Jersey/Uniform discussion (no mention of black jerseys)

[aTotal360]

I know most people think Nike "kicked us to the curb", but I thinking that the opposite of what happened. I also thought the institutions paid the manufacturers...boy was I wrong.<div>
</div><div>Anyone have the details on our Nike deal? Or how much Russell offered us?</div><div>
</div><div>I found this article pretty eye opening on the value of these relationships.</div>

 

[BigMotherTucker]

would we pay a manufacturer to wear their logo all over the field? I heard we dropped Nike because their bid to us was a bit low and Russell agreed to do the big "Maroon is all that Matters" tshirt give away. ( I still see them on gameday, I still wish they all would be burned) L "in the black" T wanted the free swag so we went with walmart brand, Russell.

 

[patdog]

was that Templeton wanted to use that to justify changing from the interlocking MSU logo to the M-State logo in football. He knew there'd be resistance to the change, but if we changed to Russell he could claim that Nike held thetrademark on the interlocking logo. He never bothered to mention that the only interlocking MSU logo they held the trademark to was the specific one we used in the 90s. We could have gone back to one of the earlier ones or created a new one. But Templeton wanted to change every sport to M-State and he did it by ditching Nike for Russell. Or at least he would have if Ron Polk hadn't flatly refused (about the only good thing Polk did in his 2nd term)

 

[Irondawg]

Pat's exactly right. It was a win-win for LT. He got to force his M-State logo on football and also got a better financial deal from Russell probably. At the time Russell was trying hard to get back in the apparell game and signed a few new teams as well as MSU.

 

[dawgstudent]

[No message]