Uniforms: Michigan Under Armour uniform at MSBC
Found this interesting tweet/photo from Chantel Jennings last Friday. Obviously I kept it close to me just in case I did come back.
Interesting little bit from the Michigan Sport Business Conference. Yep, that's an @UnderArmour Michigan uniform. pic.twitter.com/QOmLNl2MOC
— Chantel Jennings (@ChantelJennings) October 24, 2014
October 28th, 2014 at 7:00 PM ^
That didn't take long for a new uniform thread to pop up. That said anything other than Addidas would be welcome.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:04 PM ^
Ahhh returning to normalcy around here
October 28th, 2014 at 8:11 PM ^
or more of the shit we call football around here?
October 28th, 2014 at 10:43 PM ^
Winning but that will have to wait until next year
October 28th, 2014 at 8:10 PM ^
I love this...
And then Maryland gets it's tricked out pride uniforms and call them the ugliest ever.
And then N'Western makes blood splatter American flag uniforms and people get pissed.
And then ND has alternate uniforms that look like Navy...and people get pissed.
And then S. Carolina wore it's zebra number uniforms...and people got pissed.
The grass is always greener. UNIFORMZ don't go away with UA, the logo changes. I just comes down to whether the AD will put his/her foot down or allow the team to decide. If it's the team it's a matter if the head coach will be his foot down or allow the team to decide.
But UA doesn't mean the end of UNIFORMZ. In fact, it could mean more.
October 28th, 2014 at 10:25 PM ^
They could get it right.
My Temple Owls uniforms are spectacular.
October 28th, 2014 at 10:46 PM ^
It's not the uniformzzzzz really for me it's the other stuff. Basketball shorts, polo's etc other athletic wear. Adidas stuff wore out fast. Faster than Hoke and Brandon wore their welcoming out.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^
Were BACK... BACK in the New York groove!!
October 28th, 2014 at 7:01 PM ^
Would be a start. Wearing Adidas is getting really humiliating, even in a world of never ending humiliation.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^
I'm glad you're back WD. I think you're one of the better posters on the site. I flipping love your enthusiasm.
As far as the uniformz go, I'd rather have adidas. Or Nike, or a company that doesn't profit off of slave labor.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^
awkward!
October 28th, 2014 at 7:04 PM ^
I would welcome the change. Adidas stuff has been falling apart on me.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:25 PM ^
I see what you did there.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:08 PM ^
I personally would love UA for UM; so long as the new AD and football HC keep the unis clean, classic and consistent.
I have several UA golf and T-shirts and they are typically my favorites over similar Adidas and Nike items.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:13 PM ^
First time posting but have read the blog and i am glad that WD is back. Looks like under armour is giving a special presentation. Lets hope that we can finally get rid of adidas and get some quality gear. Here is the link to the agenda.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:16 PM ^
Provided we don't sign up for any Maryland crap uniforms it sounds good. Auburn has managed to avoid being forced to wear alternates so I believe we can as well
October 28th, 2014 at 7:16 PM ^
always have ideas on hand to pitch to their customers, even if they have absolutely no chance of landing a contract. I'm sure Nike has a similar pitch.
Michigan is Addidas until the contract runs out and they'll back the truck up to the bank until then.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:20 PM ^
Only if we get a bigger contract than ND.
(Yes I'm petty.)
October 28th, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^
I still would like to have Nike. I wonder how ND would feel if Michigan came to UA and got a bigger deal. Didn't ND need a promise to be the "key program/school" before they signed with UA? Just figthings being figthings I suppose.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^
I upvoted for your second sentence.
I kept the upvote for the uniformz.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:23 PM ^
There would also be some synergy with Tom Brady being an UA athlete.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:28 PM ^
It just makes sense.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:32 PM ^
I work at the headquraters of a major sporting goods company. Within the last few weeks an associate of mine passed along to me that they had seen Under Armour's prototypes of a specific set of future apparel - included were pictures of the apparel representing all of their schools: ND, Maryland, Northwestern, etc....and Michigan.
Take it for what it's worth.
PS - Good to have you back WD.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:37 PM ^
I wonder what color the maize will be if UA starts making our stuff.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:38 PM ^
I've not been completely clear on the context for this since it first surfaced. What was the UA rep's talk covering at MSBC and why did it include Michigan?
October 28th, 2014 at 7:41 PM ^
Welcome back, friend. We missed you around here.
