Contract Up

[TheKamdyMan]

I like the Adidas football unis better than Nike personally, and probably the Nike hoops kit is nicer even though it's close.  But unless there is a real tangible reason for switching sponsors, I'd be not unhappy to just stick with Adidas.  They've been good to NU.

 

Not to burst your bubble but the jerseys for ALL Nebraska sports, and any team in the country, are not done by Adidas or Nike.  They are all manufactured by other companies and put the Adidas logo on them.

[49r]

Oh, and also, I don't think that Tom Osborne was particularly married to one brand or another, in fact I seem recall him talking about it recently and saying that he thought that maybe he thought Nike was a little better and maybe the kids preferred Nike but that it probably wasn't a significant enough factor on its own to warrant switching gear providers.

[hhcscott]

Converse Chuck Taylor high tops

[cipsucks]

Under Armor shoes are terrible.

 

At least they where 2 years ago.

 

My son bought them for football, they just made it through 2-a-days.

 

Got a replacement pair.  Didn't last much longer.

Completely agree.  Those shoes are so bad.  The baseball shoes that they make are even worse.  It's like walking on plywood when wearing the shoes.

This just might provide the "in" that Dr. Scholl's has been looking for in this market.....

[49r]

I like the Adidas football unis better than Nike personally, and probably the Nike hoops kit is nicer even though it's close.  But unless there is a real tangible reason for switching sponsors, I'd be not unhappy to just stick with Adidas.  They've been good to NU.

 

Not to burst your bubble but the jerseys for ALL Nebraska sports are not done by Adidas.  They are all manufactured by other companies and put the Adidas logo on them.

 

Okay.  Doesn't change the fact that my personal opinion is that the football unis that are manufactured by other companies that have the Adidas logo on them look better than the ones with the Nike logo.  

[TheGov21]

Oh, and also, I don't think that Tom Osborne was particularly married to one brand or another, in fact I seem recall him talking about it recently and saying that he thought that maybe he thought Nike was a little better and maybe the kids preferred Nike but that it probably wasn't a significant enough factor on its own to warrant switching gear providers.

 

I heard an interview with a former football player that was there when Nebraska went from Apex to Adidas.  I guess back then TO address the team and asked them if they wanted to go to Nike or Adidas.  The players seemed to want to go to Nike, but TO helped sway the team towards Adidas because he told them that Adidas was going to taylor more of their stuff towards them.  I think that was when they had those "feet you wear" that were red and black and designed for the Huskers. 

 

I don't know for sure if he thinks Nike is better than Adidas, but it sounds like back then he liked Adidas better.

[ajb5856]

Unfortunately, this decision doesn't come down to which company makes better product/equipment or which brand players, recruits or coaches prefer. This is about money. I've heard that Adidas is going to offer a ton of money and is going to put Nebraska as their top dollar contracted school. I don't really know for sure how this process works so if you do, chime in. But I doubt the school says "we want to wear Nike, offer us money."

[FredsSlacks]

It won't make a huge difference either way. I just know more recruits prefer Nike over Adidas.

[HuskerFever]

I think I'm going to vomit if I hear another correlation between success and athletic apparel.

[TheKamdyMan]

I like the Adidas football unis better than Nike personally, and probably the Nike hoops kit is nicer even though it's close.  But unless there is a real tangible reason for switching sponsors, I'd be not unhappy to just stick with Adidas.  They've been good to NU.

 

Not to burst your bubble but the jerseys for ALL Nebraska sports are not done by Adidas.  They are all manufactured by other companies and put the Adidas logo on them.

 

Okay.  Doesn't change the fact that my personal opinion is that the football unis that are manufactured by other companies that have the Adidas logo on them look better than the ones with the Nike logo.  

 

LOL just thought I'd point it out.  Just like a little FYI.  Michael Jordan had ALL of his shoes done on a small leather patent shoe maker here in Portland.  Done by Crary shoes, Nike would send him the logos to apply to all his shoes.

[49r]

I think I'm going to vomit if I hear another correlation between success and athletic apparel.

 

Right?

[Norm Peterson]

All Nike except Auburn and Kansas.....it's worth thinking about

 

NCAA Football

2000-Oklahoma

2001-Miami

2002-Ohio State

2003-LSU/USC

2004-USC

2005-Texas

2006-Florida

2007-LSU

2008-Florida

2009-Alabama

2010-Auburn (Under Armour)

2011-Alabama

2012-Alabama

 

NCAA Basketball

2000-Michigan State

2001-Duke

2002-Maryland

2003-Syracuse

2004-Connecticut

2005-North Carolina

2006-Florida

2007-Florida

2008-Kansas (Adidas)

2009-North Carolina

2010-Duke

2011-Connecticut

2012-Kentucky

 

This alone makes me NOT want to be a Nike school.  I hate the idea that schools would shift to Nike in order to avail themselves of the recruiting benefits they think being associated with Nike represents.  That gives Nike waaaaaay too much power in picking the winners and the losers.  Adidas and others need to step it up and level the playing field a bit.  

