Started By
Message
Posted on 1/22/14 at 3:22 pm to Weagle25
Personally I'm a fan of Adidas. I don't see us going Nike bc of bama so I think Adidas is number 2 followed by UA.
Adidas may have some iffy uniforms for teams that like to go that route but if you look at teams with classic jerseys like Wisconsin and Notre Dame. I think they did a good job with A&M's too
Adidas may have some iffy uniforms for teams that like to go that route but if you look at teams with classic jerseys like Wisconsin and Notre Dame. I think they did a good job with A&M's too
Posted on 1/22/14 at 3:31 pm to Toby Flenderson
quote:
I think they did a good job with A&M's too
quote:
and Notre Dame
yea....not so much.
This post was edited on 1/22/14 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 1/22/14 at 3:36 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Not the alternates... we don't do alternates
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:01 pm to Toby Flenderson
We will never go Nike, IMO. Coach Tub had the players tape up the swoosh when we wore their cleats. That was done for a reason. I like Nike shoes the best. I do hope we stay with UA though. Adidas, hell no. I kind of think we are stuck with UA and have to take whatever they offer. Hopefully by the end of the contract we will be back to being a national power. UA will have to pony up if that's the case.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:03 pm to MrAUTigers
quote:
Coach Tub had the players tape up the swoosh when we wore their cleats. That was done for a reason
Well, that was done because we weren't suppose to be wearing their cleats, not because they wouldn't let us wear them.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:11 pm to Tiguar
That sound bite is always glaring evidence that we need a new sound system
Every time it sounds like it breaks a speaker. So. Damn. Awful.
Every time it sounds like it breaks a speaker. So. Damn. Awful.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 4:12 pm to Tiguar
Why would we not go Nike because of Bama? Seems like a stupid reason to me. I think the real reason we're Under Armor right now is because they probably offered us much more money than Nike would (they already have so many teams) and Russell (can't afford the chunk of change UA offered us). I doubt Notre Dame contract lowers ours at all. Just because they have a new premiere team doesn't mean they don't want to keep us.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 5:19 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Well, that was done because we weren't suppose to be wearing their cleats
That's not true. Russell was our provider then and they didn't make cleats. Nike had provided us with cleats for a while. Auburn was not happy with how Nike was compensating us. Coach Tub had the players cover up the swoosh. That pissed off Nike. We then worked out a deal with UA.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 6:34 pm to Weagle25
quote:
Why would we not go Nike because of Bama? Seems like a stupid reason to me.
Because they would have two teams in the same marketplace. Their offer would be nowhere near on the level of UA or Addidas. Think about it as the Alabama market with secondary markets in the region, Nike already has a huge foothold and exposure in this market. Under Armour and Adidas has to pay an additional premium for market exposure
Additionally there are weird things I didn't completely understand about colors and such. Supposedly our official products aren't a standard navy dye and same with the orange and it somehow has an effect. Don't ask me for more but I was straight up told it matters
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:18 pm to GenesChin
quote:
Because they would have two teams in the same marketplace.
Ok that makes sense. I thought y'all were saying we wouldn't do it because Bama was already Nike.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:25 pm to lowspark12
quote:
Auburn's deal is worth is worth $27.5 million over 7 years...
Jay Jacobs strikes again.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:28 pm to CaptainBrannigan
At the time it was a pretty lucrative deal
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:29 pm to Toby Flenderson
Adidas sucks. There's a reason they no longer have a stronghold on collegiate athletics.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:29 pm to The Nino
quote:
At the time
Just like at the time our scoreboard was the only HD in the country.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:31 pm to CaptainBrannigan
quote:Two different scenarios.. we haven't had another chance to re-up with UA. Same can't be said about the scoreboard.
Just like at the time our scoreboard was the only HD in the country.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 7:35 pm to CaptainBrannigan
I'm all for ragging on JJ, but the UA deal (money plus incentives) he made was solid.
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:17 pm to The Nino
JJ wasn't the reason we got a good deal or at least not the only reason. Negotiation is mostly done by the general counsels office from what I understand
We have a better deal than we deserve. Notre Dame is just in a league of their own from a marketing standpoint
Weagle25, we don't care what Bama has from a pride standpoint but what they have does affect our negotiation due to that market exposure. Major reason why we differ on so many sponsor/marketing deals. For instance we do Verizon while Bama has ATt (despite absurd political pressure from BHan to go to ATT)
We have a better deal than we deserve. Notre Dame is just in a league of their own from a marketing standpoint
Weagle25, we don't care what Bama has from a pride standpoint but what they have does affect our negotiation due to that market exposure. Major reason why we differ on so many sponsor/marketing deals. For instance we do Verizon while Bama has ATt (despite absurd political pressure from BHan to go to ATT)
Posted on 1/22/14 at 8:49 pm to Rig
quote:
Adidas sucks. There's a reason they no longer have a stronghold on collegiate athletics.
Ehh, they're not all bad. They make good cleats (maybe not for football, but their football cleats are good if you get me) but their uniforms are blech. I loved how Russell treated our uni's. I still think UA will treat us well with the next contract extension, we've given them the most national exposure the past few years and provided them with one of their biggest marketable stars in Cam.
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News