We're not UT. We need the money, and Adidas is giving out more of it.
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland...ost-leave-adidas-for-nike.html?ana=twt&r=full
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland...ost-leave-adidas-for-nike.html?ana=twt&r=full
Tennessee loses money on switch from Adidas to Nike
- Thread starter Rog.sixpack
- Start date
Do retail sales factor into this? If more fans buy the Nike gear than bought adidas gear, would that difference decline?
Some things to be thankful about ...
MSU athletic budget is at or near the bottom of the SEC at ~$65M compared to UT's ~$99M. Meanwhile, in Knoxville, UT is in deep financial problems... http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/01/28/Colleges/Tennessee.aspx
Now, after staggering to losing football seasons in four of the last five years and seeing attendance drop to levels last seen in the 1970s, the Vols find themselves mired in more than $200 million of debt, the most in the SEC, with reserves of just $1.95 million, the least in the conference.
The athletic department spends a startling $21 million a year on debt payments, $13.5 million of which comes from the school’s stressed $99.5 million athletic budget and the rest from donations.
It’s an ugly financial picture for one of the nation’s strongest football brands, the kind of financial hole that SEC football giants aren’t supposed to be in, brought about by expensive coaching buyouts and costly improvements to Neyland Stadium and other athletic facilities, just as the losing seasons set in.
“We’ve got to get football healthy,” Hart said from his office in the new $50 million Brenda Lawson Athletic Center, just weeks after hiring Butch Jones from Cincinnati to be the Vols’ fourth football coach in the last six years. “That’s our economic engine. When that program is successful, everybody wins.”
MSU athletic budget is at or near the bottom of the SEC at ~$65M compared to UT's ~$99M. Meanwhile, in Knoxville, UT is in deep financial problems... http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/01/28/Colleges/Tennessee.aspx
Now, after staggering to losing football seasons in four of the last five years and seeing attendance drop to levels last seen in the 1970s, the Vols find themselves mired in more than $200 million of debt, the most in the SEC, with reserves of just $1.95 million, the least in the conference.
The athletic department spends a startling $21 million a year on debt payments, $13.5 million of which comes from the school’s stressed $99.5 million athletic budget and the rest from donations.
It’s an ugly financial picture for one of the nation’s strongest football brands, the kind of financial hole that SEC football giants aren’t supposed to be in, brought about by expensive coaching buyouts and costly improvements to Neyland Stadium and other athletic facilities, just as the losing seasons set in.
“We’ve got to get football healthy,” Hart said from his office in the new $50 million Brenda Lawson Athletic Center, just weeks after hiring Butch Jones from Cincinnati to be the Vols’ fourth football coach in the last six years. “That’s our economic engine. When that program is successful, everybody wins.”
I like Adidas, I just wish they'd try to distinguish us with A&M a lot better than their doing. Maybe now that we're their only two clients in the SEC they'll try harder.
Can you imagine if this type of thing happened at Ole Miss or MSU? I mean, it's Nike and I understand that, but imagine if one of our schools was this far in debt and was spending the amount it was in a given year and THEN they decided to take a contract for less money from a different brand of apparel.
Can you imagine if this type of thing happened at Ole Miss or MSU? I mean, it's Nike and I understand that, but imagine if one of our schools was this far in debt and was spending the amount it was in a given year and THEN they decided to take a contract for less money from a different brand of apparel.
Another article about the big 3 collegiate apparel companies (nike, Adidas, under armour).
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/print-edition/2013/12/27/big-brands-nike-adidas-push-small.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/print-edition/2013/12/27/big-brands-nike-adidas-push-small.html
aTm's contract is coming up from renewal and rumor is that they are looking around at switching. Have to think that Adidas got us both on the low when they initially signed us -- and would(should) have to pay to keep us
Anybody heard the numbers of our new Adidas contract? Would be something good to judge Stricklin by...
If you're TN why not go for the dough, you can't make those Orange a$$ uniforms any uglier than they already are so go for the $$$.
Yes and Tennessee is getting 13% royalties from Nike compared to 9.5% with Adidas so they ain't losing money from this deal.
It would be nice if the maroon color of the helmet matched the maroon color of the jersey, but I guess it doesn't matter to most State fans. Also, I assume Stricklin and most fans like the stripes on the helmet, and the stripes on the sleeves. Otherwise, we would probably ask Adidias to eliminate them.
Here's the list of current Adidas basketball teams. MSU needs to pick out two or three of what these schools are wearing and apply it to us. There's enough options available for MSU and aTm to differentiate themselves. The fact we haven't done that yet is not Adidas's fault it is simply laziness on the part of MSU. We should use one uniform from Baylor, Michigan, Tennessee, Kansas and Louisville imo. That's 5 different ones with maybe 5 different away ones too. The Jayhawks have a uniform with "Jayhawks" spelled in cursive that I think looks good. Maybe we could have one with Bulldogs spelled in cursive too. ANYTHING to get away from the hideous Mississippi State legal banner destroying our uniforms right now.
http://www.adidasgrassroots.com/college-teams/
http://www.adidasgrassroots.com/college-teams/
Last edited:
...damn...they dont even have our updated logo for the site. they dont give two ***** about us...we are just a team that can occupy their brand. they want our business, but dont want to put in the leg work for such little name recognition (comparatively). 17 adidas. its second class even if they pay us more. they dont give a damn. they arent all of the sudden going to start treating us like royalty even with their diminishing brand...and even if they did, i would be pissed because they should have shown us love from the beginning, not as we become the only sec school to sport their ****** pantyliner uniforms. i have no doubt we will continue with adidas, but regardless of who wants to admit it, it hurts us in the end...to what degree is up for debate. nike is collegiate standard and anything else is substandard and thats the inconvenient truth. their market share is shrinking and i expect state to do our usual thing and hang on too long trying to save a buck. we are the definition of laggards in that regard.
i have no doubt their share in the college football market is shrinking. that is what we are talking about after all. as far as how they are doing serving the general public, im sure they are doing fine...well, as good as the number 2 can do.
they have lost their bell-cow in notre dame, lost tennessee, have aTm talking publicly about looking elsewhere.
per the linked article, 17 universities have closed contracts with adidas.