 

If it's all about the endorsements, then Adidas needs to pony up some coin and get some of the bigger names.  If they don't like the styling, then do what Nike did with Jordan and have your spokespeople give their input on what the shoe should look like.

 

I also don't believe that Nike makes a superior shoe product.  I've bought both.  Both companies make cheap versions of their shoes that are available at discount stores.  Both companies make higher end versions that you get at higher end stores.  I'm sure they're actually very comparable when it comes right down to it.

 

The fact that Rory McIlroy is switching to Nike makes me want to puke.  He's switching from one of the best club manufacturers out there to a shoe company that started making golf clubs just because they could.  So, you pay Tiger Woods and Rory a boatload of money to play your clubs and it gives you instant cred without actually having to "earn" it by putting out a better product than the other guy.

 

Bottom line, IMO, these other shoe companies need to step it up on the endorsements or the AAU programs or whatever they need to do in order to start chewing into Nike's market share.  Nike is too powerful and I don't want us to go over to the dark side for the sake of expedience.

[49r]

I like the Adidas football unis better than Nike personally, and probably the Nike hoops kit is nicer even though it's close.  But unless there is a real tangible reason for switching sponsors, I'd be not unhappy to just stick with Adidas.  They've been good to NU.

 

Not to burst your bubble but the jerseys for ALL Nebraska sports are not done by Adidas.  They are all manufactured by other companies and put the Adidas logo on them.

 

Okay.  Doesn't change the fact that my personal opinion is that the football unis that are manufactured by other companies that have the Adidas logo on them look better than the ones with the Nike logo.  

 

LOL just thought I'd point it out.  Just like a little FYI.  Michael Jordan had ALL of his shoes done on a small leather patent shoe maker here in Portland.  Done by Crary shoes, Nike would send him the logos to apply to all his shoes.

 

Heh!

 

Well, considering how much revenue he alone has generated for them, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they have a special factory of dreams where nymphs assemble his personal footwear using fairy dust and only the finest unicorn hide and flubber!

 

Right across the forest glen from the place where Hanes makes all his underdrawers.

[nustudent]

Unfortunately, this decision doesn't come down to which company makes better product/equipment or which brand players, recruits or coaches prefer. This is about money. I've heard that Adidas is going to offer a ton of money and is going to put Nebraska as their top dollar contracted school. I don't really know for sure how this process works so if you do, chime in. But I doubt the school says "we want to wear Nike, offer us money."

Actually wouldn't surprise me if it is that way.  Adidas is the lesser brand.   We can go with more popular more mainstream brand...or the alternative...which is money.  It's a chance for a powerplay/leverage by the institution

[#GATA]

All Nike except Auburn and Kansas.....it's worth thinking about

 

NCAA Football

2000-Oklahoma

2001-Miami

2002-Ohio State

2003-LSU/USC

2004-USC

2005-Texas

2006-Florida

2007-LSU

2008-Florida

2009-Alabama

2010-Auburn (Under Armour)

2011-Alabama

2012-Alabama

 

NCAA Basketball

2000-Michigan State

2001-Duke

2002-Maryland

2003-Syracuse

2004-Connecticut

2005-North Carolina

2006-Florida

2007-Florida

2008-Kansas (Adidas)

2009-North Carolina

2010-Duke

2011-Connecticut

2012-Kentucky

 

This alone makes me NOT want to be a Nike school.  I hate the idea that schools would shift to Nike in order to avail themselves of the recruiting benefits they think being associated with Nike represents.  That gives Nike waaaaaay too much power in picking the winners and the losers.  Adidas and others need to step it up and level the playing field a bit.  

 

If it's all about the endorsements, then Adidas needs to pony up some coin and get some of the bigger names.  If they don't like the styling, then do what Nike did with Jordan and have your spokespeople give their input on what the shoe should look like.

 

I also don't believe that Nike makes a superior shoe product.  I've bought both.  Both companies make cheap versions of their shoes that are available at discount stores.  Both companies make higher end versions that you get at higher end stores.  I'm sure they're actually very comparable when it comes right down to it.

 

The fact that Rory McIlroy is switching to Nike makes me want to puke.  He's switching from one of the best club manufacturers out there to a shoe company that started making golf clubs just because they could.  So, you pay Tiger Woods and Rory a boatload of money to play your clubs and it gives you instant cred without actually having to "earn" it by putting out a better product than the other guy.

