Schools dropping/suing Adidas
January 3rd, 2013 at 2:27 PM ^
BMW has gotten soft. The balance of sport/luxury has tipped too far to the luxury side.
My next car will be an A3, or, if I can afford it, an S3. Audi is making moves.
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:59 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 5:08 AM ^
I'm guessing the first one?
http://michigandaily.com/news/coleman-warns-adidas-questionable-labor-relations
http://michigandaily.com/opinion/daily-hold-adidas-accountable
/bored at work
January 3rd, 2013 at 6:17 AM ^
if you guys think the clown costumes would go away if we switched back to nike...well, i wouldn't get my hopes up.
i'll bet you a genuine replica under the lights throwback legends jersey that we'd see some of the same kinds of crapola with anyone else.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:55 AM ^
We have a lot of "traditionalists" here. It makes me wonder what younger people actually think about the uniforms. Do the players like them? Do they look forward to having a special uniform for big games?
The most important people to ask might be high school kids. Do recruits like the current uniforms? If so, is it one of the subtle determining factors in a recruit's decision to attend any school? Would the lack of incandescent uniforms for big games make a recruit see a school as "boring?"
I would hope the uniforms don't make a bit of difference in recruiting, but the iconic helmet has been cited as at least a minor factor a few times over the years. The cautionary note here is that too many uniform changes could adversely affect brand recognition among young players who will eventually be faxing in LOI's to various schools.
I would like to see a return to a more traditional look myself. I have a feeling it isn't going to happen.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:18 AM ^
Holy crap, are none of you parents? Have all of you forgotten what congenital idiots you all were when you were that age? Why should we allow the portion of the population that is most easily swayed by whatever shiny new stupidity that's come along in the last 15 minutes make decisions like this? Considering what kids were all wearing in 1969 and the early '70s, thank god Bo didn't let his players back then have any input on what the uniforms should look like.
17- and 18-year old kids are the LAST people whose opinions ought to be solicited. Any potential recruit who would refuse a Michigan scholarship offer solely because of the lack of new uniformz is better suited to another school.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:27 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:20 AM ^
Awesome.
January 3rd, 2013 at 6:38 AM ^
Michigan as the clients should be able to say this is what we want and Adidas should comply with what we want if they want the Michigan contract again.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:21 AM ^
How could the brass at Michigan ever approve some of the past jerseys, especially those for the Outback Bowl (maize numbers on white?).
You think Dave Brandon DIDN'T approve them?
Are you not wowed?
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:45 AM ^
I believe the proper spelling is "WOWed"
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:42 AM ^
1. The adidas contract gives Michigan the right to refuse any proposed uniform design.
2. Nike refused to agree to such a provision during the 2007 negotiations.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:19 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:05 AM ^
Thats a total of 1 win apiece against Ohio and Sparty. One bcs appearance. My point? We have more alternate jerseys than bowl wins. I blame all losses on Adidas. Bring back Nike, asap.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:10 AM ^
The most ignorant comment ever seen here. If you think Nike will not give you alternate uniforms your nuts. Sparty is a Nike school the ones they wore the last two times they played us were sure classy. Lol
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:32 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:44 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:49 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:10 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:56 AM ^
/s
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:47 PM ^
...but we'll just never really know.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:12 AM ^
Your objectivity is questionable.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:46 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:03 PM ^
Sparty was only provided one alternate from Nike, the green/black/bronze/whatever Pro Combats two years ago. Last year was just a helmet which I didn't think was provided by Nike (or Adidas in this case). Do you know something we don't since you work there?
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:53 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:55 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:02 AM ^
maybe thats the reason the workers in asia left the numbers off of our bowl jerseys
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:14 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:41 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:50 AM ^
http://www.prwatch.org/files/ADiDAS.pdf
Above is the link to the actual filing in Dane County from back in July.
In a nutshell, the primary issue, if I understand this correctly, is that the Adidas contract with Wisconsin has a Labor Code Of Conduct which calls for Adidas to comply with all "applicable legal requirements" in the country of manufacture with regards to workers, worker safety, and so forth. One interesting note in here is that the suit mentions that Adidas is the only manufacturer who employed this factory that has not contributed towards the benefits mandated by the Indonesian government.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:59 AM ^
It's entirely on him, and the idiots advising him.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:17 AM ^
This is correct. The OP raised a legitimate and concerning issue. However, it is entirely distinct from from the "Brandon's clown costume of the week" issue. He would probably have Brooks Brothers dress the players like clowns if they had the contract. I think Oregon would have been ashamed to wear something as tacky as the Alamo Bowl ensemble.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:12 AM ^
if only because then my Nike UM hockey and football jerseys in my closet would match up better with the products the players are wearing on the field. But really, we're likely to run in to labor issues no matter who we use. Maybe Under Armour? I haven't heard anything bad about them in terms of labor ever (but its not like I go and spend time looking up stuff on this issue either)
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:21 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:26 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^
Go back to Nike. I'd even take Under Armour over Adidas.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:32 AM ^
The Nike v. Adidas thing is a fairly useless argument. They both make (very occassionally) good uniforms and (very frequently) utter garbage. They also both have Asian sweatshop issues. That's why the only thing that matters, as far as what we see on the field, is Michigan's influence in the final decisions.
