Under Armour out of the running; decision coming in June

Submitted by DISCUSS Man on

per el twitter

Under Armour reportedly out of UM apparel race. Nike/Adidas will duke it out; Adidas still offering ~ $4M more annually. Decision late June

— Teddy Blanks (@MaizeAndBlue14) May 23, 2015

Also, Adidas' pitch reportedly includes proposal to dull their yellow—no more highlighter/neon. So there's that..

— Teddy Blanks (@MaizeAndBlue14) May 23, 2015
MGoBoard
Football

GoBLUinTX

May 23rd, 2015 at 9:59 PM ^

pedantic logicians, it's as if they believe they alone own and define the english language.  Worse, "Begging the question" has nothing to do with the Latin "petitio principii and its reference to circular arguments.  In my mind, as well as many many others "Begging the question" more accurately describes what we mere layman mean about a question being begged to be asked than about assuming the argument is the conclusion.

 

Joined: 12/02/2013

MGoPoints: 5895

Mr. Yost

May 25th, 2015 at 6:50 PM ^

Adidas just kept it and kept the money flowing because highlighter sells more than maize in this day and age. Neon in general sells more right now. So for a money driven AD like Brandon...why would he ask them to switch if Nike had already started it and it was generally accepted and the money was good?

Changing back is just as much about money...they know people will go out and buy a bunch of new shit once the shade changes again. That feeling of nostalgia with Harbaugh coming back...going back to the old shade of maize, etc. These aren't stupid people even if the decision itself is stupid.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

MGoBender

May 23rd, 2015 at 8:14 PM ^

 


I would rather stay with Adidas than go with Under Armour.

 

I'm still hoping for Nike and to bring back these jerseys...

2006 home

1999 away

 

This post should put an end to the "adidas highlighter yellow meme." I have never seen any adidas stuff come close to the level of highliter that is in that 1999 pic. Picture capture disclaimers apply, but I always thought the highlighter outrage was more based in general disdain for adidas.

Joined: 03/26/2010

MGoPoints: 15128

Bluetotheday

May 23rd, 2015 at 9:40 PM ^

There has to be more to the apparel sponsor than just money. What are the major deal points for a university to consider when selecting an apparel company? I get money, coach compensation, brand recognization etc. what about logistics... Since addidas is no longer represnatatong some of the major brands, do they have the staff to handle the demand and needs of a major university? my concern is an apparel company overpaying to be relevant, which then comes at the expense of the university.

Joined: 02/27/2013

MGoPoints: 9805

ChuckWood

May 23rd, 2015 at 5:19 PM ^

I haven't made a purchase since 2007 and will not until Adidas is not the company producing the products.  (Except golf swag on Titleist, etc.)

As far as I'm concerned, damage done by Adidas.  They have has the capability to "dull the yollow" since the switch and have chosen not to.  If they didn't know that was an issue for most fans, then they have even more seriour problems.  A little market research and response would be nice.  

Joined: 04/15/2011

MGoPoints: 2124

Avant's Hands

May 23rd, 2015 at 5:39 PM ^

This drives me crazy. When I was a student Nike made the apparel, and I have several bright yellow Michigan shirts from that time. No one seems to remember that Nike brightened the yellow way before Adidas came along. What makes everyone think that if Nike comes back we will suddenly have 70s era mustard yellow again? If you like Nike better then fine. But they are not even close to innocent when it comes to jersey changes.

Joined: 10/22/2011

MGoPoints: 9271

Monkey House

May 23rd, 2015 at 5:20 PM ^

do people remember the piping meltdown on this board with Nike? I prefer Adidas but I honestly don't care who they sign with, I just think its ridiculous the way some around here that act like Nike doesn't fuck up jerseys too.

Joined: 09/05/2014

MGoPoints: 43810

Franz Schubert

May 23rd, 2015 at 5:25 PM ^

When they polled the athletes it was overwhelmingly in favor of Nike. I just don't see how you can then basically tell your athletes who have to wear the gear that they are of secondary importance. I think it's all just trying leverage Nike for whatever extra they can. Do you want to be the best or not? If The Alabama and Ohio States of the world agree to take far less money from Nike then that provides insight in to the importance of what Nike brings.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

pearlw

May 23rd, 2015 at 7:06 PM ^

The previous poll of the athletes on whether they want Nike or Adidas is not relevant if the difference is $4mm/yr. For it to be relevant. they need to poll them on whether they would rather have Nike and explain to what $4mm less of spending on athletics would look like..or stay with Adidas. That poll has not happened.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/09/2011

MGoPoints: 4657

Franz Schubert

May 23rd, 2015 at 8:00 PM ^

Michigan was fully aware that Nike would not come close to the money Adidas was offering and still opened up the issue and polled the athletes. If it was only money driven then why bother? The athletes who actually wear and use the gear are not irrelevant and in fact are the most important variable.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

justingoblue

May 23rd, 2015 at 8:13 PM ^

I'd slightly disagree that the athletes are the most important variable. If we were talking about their safety or gaining/losing a competitive advantage, of course they're the most important, but both companies make equipment that allows them to safely compete at a high level. In other words, the difference is marginal enough that it shouldn't be the biggest factor.

