thing I have ever really seen mention is that adidas is no slouch when it comes to distributing to each school what they need. While a couple teams didn't even have enough practice jerseys from Nike and players had to switch out during scrimmages
UCLA complained a while back that Adidas cleats were the reason 6 or 7 players suffered foot/leg injuries. Other than that I haven't heard of any legitimate grips about their performance. I've always purchased Nike Cleats myself and I'm not really that impressed with the Adidas gear.
I've owned Adidas, Umbro and Nike cleats. I destroyed the umbros in less than a year, but I've had a pair of adidas for three years. I only bought new cleats cause finally the stitching started to come out a bit. I personally can't stand my nike cleats that I'm wearing now. All a matter of personal preference, I guess.
Interesting idea.
There must be a few good recruiting teams that wear Adidas. Notre Dame and Tennessee come to mind. What are other Adidas teams?
Ones that I can name off, off the top of my head are:
-Michigan
-Notre Dame
-Tennessee
-UCLA
-Wisconsin
-Nebraska
It is possible that it could sway a few kids, with people being fickle and all. However, you wouldn't think that it would be a huge deal over all.
I believe this list represents all D1A football teams wearing Adidas:
Arkansas
UCF
Cincinnati
Indiana
Kansas
Louisville
Michigan
Mississippi State
North Carolina State
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Pittsburgh
Tennessee
Texas A&M
UCLA
Wisconsin
I bet winning has a lot more to do with it and most kids don't seriously consider the brand. Cincinnati seems to be improving at recruiting with Adidas, which is most likely a result of winning more games under Brian Kelly.
Toss Central Michigan on that list too. The deal with Adidas kicks ASS and outfits every single varsity AND club sport with affordable gear. We used to be supplied by NEW BALANCE. I didn't even KNOW they made anything but shoes.
Just EPINION, no SUGARcoat.
I was under the impression that CMU was still using New Balance.
Nope. The AD Dave Heeke signed a deal for the 09 season. Adidas is simply giving the schools more money than Under Armour/Nike/New Balance.
If it's good enough for MoJo, it's good enough for me!
I can understand why recruits factor this in. I like Nike gear a LOT more than adidas. If it was a close decision between two schools, then I would definitely factor in the school's unis and what brand they have. This isn't surprising at all. These guys have to wear this gear for their entire college career (unless they transfer) and, assuming they continue to support their school, they will wear it for a while after they play. The bottom line is that Nike is higher quality and better looking to most young guys.
I think the only real advantage with Adidas is that it seems they don't have the set template for everything like Nike did. For instance, the football sideline gear was the same from school to school, just with different colors and logos. That also went for uniforms as well, especially with that awful bib-type thing that started with (I think) Miami and spread throughout the country.
I will say this, though: even if it was repetitive, the Nike gear looked better, and it certainly has more brand recognition appeal than Adidas.
I'll also say that the fan gear has been largely unoriginal and lackluster compared to the Nike stuff, but that could just be a factor of it being the 2nd year of the contract. The Adidas hockey replica jerseys are absolutely horrendous quality. I know that has nothing to do with on-field gear, but I think it says a lot that Adidas couldn't even get the size of the M right on the away jerseys, and the fabric on all three is so thin you can see your hand through it.
It's clear the University got an outrageously good deal from Adidas, but money isn't always everything, I guess.
I'm not entirely sure about Adidas not really having a set template -- if you look at all the coaches' gear (, everything has that three-stripe pattern on the sleeves (look at the polo shirts in particular), and I'm pretty sure that the design of the new away jersey was a direct function of switching to Adidas.
The issue I've noticed with Adidas throughout all of last year is that the player's jerseys are obviously of horrendous quality -- look at how easily they were torn over the course of the season (with the white cotton padding from the interior of the shoulders getting pulled out mid-game). It honestly looks pretty bad.
that Nike was a little repetitive, but they also did a lot of different stuff with some teams (See Oregon, The U, etc.). I hope we can go back to Nike someday, but maybe that door is shut.
Ever hear of Phil Knight? He is to Oregon what Boone T. Pickens is to Okie State.
Also, I'm sure some of you have read about the Adidas curse:
http://theangryt.com/?p=843
My brother-in-law plays in the NFL. He said he really only considered Nike schools coming out of HS. He said a lot of guys feel the same way. He was shocked that Michigan switched from Nike from a recruiting perspective.