We can say, "No. That uniform looks like a bumblebee," "No. I can't read the numbers on that jersey," and "No. This is Michigan; we don't want to look like circus clowns or Christmas trees." Complaining about Nike v Adidas is like complaining about Exxon v Citgo. Complaints should be levied at the University, who allows Vendor X to outfit the team in terrible uniforms.
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
...with respect to the sweatshop issue but it does beg the question of why these companies even need to use such cheap labor? With all the money pouring into college sports via the TV contracts, you'd think that a school like Michigan would pay the extra money for American made products (or even better yet, Michigan made products).
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^
We could always rock some American Apparel. The uniforms would look pretty good the first game or two, but then they'd stretch out into a really shitty and faded look.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:41 AM ^
There is a major difference between the words "who's" and "whose."
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:42 AM ^
Dave Brandon will stop with the alternate jerseys once you buy a regular jersey every time they don't change.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:46 AM ^
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:51 AM ^
I know the internet can lie when it comes to colors, and I'm just going off of Google Images, but...
Wheatley:
to me doesn't look that different than Henne:
who doesn't look that different than Denard:
What does actually look different is Desmond, three years before the Nike contract got signed:
(and I picked a more "yellowey" picture for Desmond, several were much more "orangy".)
Just to add onto this, I really don't think the football uniforms have changed that much, especially in what we call maize, and I don't think the biggest factor is Nike or Adidas, it's the advent of HD cameras where the brighter colors look better on film. The real change has come in the basketball uniforms and maybe hockey, which I think is a completely different topic.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:24 PM ^
justingoblue notwithstanding, how many times does this Board have to go through the same old histories?
- Yes, Michigan's 'highlighter' maize is a lot different from the yellowish corn-colored maize from the 50's, 60's and 70's. And even more so, from the tannish gold of the leather helmet era that preceded.
- No, there was no sudden change from Nike to adidas in Michigan's pantone color choices. Yes, Nike did trademark something that they called "Varsity Maize." But that trademarking has had no dramatic effect on the appearance of Michigan-licensed and team-worn uniforms. The progress from "old maize" to "highlighter" has been gradual and steady. It began before Michigan's Nike contract and has continued since, into and through the adidas contract.
- My own theory (I'd very much like to ask Bruce Madej, who would be in perhaps the best position to know) is that the modern 'highlighter' maize is a color that photographs better and shows up more dramatically on television. No one has ever disproven that theory. I'd also happily agree that the modern 'highlighter' maize is more dramatic, more modern, more contrast-y with our dark blue, and generally falls within the meme of 'always something new' for modern merchandise sales. All of those things I'd agree with.
- But back to photography and television. I believe that it is possible to show the differences that I have described above in a photographic chronology that justingoblue has tried to do. However, it is tricky. Photography and television really do distort color reproduction. But I recall our host and proprietor Brian Cook posting a photo of game-worn helmets from about 25 years apart, in a single photo image, and you could clearly see the difference. So year there's that. There is also the collective memories of everybody who has seen with their own eyes the progression of uniform colors and it clearly has been a gradual progression, over many years.
- So there is simply no plausible basis to blame Nike or adidas for any sudden changes because there haven't been any sudden changes. Changes; yes of course. Sudden changes due to trademarking concerns; no.
Thanks to justingoblue for again raising the issue of a photo chronology through the relevant periods.
Brian Cook's MGoContent from ten months ago:
http://mgoblog.com/content/maize-and-also-blue-little
And with another hat tip to Brian for the link, here's MVictors with a dandy explanation of how things photograph. To put a reeeeaally fine point on it, I disagree with justingoblue that the uniforms appear different because television is now so much more hi-def; and I also disagree if indeed MVictors is trying to tell us that adidas suddenly jumped to a more hyper-highlighter yellow. As I have said, the progression to a more intense highlighter yeellow has been steady -- it started before Nike, and has continued since and through the adidas era. Yes, it's brighter than ever now.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
what I was trying to get across is that choosing between "highlighter" and "orangish" tints of maize seems to be an easy choice judging purely from aesthetic value on camera, at least to the extent that football has highlighter as a color. The question I'd like to see answered, and it sounds like you do as well, is whether the lessened contrast is worth having a more unique Michigan quality to the uniforms, since I can't think of any other uniform with a similar color scheme.
That would probably mean seeing a modern version of a Bo or pre-Bo era color scheme, which would definitely be cool to see. All that said, for now I'm happy with the football colors; basketball has gone too far and hockey is right on the edge.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:50 PM ^
I think I'd be willing to bet that the colors themselves on the current uniforms of the Michigan revenue-producing sports (and others) are all the same, but that basketball looks strange to our eyes because of the venue (indoors at Crisler) and mostly because of the fact that basketball features the only all-maize (or predominant maize) kit.
And justin; like you, I am actually satisfied with "highlighter Maize." It is, in my unquantified view, unique to Michigan. What do you call that highlighter color? Maize, of course. And yes I think we all agree; it photographs better and it televises better. It is "high-definitely" more 21st century. It is the one and only nice way that Michigan's iconic uniforms could have been improved in the modern era.
btw; do all of the MGoBoard readers realize that Michigan changed The Banner this past year? It was brand new; using an identical old font but with a rejuvenated highlighter maize color and a fresher blue background.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:11 AM ^