Started By
Message
re: List of SEC Schools that currently have an apparel contract with Nike
Posted on 7/5/19 at 8:52 am to The Winner
Posted on 7/5/19 at 8:52 am to The Winner
LINK
AZ governor wears Nikes after he says state won’t support them anymore lmao
AZ governor wears Nikes after he says state won’t support them anymore lmao
This post was edited on 7/5/19 at 8:54 am
0
Posted on 7/5/19 at 9:48 am to LouisvilleKat
quote:
Miss State and TAMU are with Adidas because they're women's soccer schools.
TAMU is with Adidas due to Nike laughing aggy out of the meetings when they demanded a "Texas level deal".
Posted on 7/5/19 at 9:58 am to The Winner
Based on Nike's recent actions, you could basically rename this thread "Schools that hate America" and it'd still be accurate.
Mississippi St
Texas A&M
South Carolina
Mississippi St
Texas A&M
South Carolina
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:13 am to The Winner
All unamerican trash
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:14 am to LouisvilleKat
Bama gets 5.25 MPY. Signed a stupid extension to 2025 in 2013.
"Quietly in 2013, Alabama inked an extension with the Beaverton, Oregon-based corporation that runs through 2025. Unlike previous deals, Alabama never announced the deal signed in early September 2013 by Bill Battle, in his first year as Alabama's athletics director.
The 2013 extension increased the value for Alabama, though not near the raises Texas, Ohio State and UCLA got a few years later.
All told, Alabama's deal that runs through 2025 is worth $63 million in apparel and cash plus a $5 million signing bonus. That works out to $5.25 million a year compared to $18.7 million a year for UCLA and more than $16 million a year for both Ohio State and Texas.
A number of factors from timing to lack of competition explain Alabama's standing in the sports apparel contract money.
Bob Dorfman, a sports marketing analyst, was surprised to hear about Alabama's 2013 deal with Nike. Like practically everyone else who follows this corner of the sports business world, he thought the contract was ending this June.
"Certainly, if the deal was expiring, I would suspect Alabama would sign the richest deal of all right now," Dorfman said. "I would think they'd re-up with Nike and Nike would pay them definitely more than UCLA is getting paid by Under Armour."
Instead, Alabama isn't even among the top 20 in apparel deals as Nike, Adidas and Under Armour went on a spending spree in the years after the 2013 deal kicked in."
LINK
"Quietly in 2013, Alabama inked an extension with the Beaverton, Oregon-based corporation that runs through 2025. Unlike previous deals, Alabama never announced the deal signed in early September 2013 by Bill Battle, in his first year as Alabama's athletics director.
The 2013 extension increased the value for Alabama, though not near the raises Texas, Ohio State and UCLA got a few years later.
All told, Alabama's deal that runs through 2025 is worth $63 million in apparel and cash plus a $5 million signing bonus. That works out to $5.25 million a year compared to $18.7 million a year for UCLA and more than $16 million a year for both Ohio State and Texas.
A number of factors from timing to lack of competition explain Alabama's standing in the sports apparel contract money.
Bob Dorfman, a sports marketing analyst, was surprised to hear about Alabama's 2013 deal with Nike. Like practically everyone else who follows this corner of the sports business world, he thought the contract was ending this June.
"Certainly, if the deal was expiring, I would suspect Alabama would sign the richest deal of all right now," Dorfman said. "I would think they'd re-up with Nike and Nike would pay them definitely more than UCLA is getting paid by Under Armour."
Instead, Alabama isn't even among the top 20 in apparel deals as Nike, Adidas and Under Armour went on a spending spree in the years after the 2013 deal kicked in."
LINK
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:23 am to OldSchoolHorn
quote:
TAMU is with Adidas due to Nike laughing aggy out of the meetings when they demanded a "Texas level deal".
Adidas offered us a freakishly good deal; that’s why we we’re with them (to say nothing of the pitifully unattractive product Nike continued to provide us).
It was business. Period.
Texas A&M switches from Nike to adidas
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:26 am to EKG
the two are not exclusive of each other... it started with a delusional request "give us a Texas level offer" and Adidas capitalized when the Nike meetings abruptly ended.
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:28 am to OldSchoolHorn
So you're trying to faulty A&M for asking for a huge deal? Should our people just say give us whatever pennies you can spare?
adidas paid us and then a few years later paid us more. We get over & M a year which may not be what Nike gets from tu, but it one of the top deals in college sports. No complaints here.
adidas paid us and then a few years later paid us more. We get over & M a year which may not be what Nike gets from tu, but it one of the top deals in college sports. No complaints here.
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:29 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
Interesting as it looks like Nike does not like deep reds or deep orange
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:33 am to WaydownSouth
quote:
Nike has terrible running shoes. New Balance, Brooks, or Asics
This is the correct answer. And for all purpose, I would add Saucony is OK too. Plus, as a 60 year old, I'm not too far away from these sweet shoes.
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:35 am to Auburn80
quote:
But the people that claim they are boycotting them have an incredible conflict of interest
What exactly is the conflict of interest?
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:36 am to LouisvilleKat
quote:
Also technically Florida is with Jumpman
Which is Nike
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:36 am to OldSchoolHorn
It wasn’t a rivalry issue.
Nike came with a bid. Adidas’s was far better—in every way. I doubt that our regents cared about Nike’s relationship with others; it was about what was best for our university.
But were you and I having this discussion in person, I’d give you a wink and a, “Sure thing,” and end it there
.
We’ve been thrilled with Adidas; it was a brilliant move.
Nike came with a bid. Adidas’s was far better—in every way. I doubt that our regents cared about Nike’s relationship with others; it was about what was best for our university.
But were you and I having this discussion in person, I’d give you a wink and a, “Sure thing,” and end it there
. We’ve been thrilled with Adidas; it was a brilliant move.
This post was edited on 7/5/19 at 10:41 am
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:38 am to Auburn80
Yeah New Balance rocks because they have Wide sizes readily available. I hate Nike stuff to begin with. The fact that the company is run by morons is just more incentive not to buy their stuff.
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:41 am to Auburn80
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:44 am to The Winner
Basically Miss State sucks so badly even Nike doesn't want them
Posted on 7/5/19 at 10:44 am to StopRobot
I wear a bunch of the crossfit shoes from Reebok because of their wide toebox.
Very easy to find flag shoes too.
Very easy to find flag shoes too.
Posted on 7/5/19 at 11:13 am to Farmer1906
My favorite nike school
Posted on 7/5/19 at 11:18 am to bigDgator
Did someone just say Jordan and stupid logo in the same Sentence?
Seriously go frick yourself
Seriously go frick yourself
This post was edited on 7/5/19 at 11:19 am
Posted on 7/5/19 at 11:22 am to Auburn80
quote:
Plus, as a 60 year old
I refuse to believe anyone on this board is older than 15
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News