Personally, I can't stand Adidas gear for running or even walking. The shoes just don't fit me right. Another gripe I have is that the Adidas uniforms seem bright yellow instead of maize.
This gear switch has been a hard pill for me to swallow. Fortunately, I was able to wash it down with some maize and blue Kool Aid and last week I bought my first Adidas UM gear.
Go Blue!
I noticed this myself .. i have a picture of Steve Breaston and IMO the pants were more of a Maize than the current which do seem more bright yellow
Take a look at pictures from the 60's, 70's, and 80's. "Maize" has always been a somewhat relative term, with some years featuring a color that was pretty much orange-yellow. It's never been incredibly consistent.
is not my cup of tea either, I'd like to see us go back to Nike, or maybe even Under Armor.
Apparently our recruits don't care about sweatshop labor. Not good enough.
is a lot easier to spell than adedes.
ne'ermind
While I like Adidas products overall, I'm not a fan of how every piece of gear or apparel has 3 stripes on it that appear more intrusive than a simple swoosh.
...are making their college decisions on the basis of who provides their shoes, I hope they are also not choosing to go to Michigan. In class or in the stadium, one's head should not be focused on one's feet.
100% agree.
What should they be picking based on? Academics aren't usually their concern and things like getting to the NFL and the look of a campus are negligible at this level. Would you prefer they base the choice on the quality of girls on campus?
Under Armour is nice stuff but to me it screams "new age". With the exception of Auburn (no change, just the UA logo), Under Armour just seems entirely too flashy for the maize and blue.
Honestly, I like Adidas. I have always loved their shoes and products in general. I love their golf shoes, too. The fact a recruit won't pick a school because of their "brand" is a joke in my opinion. Maybe I am old school but it's ridiculous that a kid will decline a school over the way he would look wearing it.
I wasn't going to say this, but...it needs to be said.
Look at the amount of recruits coming from poor areas and inner city areas. Brand loyalty and perception is HUGE among these kids. You're not gonna see black kids in the hood rocking Adidas kicks and shirts, they're wearing Nike Dunks, Air Force Ones, and Jordans.
These kids love their Nike.
You're going to be negged to hell, but you're right.
I went to public high school a city over from Detroit and saw it first hand. Teenagers are materialistic little punks, and football recruits are no exception. The need to maintain an image and perception is more prevalent among athletes because they're the "cool kids". This isn't the 80s: they're not doing it with Adidas.
Fuck this anonymous point system, by the way.
Allow me to reiterate my point: BLACK (and white!) TEENAGERS LIKE NIKE.
I went to public high school a city over from Detroit and saw it first hand.
Damn, your street cred is through the roof!
By all means, neg me for thinking that someone using the term "street cred" is funny.
I'm now officially in the PSMC (Point System Must Change) camp.
I want to be able to confront anyone that negs me, and be confronted by anyone I neg;
especially if its because of a misunderstanding.
The use of (-) points are supposed to stop varying levels of abuse on these boards, now it looks like it's become just a toy for anonymous idiots.
This is not American Idol.
I think this is partly our own fault. The self policing that happened with BlueFront95 and Bouje has created a system where people feel the need to neg posts they disagree with. Thus you see posts like "Hey, I'm fine with UConn" get to -9 in a matter of minutes. There are heaps of newer users here who seem not to understand what this community is about or how it operates... they seem to have missed the reasoning for negging Bouje was not because he was wrong, it was because he was being a total ass about it.
Another problem this has created is that, in general, the rude sarcasm that once permeated here is being attacked from all corners. There used to be a time when I could say "Anyone who hates RichRod is afraid of black QB's" and nobody would shout "J'accuse!" at me.
There's a mob mentality being implemented here, and the MGoPoints are being used as the muscle.
I don't think you need to worry about being -1 on one post. Someone is likely to rectify the situation after they see it if you should just be at 0 for the post. Anyone actually worrying about whether their post is -1, 0, or +1 is totally missing the point of this system.
this wasn't about my -1, that would be silly.
It just seems like there's been an influx of newbies (or Sparties) with "American Idol Syndrome" lately, negging left and right with little regard to the guidelines Brian has tried to establish.
I like the idea of a fair, yet versatile system, and I think we could achieve that with a few more tweaks.
No big deal, 99% of my posts fall into the "comic relief" category anyway.
Not to be that guy, but can you offer your suggested tweaks instead of just ranting the system is broken?
Also, you need 20 points to vote up or down, so it's not really the newbies I'd wager.