October 29th, 2014 at 12:07 AM ^
Those jerseys were great and not just because we won a national title wearing them. Had blocks M's and stripes on the sleeves but at the same time not too busy. Why Nike changed them in 2004 I don't get.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:54 PM ^
this hating adidas thing is ridiculous. if we change people will hate whoever we switch to. Nike is not the best thing out there, they are basically the same. well except for the fact Nike employees kids to make their shit.
October 28th, 2014 at 7:59 PM ^
Recruits hate Adidas and right now we need MOAR RECRUITS.
October 28th, 2014 at 9:03 PM ^
Recruiting I thought had been pretty good, the coaching and development has been awful. I think poor player development is a bigger issue to getting great recruits than a jersey logo.
October 28th, 2014 at 9:20 PM ^
eh, little from column a, little from column b
October 28th, 2014 at 8:02 PM ^
Back with a bang. This would be your second most important post of all time. If it turns out to be true.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
October 28th, 2014 at 8:03 PM ^
I would love to see Michigan switch over to UA
October 28th, 2014 at 8:08 PM ^
Gubment come and took mah Nike!
October 28th, 2014 at 8:08 PM ^
You were more excited about this post than your Welcome Back post.
Either way, welcome back. UA seems good but I've heard complaints from athletes about their shoes (from other colleges that have UA)
October 28th, 2014 at 8:13 PM ^
NOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo...
But since I'm glad you're back, free pass today on this.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:13 PM ^
As they make great soccer cleats, but I'm on board for a change. Their Michigan gear is poorly designed and constructed worse than generic discount store brand athletic apparel.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:17 PM ^
Tennessee left millions of dollars on the table to switch from Adidas to Nike. I just can't see our AD doing that. Maybe, if the % on royalties(from sales of licensed products) somehow closes the gap.
The university's Adidas contract included a $1.95 million cash payment annually and $1.8 million in equipment and apparel for varsity athletic teams. The equipment allowance is at wholesale prices, roughly 50 percent of the retail price, making it a $3.6 million retail value annually.
The terms of the Nike deal are significantly less, even with the $2 million bonus it received for signing the deal. The contract runs from June 2015 to June 2023 and pays the university $1 million in cash annually, nearly 50 percent less than the Adidas deal. The equipment allowance is $3.4 million in the first year because the team will need to replace the uniforms for each varsity team. In the second year the equipment allowance drops to $2.6 million. It climbs $100,000 per year, but tops out at $3.2 million in 2023, still below what the university will get from Adidas this year.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:27 PM ^
It all matters who the AD is, doesn't it? The whole deal with the Adidas contract is Michigan's hangup about being the largest contract. Yet when you talk to the folks who actually work with the gear on a daily basis (a few conversations I've been privy to in the last few years, actually), they'll universally tell you Adidas is a pain in the ass to work with and the equipment is shitty. One guy was telling me his wife always rags on him because when he's at home, he's wearing all of his old Nike gear, but he has no choice because it's actually held up over the years.
If you ask me, the money isn't going to be the issue next time around. The contract is going to be huge any way you cut it. I can definitely see a scenario where Adidas loses out for less money, but better product and more control and autonomy on the Michigan end of things. Whether that's Nike or UA is up for debate. I think we're going to be in a position where we'll have an AD who is willing to give up a few bucks for the better, big picture choice.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:26 PM ^
Also welcome back! I would love to see us in Nike or Under Armor. No matter who Michigan has there will always be UNIFORMZ, so to me it's more about who makes the better gear. So give me Nike or Under Armor anyday. Adidas makes ok soccer gear and that's about it.
October 28th, 2014 at 8:33 PM ^
Let's hope for an early Xmas present!!!
October 28th, 2014 at 8:57 PM ^
I have posted about this before, but Under Armour would be bad for John Beilein and the basketball team. AAU basketball and recruiting is dirty and Nike runs the top flight of AAU. As a basketball fan, I want Nike
October 28th, 2014 at 9:04 PM ^
So we don't have Nike and we are still doing fine. I know adidas does at least have D Rose for basketball, but I think Under Armour will step up there game for us.
October 28th, 2014 at 9:15 PM ^
You don't realize how much shoe companies have a say in where a kid goes to school. We nearly missed out on Chatman because we are an Adidas school. Under armor is a nobody for basketball
October 28th, 2014 at 9:12 PM ^
Just no. It will absolutely kill us for recruiting in basketball (and some football) if we go to UA. Let's just go back to Nike
October 28th, 2014 at 9:58 PM ^
Under Armour could cost us some speed...
October 28th, 2014 at 10:13 PM ^
So could the coaching.
October 28th, 2014 at 10:14 PM ^
I blame Funk.