Adidas Jerseys & Gridiron Glory
Juiceman is concerned about our football jerseys for the following reasons:
1. The numbers look wrinkly.
2. They don't appear to fit right.
3. The look like low quality practice jerseys.
Does Bill Martin, Rich Rodriguez, or Brian Cook have the power to change this? I think this is an Adidas problem. Looking at some of the other Adidas-sponsored schools (Kansas, Tenessee, UCLA, Wisconsin), I notice the same thing. Coincidentally, every team mentioned is having a down year. I was starting to investigate the connection between winning programs and their sponsor, but Under Armour-sponsored Texas Tech throws that theory out the window.
Our old Nike uniforms looked smooth and classy. Also, I think Nike did a better job creating cool apparel for the fans. It doesn't seem like Adidas has done anything beyond printing a block M on navy clothing. How bout some creativity here?
Lastly, as trivial as it sounds do you think this has an effect on recruiting? Do you think Terrelle Pryor could visualize himself better wearing Nike over Adidas? This seems unlikely but you gotta remember these are 16-17 year old kids. Overall, I think younger kids prefer Nike. They are enamored by the idea of "free gear" and wear it all day everyday.
I'm just disappointed with Adidas. I thought they would've done a better job.
Yes, I sometimes refer to myself in the 3rd person. Get over it.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:21 PM ^
I think it's pretty stupid if you blame a down year on our uniform manufacturer.
I much prefer the Adidas gear to the Nike. Everyone here on campus is going crazy for the new Adidas merchandise.
I seriously doubt Terrelle Pryor choose his school based on whether or not he would be wearing a swoosh or the three stripes.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:26 PM ^
I'm not blaming the down year on Adidas. I'm just saying the jerseys look like shite (and they do). And I think the fan apparel blows. This is something that should be corrected.
November 18th, 2008 at 3:08 PM ^
I'm sure the athletic department will surely change suppliers now since you, message board fan, think the fan apparel blows. Never mind that Michigan is racking in more money this year from merchandise sales than it did last year, despite being the worst season in a half-century. Obviously some people don't think that the jerseys and the fan apparel doesn't blow.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:30 PM ^
I've never seen an Adidas uniform featuring duck-billed shoes.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:40 PM ^
Is there something about the apparel that you think blows? I was skeptical at first, but once I saw the new uni's in person, I thought they were pretty cool. I never owned a lot of Nike Michigan apparel outside of jerseys and I don't have any Adidas (I was always a Steve and Barry's guy, or wore one of the many free shirts I got from events or fraternity stuff) so I suppose I can't really refute you but I'm curious about what it is you dislike.
Also, a lot of major programs are going to adidas, the ones you mentioned in addition to big programs such as Notre Dame, Alabama and Nebraska. At least those first two don't seem to have any trouble attracting recruits.
EDIT: for some reason you can buy both Nike and Adidas Alabama apparel, and I'm not sure why that is. My buddy went to bama and all his stuff is Adidas, maybe they've had a recent change?
November 18th, 2008 at 2:03 PM ^
I have not noticed the uniform at all. In fact, my only notice of the new uniforms was near the end of the first game in the white jerseys I said to myself "hey, I didn't even notice those stripes everyone was freaking out about."
November 18th, 2008 at 2:03 PM ^
Oh my gosh, I am totally with you on the free shirts. I have over 15 free shirts from basketball and hockey games. I don't care how massive they are or how much shameless advertising is on them (thank you Pontiac), I wear them all the time.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:16 PM ^
i hate the road jerseys. i hate the maize-crayon squiggles going in various directions. if we're going to do this, why not add teal highlights or black accents? if a clean, classic look is good enough for the yankees, detroit tigers, red wings, even penn state, alabama, lsu, etc., it's good enough for me
November 18th, 2008 at 2:17 PM ^
I think the new adidas jerseys are sweet, especially the authentics that have "Those Who Stay Will Be Champions," printed on the inside. I like the stripes too, and the official team baseball cap looks good, too.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:21 PM ^
Their jerseys, shoes, socks, gloves, etc. are Nike gear.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:34 PM ^
The adidas jerseys look kinda chintzy. I don't think the numbers are tackle twill, which sucks. Plus adidas cleats and gloves and stuff aren't nearly as sweet as Nike's. I'm 20 and in my opinion, Nike and Under Armour are much cooler than adidas; I think many recruits feel the same, and it could have a very small impact on their decision. As in, if all other major factors are even, a recruit could pick a Nike school over an adidas school. Just my opinion, although every player on my high school football team agreed with me.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:46 PM ^
I've been saying since the Utah game that the jerseys look like they get torn easily, or something -- close-ups of the jerseys on game day clearly show large patches of white material shown, which I would assume is some kind of interior material or something. Not good.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:07 PM ^
is now wearing? Are they of good materials and manufacture, or are they cheap, Chinese crap? Do they fit right, and what effect does this have on recruiting?
The whole damn football program could be hanging in the balance!
November 18th, 2008 at 7:22 PM ^
One of the posters is exactly right that branding matters *so* much to 16-17 year old HS kids!!! And Nike is *much* more popular with young athletes.
As for the poster that said the Adidas apparel is popular on campus... that's b/c Adidas is popular with yuppies, and most U-M students are yuppies in training.
The athletes are a different demographic altogether, so might it affect recruits? It's possible.
Plus, you've got a European soccer company supplying apparel to an American football program.
We can do better. The Nike stuff was great... As another poster said, the Adidas stuff isn't. They're not making custom stuff for us, they're just integrating a block "M" onto their three stripe stuff. Since the three stripes are so prominent on most Adidas gear, on some of the apparel, the fact that it's Adidas is more prominent than the fact that it's Michigan!!!
And the away jerseys *BLOw*!!!! If anyone at Adidas or Michigan has any sense, they'll revamp them (and by revamp, I mean revert to an earlier version) and those shitty side stripes will be just another discarded vestige of an all around shitty season.
There was a post on another blog recently... and I think Brian linked it... about the cumulative records of football teams that don Adidas gear. It sucks. Think about it, seriously... Tennessee, Nebraska, ND, UCLA, and a few other sucky ass teams.
I know they showed Bill Martin the money, but overall, this was a shitty, shitty move by Michigan.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:45 PM ^
Keep in mind that this isn't just for football, it's for all sports. And I know that most of us don't care about the other sports, but Adidas is a very good all-sport brand.
I find it funny that you think there is any correlation between what brand a school uses and their performance by saying that most Adidas schools are bad football teams, you're nuts. How about basketball? Tennessee, ND, and UCLA are very good basketball teams, along with Indiana and Wisconsin who also have very good basketball programs. Again, I think this is simply a coincidence.