That's Just Kramer

May 11th, 2015 at 1:37 PM ^

153 EYBL players in the 2015 class had committed to colleges, including 110, or 72 percent, heading to Nike-sponsored schools. Twenty-four have committed to an adidas school, 16 to an Under Armour school and three to schools sponsored by Russell Athletic.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/basketball/2014/10/17/analysis-nike-schools-land-top-recruits/17458319/

It will make a big difference in basketball recruiting.

BlueMars24

May 11th, 2015 at 2:09 PM ^

I don't disagree that apparel contracts can affect recruit's decision, but that stat doesn't mean anything. How many Nike vs Adidas schools are there? Maybe there's a lot more Nike schools for players to go too. 

EDIT: From your link: Nike sponsors 45 of the 65 "power five conference" programs compared to adidas' 11, 

That's just distribution of talent among schools. No cause shown by that data!! 

45/65 = 69.2%, 110/153=71.9%

11/65 = 16.9%, 24/153 = 15.7%

backusduo

May 11th, 2015 at 4:39 PM ^

I'm a stat nerd, so totally agree with your assessment above, that the initial blog is misleading.  That said I've always held the position that this really just matters in basketball, and the stat I'm going to provide below is not misleading.

92% of all basketball shoes sold in the US are Nike!!!!  92%!!!!!  That is why it matters.  As a kid that only wore Nike until the day Michigan signed with Adidas it was a hard adjustment for me to make and I didn't have a possible shoe deal someday on the line.  Kids want Nike in America, not Adidas like a soccer country.  The study that needs to be done is to look at the loss revenue due to Adidas as our brand, for example I only have one pair of Michigan bball shoes since we signed with Adidas, and had every year's Nike shoe during the 90s. 

Food for thought.

 

http://www.statista.com/statistics/271165/us-basketball-shoe-market-share-by-company-brand/

MgoRayO3313

May 11th, 2015 at 7:27 PM ^

Nike may not have rights to use the newer style DB Block M. When we were with Nike we consistently used the split M. Maybe somehow under our current contract no other company can use the block M unless given access to the rights (bowl game merchnadise, etc)

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

LSAClassOf2000

May 11th, 2015 at 2:45 PM ^

Rather impressed with the mock-up of the field as well as the large "Go Blue" banner in Nike's font of choice beyond it. That definitely makes it seem like they are going to go all in on the pitch to Michigan, if indeed that is what is being made here (by many accounts, it is too). I will admit that, at least for me, going back to Nike would be a nice, symbolic way to add to this dawning era of Michigan football. 

Blue Carcajou

May 11th, 2015 at 4:57 PM ^

From what I've been able to gather around the interwebs and those in the know:

Michigan met with Under Armor last week; met with Nike this morning and probably as I type this; and meets with Adidas tonight and tomorrow. 

Adidas is apparently, and understandable so, pulling out all stops to get us to stay/re-sign a contract, but I've heard Harbaugh prefers Nike, as do the student athletes, and they're definitely leaning towards a change to accompany the new shift in climate and culture. 

Money isn't the issue, our atheletic department isn't hurting anywhere except for our football team's wins column; therefore, the likelihood of us re-signing with Adidas is pretty much slim to none. 

gord

May 11th, 2015 at 6:08 PM ^

If Nike continues their weak pitch (using split M) and underbids then I'd be all for it.  All of the small sports could use whatever shoes and equipment they want and won't be forced to use inferior Nike stuff in many cases.

7words

May 11th, 2015 at 8:53 PM ^

Now i don't know how much to read into it, but i've noticed something over the last few years.  Everytime i see one of our players is prepping for a draft (basketball or football) it seems like they rarely are wearing Adidas gear.  Especially shoes.  I remember seeing Taylor Lewan working out and he was wearing Nikes.  Nik was wearing Nikes.   GR3 i think was wearing Nike.  And Mitch was wearing some other shoes i couldn't tell.   I'd assume these are kids that have tons of Adidas shoes from their time as a Michigan athlete, yet they all choose to get different shoes once they start training outside the Adidas sponsored UM teams.  Maybe that means something.  

AAK15

May 11th, 2015 at 10:40 PM ^

My high school was sponsored by Nike and the (football) equipment was top notch. Every kid I know my age (25) would perfer Nike over any other brand. Just my 2 cents

the Glove

May 11th, 2015 at 11:22 PM ^

I'm really rooting for this to happen. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that no team has won a national championship in the last 15 years who hasn't worn Nike. Coincidence? Probably but we've been losing since we've had adidas. Hell of a correlation.

Schrödingers Cat

May 12th, 2015 at 1:28 AM ^

Would Michigan sign a deal that is not as good to what OSU has. Is Michigan willing to be just another school behind the schools that Nike has been with for years. Or does Michigan walk away with something better. Other Nike schools have a more relevant recent history I can't imagine Nike making Michigan the number 2 school behind Oregon.

I'm not against Nike at all just thinking about this from a business standpoint. Michigan has great tradition but i think the last time Michigan brought home a title was the 05 softball team. -I could be wrong just thinking off the top of my head. Michigan has also been dreadful against Nike schools MSU and OSU for a while. Just seriously thinking what Nike is willing to give and are they willing to upset other schools in the process.

Whom ever they sign with all I care if it's the best possible option. I would actually be quite happy if Michigan gets one of the best Nike deals ever, at least the best in the big ten. How funny would that be for OSU after winning the NC and have Michigan walk in and get a better deal.