UM Athletes asked about sponsorship

Submitted by EastCoast Esq. on

Apparently UM Student-Athletes are being surveyed about how different apparel affects their play. I wonder if they have done this in the past? If not, it seems like a great idea. They are the ones who are most affected, so getting their feedback seems key to getting the right product.

 

Was told that all UM athletes just took a survey regarding how apparel impacts their play, and which brand they would most like at Michigan.

— Ben Fidelman (@bfidelman) March 23, 2015

BlueinOK

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^

I disagree. Adidas really drops the ball on non-revenue sports. They use a lot of the same apparel for different sports. Tennis and field hockey is one example. The school I'm at uses adidas and the tennis coaches hate it. All the track team hates it. Baseball/softball seems to dislike it. The only teams that seem to be ok with it are basketball....soccer doesn't even like it. 

Bando Calrissian

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:51 AM ^

I've posted this before, but my dad was acquainted with an assistant coach of a non-revenue sport, who reported his team absolutely hated their Adidas gear. Fit wasn't right, the shoes weren't very good, the quality sucked... The transition wasn't viewed favorably in the least.

Auerbach

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^

UA just signed that ridiculous 10-year, $90mm deal with Notre Dame. That is UNHEARD of in the world of college sports equipment/apparel deals. I have my doubts as to whether UA has the powder to take on another enormous deal like that. See my thread from late December on this topic:

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/michigans-athletic-apparelequipment-deal

Tuebor

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:33 AM ^

And word on the street is that ND programs are already unhappy with that deal.  UA didn't ship enough training shoes for thier women's sports teams and asked ND to pay for additional shipments since they were beyond the scope of thier contract.  This is where Adidas having separate budgets for each sport is a great situation.

Real Tackles Wear 77

March 23rd, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^

It doesn't really matter if UA "has the powder". The next decade for them will define whether they become the 3rd top-tier player in the US athletic apparel market or fall off like Reebok and end up getting acquired by Nike in 10 years. They want Michigan BAD for brand/legitimacy purposes alone and I expect an offer that blows ND out of the water. That said, I want Nike and hope we go back to them. 

Chick Evans

March 23rd, 2015 at 12:39 PM ^

Where are you hearing this? One of the big reasons ND went with UA was that they wanted to have the largest contract in the NCAA, but adidas refused to make their deal worth more than Michigan's, whether through loyalty or contractual obligation. 

Also, when asked about the potential of more team/player sponsorships, UA's CEO said "we're not going to compete with our dumbest competitor." I think this kind of shows that company's direction, and I highly doubt more high profile college sponsorships are in their future. 

LINK to that story. 

Real Tackles Wear 77

March 23rd, 2015 at 2:16 PM ^

Saying and doing are two different things. Kevin Plank can say he isn't interested in bidding for the most marketable athletes, but UA's dalliance with Kevin Durant suggests otherwise. They're also lucky they signed Steph Curry before this season, he could be making a lot more after the year he's had. And even though they won't admit it, UA will try and get the NBA contract in a couple years. So even if they say they don't want Michigan, it would be a huge financial boom for them to do so. ND is locked in for 10 years, so offering UM more may chap the Irish hard, but they'd still be stuck.

Tate

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:22 AM ^

Nike all the way, but honestly I thought that the white practice jerseys some players are wearing in the videos are pretty slick - all white with solid blue numbers.

Wolverine Devotee

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^

This isn't for shits and giggles. The current apparel contract with adidas is in its final season in the 2015-16 season.

Didn't think there was a chance Michigan would leave adidas due to their money, but now that Hackett seems to care what the people who matter (the athletes) think......Nike return is inevitable.

I've been preparing for this scenario. Hope they announce what they'll do soon so I can start buying Nike gear (or whoever) gear again.

VectorVictor05

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:41 AM ^

In general, you'll get no argument from me when stating Hackett >>> Brandon almost across the board, but implying that Brandon didn't treat athletes well or care what they thought is a stretch (being extremely kind with that choice of words).  There was a reason a lot of coaches and athletes came out in support of Brandon.  He gave them A LOT, especially the non-revenue sport athletes.  The main group of people Brandon pissed off were fans and alumni (i.e., paying customers).

VectorVictor05

March 23rd, 2015 at 12:34 PM ^

I agree, if we're classifying "anyone" as paying customers - fans, alumni, season ticket holders, etc.

If you're lumping in athletes and coaches, I think Brandon's actions don't reconcile with that at all.  What money was to be made from paying non-revenue sport coaches above market to keep them at Michigan?  What about from the various improvements to facilities for the field hockey, soccer, swimming, etc. etc. etc. teams that produce a net negative in terms of the AD budget?

Brandon was villianized for a lot of really good reasons, but the position that he didn't actually care about student athletes at Michigan (and their coaches) above a "what can you do for me? / can I make money here" perspective is inconcistent with his actual behavior. 

The Mad Hatter

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^

we should contract Carhartt or Duluth Trading to start an athletic apparel line?  Then we can have uniforms made in the USA instead of by 12 year old Thai kids chained to sewing machines.

amir_6

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:31 AM ^

What Hackett is doing is what every AD in the country should be doing, ask the student-athletes what THEY like, unlike DB, it's not all about the money.

MGoFisticuffs

March 23rd, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^

Well, the amount that Nike pays compared to some of the other schools is quite low. If you're talking a difference of $5m per year coming from the type of clothing worn, I'm not all that surprised that they would go with the highest bidder .

Alton

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^

And we all know that nothing happened at that press conference that wasn't orchestrated to the hilt.  It doesn't matter if the players preferred Nike to Adidas or not, they were undoubtedly instructed to chant "Nike" at that particular moment in the press conference (and Mr. Brandon unironically stating that he "doesn't break contracts" was certainly a prepared line, albeit a typical tin-eared one).

Clearly there was a message being sent to Adidas, although exactly what the message was can remain an object of speculation. 

GoWings2008

March 23rd, 2015 at 11:40 AM ^

is what I think I'd prefer seeing UM wear, but only if that's what the players want as well.  Judging by most comments, that's what I think they'd end up wearing.  However, on an interesting side note...I own workout gear from both Nike and UA, and I like the way UA is made as it suits my purposes.  Not sure if that's a player, but the comment above regarding ND and UA's contract, this is certainly concerning.  Esp since its a $90M contract.  You'd think that would make a school a priority.

Auerbach

March 23rd, 2015 at 12:07 PM ^

I've personally been gravitating toward UA over Nike with my own purchases lately, as I prefer the style and quality of their gear. I also think UA has been making some major inroads with the younger generation (i.e., recruit-age kids) to the point that UA is considered as "cool" as Nike, if not "cooler" to some. With that said, I know there have been a few instances of pro athletes not liking UA's shoes. There was one NFL player in particular (I don't recall which player) who actually had an endorsement deal with UA but refused to wear their shoes because they were such poor quality. That was maybe 4-5 years ago and UA may have made some strides since then, but its worth noting.

It also worth noting that UA recently opened up this new flagship retail store along the Magnificent Mile in Chicago, which puts the Niketown store just down the street to shame. This is important because the Magnificent Mile is one of the most visible retail districts in the country, which shows that UA is really putting a lot of marketing dollars behind their product right now to get their name out there and get recognized.