 

Bottom line, IMO, these other shoe companies need to step it up on the endorsements or the AAU programs or whatever they need to do in order to start chewing into Nike's market share.  Nike is too powerful and I don't want us to go over to the dark side for the sake of expedience.

You're right, I really enjoy seeing Nebraska not on those lists.  Adidas products suck.  Nike Dri Fit or Adidas Clima-Crap?  Dri-Fit please.  How can you look at that list and not want to think about switching to Nike.  I guarantee we have lost recruits to Iowa because Nebraska is Adidas and Iowa is Nike.  Call me dumb, but the facts do not lie. 

[49r]

The fact that Rory McIlroy is switching to Nike makes me want to puke.  He's switching from one of the best club manufacturers out there to a shoe company that started making golf clubs just because they could.  So, you pay Tiger Woods and Rory a boatload of money to play your clubs and it gives you instant cred without actually having to "earn" it by putting out a better product than the other guy.

 

Bottom line, IMO, these other shoe companies need to step it up on the endorsements or the AAU programs or whatever they need to do in order to start chewing into Nike's market share.  Nike is too powerful and I don't want us to go over to the dark side for the sake of expedience.

 

IMO, Norm, these are the two most salient points in the argument against Nike.

 

First off (and any person who has taken a college Marketing class has studied the Nike business case), this is how Nike became the apparel juggernaut they have become.  Marketing, marketing and MORE marketing.  They throw so much money at their marketing budget so as to essentially make the competition irrelevant.  It's a hype machine that's been successful like none other.  They sign all the biggest sports stars to huge endorsement deals where they can, they supply apparel to as many sports teams or leagues as they can.  They in fact invented the shoe deal for college sports, IIRC, it was John Thompson at Georgetown who was the first to have such a shoe contract.  (Remember the NIKE across the backs of all their shoes in the 80's?  The Terminator shoes?  Then later with HOYAS on the Dunks?)

 

 

It gets to the point that Nike, their marketing scheme, and the athletes all depend on one another, Nike depends on marketing to maintain credibility with the customer, the marketers depend on the athletes to lend credibility to their ads, and the athletes depend on Nike to maintain the image forged from years of hype making and more marketing.  I mean, it's gotta be the shoes, right?

 

 

Now, all of this so far is relatively benign, it's not like Nike invented the celebrity endorsement, and it's not like they don't have every right to do all in their power to maximize company value, HOWEVER...

 

...the overarching concern is that as they continue to gobble up market share and inch towards monopoly, innovation and product quality will suffer - it always happens in a monopolistic state, innovation and competition is not profitable any more.  As quality suffers, so will we as consumers.

 

Which leads me to the second part of your quoted post above.  Part of all this hype machine is also keeping athletes at all ages and abilities "in the fold" if you will, let's get these kids on the Nike track from jump street, even if it sometimes means some less than savory tactics at the AAU and High School level.  This article from 1990 explains that better than I can.

 

Now, having all that said (and I apologize for my lack of brevity here), I don't personally have a problem with NU going with whatever apparel provider they feel they get the best deal from, for whatever reason.  What I do have a bit of a quarrel with, is choosing an outfitter as you so eloquently put it, "for the sake of expedience".

[49r]

...and yes, I am fully aware that adidas is equally savvy with their marketing hype, they're the Ford to Nike's GM, no doubt.  But I support that competition and at the end of the day...when it comes down to brass tacks (how's that for two sports/business cliches in a row?), I honestly believe the overall quality of the product is, for the most part, same-same.

[#GATA]

...and yes, I am fully aware that adidas is equally savvy with their marketing hype, they're the Ford to Nike's GM, no doubt.  But I support that competition and at the end of the day...when it comes down to brass tacks (how's that for two sports/business cliches in a row?), I honestly believe the overall quality of the product is, for the most part, same-same.

Yeah and reebok is just as good as Nike too

[49r]

...and yes, I am fully aware that adidas is equally savvy with their marketing hype, they're the Ford to Nike's GM, no doubt.  But I support that competition and at the end of the day...when it comes down to brass tacks (how's that for two sports/business cliches in a row?), I honestly believe the overall quality of the product is, for the most part, same-same.

Yeah and reebok is just as good as Nike too

 

Okay...if that's what you want to take away from all that then I guess that's your prerogative.

