wile_e8

May 26th, 2015 at 11:41 PM ^

Because not everyone got the offer Michigan got. Adidas gave Michigan an offer that was way beyond what anyone else was getting with Nike (or anyone else), plus they guranteed Michigan would be the highest paid team for the length of the contract. Obviously they can't gurantee every team be the highest paid, but Michigan was a big enough name to make it worth the big price to make a splash and get the Adidas brand out there.

Ronnie Kaye

May 27th, 2015 at 12:16 AM ^

Notre Dame got almost as much money from them. You can't tell me Adidas did not bring big cash offers to other big names that said no thanks.

Look, I tipped my cap to Bill Martin when the contract was inked. Who wouldn't want a deal like that? But it's clear now they're an incompetent company that's embarrassing to be associated with. Adidas is like Ross Hanneman from "Silicon Valley."

meechiganman14

May 26th, 2015 at 11:07 PM ^

This is my biggest concern as well. The people who care about which apparel we wear (I personally don't) are probably the same people who screamed "pay harbaugh whatever he wants!" And will be the same people who bitch about $4 Cokes at the Big House, but will riot if we put a Nike (or Adidas) logo on the scoreboard. If they leave money on the table here, they'll have to make it up in other ways.

Kenny Loggins

May 26th, 2015 at 11:15 PM ^

we have no idea what the terms are. yea, currently adidas pays us 4 mil more than nike's highest school (8 mil vs 4 mil). BUT, what if nike offered us 6 mil and adidas 10 mil...that's still 4 mil difference, but really it's only 2 mil...let's see how it plays out first

Gr1mlock

May 27th, 2015 at 12:47 PM ^

(a) I'm willing to wager the difference in the contract will not be as large as we all thing (b) immediate revenue is not the be all end all, there's the future to think about (unless you're Dave Brandon).  There is a perception that is prevelant enough that I assume it's correct that a lot of high school kids, particularly basketball players, greatly prefer Nike to everyone else, and that any school not using Nike is at a recruiting disadvantage.  Assuming that's true, and a switch to Nike improves our recruiting, then the logical narrative is better recruiting -> better performance on field -> more revenue from post season and merch sales.  Even if it doesn't make up the whole difference, any AD (that's not Dave Brandon) would happily trade 10 or 20 million dollars in program revenue for Final Four and CFP trips.  

rambouhh

May 26th, 2015 at 10:50 PM ^

I have never understood why people care about the athletic apparel  provider so much. I think we should go with the one that gives us the most cash. If they make a stupid design just veto it. 

Real Tackles Wear 77

May 27th, 2015 at 10:06 AM ^

I'd say Maryland knows the UA advantage well, at least on the basketball side where the shoe companies have much more influence. They just signed Diamond Stone, a Top-5 national recruit from Milwaukee and by far the biggest name they've signed in years, who played for...you guessed it...a UA AAU team!

Ihatebux

May 26th, 2015 at 10:57 PM ^

I have never understood why anyone care how much money the athletic dept makes.   Do you really think it matters.   Will 4 million less per year really effect the performance on the field?  I could care less how much money they make.   It's not like they will lower ticket prices if they make more money.

Mr. Yost

May 27th, 2015 at 8:38 AM ^

I think I'm going to make a thread about this at some point to explain the significance of the $4 million annually.

  1. Stop thinking about how it'll affect football or men's basketball - it won't
  2. The decision is made for the ENTIRE athletics department
  3. We all understand that $4 million isn't the end of the world for Michigan Athletics, and especially not for the University of Michigan (to the idiot who said we'd be fine because the University has a huge endowment, and blah, blah, blah - even though the Athletics Department is run and has been run seperate from the University for a billion years now)
  4. $4 million can be replaced by someone at some point...we understand that, but now you're talking about not having $8 million instead of having $4 million. It's not like there is some cap on the amount of money you can make and we can just go get $4 million from somewhere else.
  5. YES - the student athletes want Nike and that should be taken into STRONG consideration. But the question was posed Nike vs. Adidas. That is not the debate, it's Nike vs. Adidas AND whatever you spend the $4 million on.

I repeat, spend that money on the new Field Hockey center and then go ask those girls which they prefer. Go spend the money on the new Rowing Center and then ask the rowers.

And it's not just about facilities. That money could go towards a lot of things. As an Associate AD, here's just some of the things I'd spend it on...

  1. Flights - now my smaller teams can fly to and from games more often, get home at a decent hour, miss less class time (which improved my relationship with teachers on campus)...it'll have my student athletes staying awake in class because they get home and get the sleep they need. It'll help with recovery and performance - get home and get treatment versus get home, shower and bed. I'm thinking about Tennis, Volleyball, etc. --- not football and basketball.
  2. Recruiting Budgets - now my coaches can get out and recruit more often, further out, and with better resources
  3. Nutrition - Now that the NCAA has said we can feed our athletes as much as we want, whenever we want. Let's build nutrition centers so they're eating the right things and not just destroying unlimited Chick-Fil-A, no matter how yummy it is. And with this, Jabrill Peppers has no reason to be bitching about his Oodles and Noodles --- go walk your ass over to one of our many nutrition centers and get something healthy to eat.
  4. Staffing - You want to keep these coaches around? Pay them.
  5. Fan Experience - The movie nights, the renovations to make facilities more interactive, adding wifi to all athletic facilities (that works), all of those things can be supported with additional revenue.

These are just some thing I literally thought of as I'm typing, I could make a much better list if I gave it some thought. We all could.

So the point isn't that some folks prefer Adidas over Nike..I don't think I've seen one person mention that. I know I don't, I hate Adidas. However, I like money, I know how that additional revenue can affect my student athletes. I'm not going to be the administrator to say "sorry Volleyball team, I know this bus ride back from Minnesota sucks. I realize it's going to be tough to get to class when you get in at 3am. But damn, you all looked great tonight in that Swoosh!" 

If someone can tell me that there is no penalty to ANYONE or ANYTHING for going with Nike. Then let's do it. No question. It's better, it's what the students want, it's just better. But the switch cannot be at the expense of anything.

 

Ihatebux

May 26th, 2015 at 10:57 PM ^

I have never understood why anyone care how much money the athletic dept makes.   Do you really think it matters.   Will 4 million less per year really effect the performance on the field?  I could care less how much money they make.   It's not like they will lower ticket prices if they make more money.

varsity

May 26th, 2015 at 11:19 PM ^

Well, have you seen some of the 'stupid designs' at the stores and on the players, that didn't get a veto?  I'd hate to see what actually didn't make the cut.  Adidas has just made some truly ugly gear.  Nike has made some poor choices, but they had much cooler stuff before the switch.