None of this exists in a vacuum, and Hackett needs to do what's best for all of the stakeholders. For example, for all of those saying that taking less money is a big deal, would you be willing to pay a ticket surcharge to get Nike?

Joined: 11/16/2010

MGoPoints: 29741

Franz Schubert

May 23rd, 2015 at 8:24 PM ^

Be willing to pay more for tickets. This has a real impact on recruiting and recruiting on winning games. What makes Ohio State, Alabama and the rest of the college football elites decide to take less money to be outfitted by Nike. The answer is it helps recruiting and perception which in turn results in winning. For anyone who doubts this, please tell me why the elite programs almost exclusively take less money to be with Nike.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Mr. Yost

May 24th, 2015 at 5:51 AM ^

In basketball it matters...in football, having a coach who is a figurehead in the sport is FAR more impactful. However the entire FSU, OSU, Alabama argument is so stupid for so many reasons. Their situation is not Michigan's situation. They shouldn't even be compared. If Auburn...a UA school wins this year should we go to UA?! Such strange logic. Make the best decision for MICHIGAN. It does not have the same circumstances as FSU, OSU or Alabama and what is best for them may or may not be what is best for us.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

pearlw

May 23rd, 2015 at 8:21 PM ^

Its not only money driven..but it is a factor - the athletes preference if revenue neutral is also a factor and thats why they were asked. I disagree that going with Adidas would be telling your athletes they are of secondary importance. The athletes might have a different opinion if it was going to hit their sports and that is not what was presumably asked. It all depends on how large the difference between Nike/Adidas turns out to be. Its clear if revenue from Adidias will only be $20 more, then they would pick Nike. If its $4mm its not as clear unless one has strong inside knowledge of athletic budgeting for next couple years.

On further thought, maybe the poll of the athletes was a bit more nuanced in terms of results than just the "athletes want nike" results that seems to be the popular belief. Perhaps there were some questions on athletes tradeoffs between brands if it meant some cost cuts in their sports. maybe we dont actually have any idea on what they said other than they would want Nike in the fictional world where the offers were the same.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/09/2011

MGoPoints: 4657

Franz Schubert

May 23rd, 2015 at 8:28 PM ^

The athletes have a strong preference for Nike. Almost all of the elite athletic departments at other schools take less money to be with Nike. Why is Michigan at different? Ohio State could get just as much or more money from Adidas but do not because they know the benefits to the athletes and the programs are more important.

Joined: 07/20/2009

MGoPoints: 4453

Mr. Yost

May 24th, 2015 at 6:01 AM ^

just stop it. If Adidas is what built the new FH complex...you want to ask those girls which they prefer? You're missing the point people keep beating over your head. YES if all is equal, Nike is preferred...we all get this. But all is not equal and if that 4 million is going back to the athlete or provide a service, then the decision may be different. You don't know if it's Adidas + something vs. Nike and nothing more. Think of it like sports...and a trade. If you're also getting cash or draft picks, that sweetens the deal rather than just a player for player trade. Until we know what that $4 mil a year does every year...it's silly to keep bringing up this poll. What if it allowed teams to fly instead of bus? What if it offers more money in their recruiting budget so they can compete even better or recruit nationally? What if it allows all sports to take a foreign trip every few years? What if it builds or renovates a facility? Let the student athlete know that stuff THEN go ask your question. Same with coaches. If it's still Nike then cool...but right now it's moot.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Bluetotheday

May 23rd, 2015 at 9:48 PM ^

Show Nike the results and make them counter. If you only have one at the table, you lose. The goal of the AD is to create a marketplace, which he clearly has... By the way, Hacket, is doing a hell of a job with the negotiations. Even if they stick with Adidas, at least he upped the anty

Joined: 02/27/2013

MGoPoints: 9805

Junior18

May 23rd, 2015 at 8:24 PM ^

Great post.

I cannot understand why people don't understand the importance of our brand to the athletes.

I still keep in touch with many of the equipment managers; they've all told me the athletes HATE the crap adidas provides. Just look at the players' social media. They're all wearing Nike/Jordan.

 

Joined: 12/01/2014

MGoPoints: 3096