[Norm Peterson]

All Nike except Auburn and Kansas.....it's worth thinking about

 

NCAA Football

2000-Oklahoma

2001-Miami

2002-Ohio State

2003-LSU/USC

2004-USC

2005-Texas

2006-Florida

2007-LSU

2008-Florida

2009-Alabama

2010-Auburn (Under Armour)

2011-Alabama

2012-Alabama

 

NCAA Basketball

2000-Michigan State

2001-Duke

2002-Maryland

2003-Syracuse

2004-Connecticut

2005-North Carolina

2006-Florida

2007-Florida

2008-Kansas (Adidas)

2009-North Carolina

2010-Duke

2011-Connecticut

2012-Kentucky

 

This alone makes me NOT want to be a Nike school.  I hate the idea that schools would shift to Nike in order to avail themselves of the recruiting benefits they think being associated with Nike represents.  That gives Nike waaaaaay too much power in picking the winners and the losers.  Adidas and others need to step it up and level the playing field a bit.  

 

If it's all about the endorsements, then Adidas needs to pony up some coin and get some of the bigger names.  If they don't like the styling, then do what Nike did with Jordan and have your spokespeople give their input on what the shoe should look like.

 

I also don't believe that Nike makes a superior shoe product.  I've bought both.  Both companies make cheap versions of their shoes that are available at discount stores.  Both companies make higher end versions that you get at higher end stores.  I'm sure they're actually very comparable when it comes right down to it.

 

The fact that Rory McIlroy is switching to Nike makes me want to puke.  He's switching from one of the best club manufacturers out there to a shoe company that started making golf clubs just because they could.  So, you pay Tiger Woods and Rory a boatload of money to play your clubs and it gives you instant cred without actually having to "earn" it by putting out a better product than the other guy.

 

Bottom line, IMO, these other shoe companies need to step it up on the endorsements or the AAU programs or whatever they need to do in order to start chewing into Nike's market share.  Nike is too powerful and I don't want us to go over to the dark side for the sake of expedience.

You're right, I really enjoy seeing Nebraska not on those lists.  Adidas products suck.  Nike Dri Fit or Adidas Clima-Crap?  Dri-Fit please.  How can you look at that list and not want to think about switching to Nike.  I guarantee we have lost recruits to Iowa because Nebraska is Adidas and Iowa is Nike.  Call me dumb, but the facts do not lie. 

I think you missed the point a bit.  It's not that I don't want to see Nebraska on those lists; it's that I'm a bit nauseated at the idea that any team should feel it has to change shoe companies (it's a SHOE company, for gawd's sake) in order to get on those lists.  That's the issue I have.  I would, quite frankly, expect that it would be a little unsettling to most people, the idea that a school would have to partner with a specific shoe company in order to be successful in college athletics.  I'm sorry that the notion seems foreign, but I don't want a f_____g shoe company dictating which teams are successful in college athletics.  I'm sorry if that opinion doesn't sit well with you, but it is what it is.

[#GATA]

I agree, but we live in a materialistic world.  And you can not tell me that high school students are not materialistic.  It shouldn't be that way, but in today's society most high schoolers are.  They like the free stuff, and most tend to go towards Nike...because they push a good product and throw money to athletes that are recognizable. 

 

-We're living in a material world....and I am a material girl. Adam Sandler (Robbie Heart) The Wedding Singer

[bball23]

Sadly, GATA is dead on with this.  Kids eat this stuff up!  Norm, I also understand your point as well.  We don't want a shoe company being the reason for success, but sometimes things like this do help lure kids in.  Sadly I know. 

 

As a person that is around kids a lot and that is around high school athletes a lot, I know they love this stuff and DO talk about what schools have what shoes, contracts, etc.....Its just the way it is.  Kids want the "coolest" "newest" things and they want them right away.  If getting Nike on board attracts a few kids.....well, we don't really want to miss out do we?

[Norm Peterson]

No, I get that kids dig this stuff.  There's obviously a reason for the correlation between shoes and success in college sports.  It's against my nature, however, to want to participate in Nike "getting away with it" as it were.  It leaves a bad taste in my mouth to think that we would have to affiliate with a particular shoe company in order to be more successful as an athletic department.  I don't care which shoe company it is:  I just don't think a shoe company should be able to exert that kind of influence.

 

It's like in Star Wars?  Yeah, I cheered for the Jedi.  I was glad Luke resisted going over to the Dark Side.  In It's a Wonderful Life, I was glad George Bailey stuck with the Building and Loan rather than joining Potter's outfit, where success (measured in terms of wealth) would have come more easily.  Call me sentimental.  Call me a sucker.  I cheered for Shane, too.  But if you guys are happy seeing the Russian guy beat Rocky just because the Russian dude has a Nike deal, who am I to argue?

[Handy Johnson]

Any Kid that concerned about his "outfit"  can go play somewhere else.

[Norm Peterson]

Has Nike launched their own line of headphones yet?  If not, they're missing a real opportunity to expand their business platform into the lucrative headphone market.  A "Lebron James Signature Series" headphone would instantly compete with any Beats by Dr. Dre product.  And it would have a swoosh on it, so that people could say, "Beats are crap; Nike headphones are far better.  And kids like them more."