"The biggest names left for Adidas in college sports are Kansas, Louisville, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Wisconsin and UCLA.
Having ties with Nike is considered a huge boon for recruiting. Tennessee's archrival Alabama (among many other schools) displays Nike logos in many of its recruiting materials. Georgia, for one, is particularly proud of the partnership, as you can see on its official Twitter page."
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/1/31/5364658/tennessee-nike-adidas-notre-dame-under-armour
they have lost their bell-cow in notre dame, lost tennessee, have aTm talking publicly about looking elsewhere.
per the linked article, 17 universities have closed contracts with adidas.
"The biggest names left for Adidas in college sports are Kansas, Louisville, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Wisconsin and UCLA.
Having ties with Nike is considered a huge boon for recruiting. Tennessee's archrival Alabama (among many other schools) displays Nike logos in many of its recruiting materials. Georgia, for one, is particularly proud of the partnership, as you can see on its official Twitter page."
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/1/31/5364658/tennessee-nike-adidas-notre-dame-under-armour
Last edited:
If you just eliminate Nike from your rearview you'll see that Adidas isn't bad. At all. In fact they're pretty great. The problem is US not picking out different samples or insisting we have something different... So your problem is with MSU, not Adidas. It's pretty well documented that they give us what we ask for (gold helmets, "grindin'," snow bowl junk).The only thing Nike has on Adidas is cleats, and they're still 1000x better than UA. And if you watch an NBA game you'll see that 1/3 of the players openly choose to wear Adidas shoes. Noah was even a Nike guy in college, and as far as I'm aware he doesn't have a signature shoe.
The grass is always greener, and unfortunately everyone sees the Alabamas and the Dukes wearing Nike and thinks if they wear Nike too they'll be great. A kid isn't going to choose Ole Miss over us because of Nike. Period. If that was the case USM could have signed every one of the players we stole from them in the last 5 years (hangs head in shame for having to say that).
We just need to grow some balls and select better things. I don't think it's a coincidence every one of our bball players wear Rose's. None wear Howard's or Wall's. None. Can't be coincidence. I'm 98% we only give them Rose's as an option. Kids like to pick their own shoes, and in that regard... Nike is better. Next game involving Nike schools... look at the shoes. They're all different. Our kids need more options than Rose's, and Adidas has them. We just don't utilize.
The grass is always greener, and unfortunately everyone sees the Alabamas and the Dukes wearing Nike and thinks if they wear Nike too they'll be great. A kid isn't going to choose Ole Miss over us because of Nike. Period. If that was the case USM could have signed every one of the players we stole from them in the last 5 years (hangs head in shame for having to say that).
We just need to grow some balls and select better things. I don't think it's a coincidence every one of our bball players wear Rose's. None wear Howard's or Wall's. None. Can't be coincidence. I'm 98% we only give them Rose's as an option. Kids like to pick their own shoes, and in that regard... Nike is better. Next game involving Nike schools... look at the shoes. They're all different. Our kids need more options than Rose's, and Adidas has them. We just don't utilize.
Last edited:
This is what I'm saying. When we had Nike there was not nearly as much merchandise for us to buy as what Adidas has out there. I own more cool Adidas apparel than I ever had of Nike. the maroon is maroon and it is very good quality ****. What's all the bitching about? Anybody that says under armor, look at the college merchandise they sell. Does any of that look worth a ****? We are good right where we are. We just need to make whoever is in charge of choosing the uni's make sure we differentiate more between a&m and us.
We simply need to hire Chillbilly for the current graphic designer position opening -- and let him design the uniforms. Simple. And I think most would be pretty happy with that.
Nobody can make Orange look good!
Win a few games, hire a high profile player like JFF, and all will be good...
& cut the budget...Stop adding to the stadium.
Win a few games, hire a high profile player like JFF, and all will be good...
& cut the budget...Stop adding to the stadium.
I don't think any fan would disagree with that arrangement. Maybe then we will get rid of the maxipads on our shoulders and helmets and all fans will join in unison in our love of Adidas. I honestly believe that would be all it takes. Not having the EXACT same gear as A&M in basketball would be nice, but I'd be willing to swallow that one if they simply removed stripes in football. Would take 5 minutes to pick up a phone and say we want different uni's in basketball though. THEY HAVE OTHER DESIGNS!!!!!!!
i was relieved as the next guy when we made the switch from russell to adidas. they are a better brand of those two, but nike is the premier brand in college apparel and now nfl apparel. that is the reality. adidas gives us the same basketball unis as aTm, nearly the same football uniforms as aTm, and gave us a maroon baseball jersey that was exactly like the one they provided louisville. little to no customization other than "select color and insert team logo here:"
we finally got the announcement of some techfit jerseys....well, AFTER everyone else had unveiled theirs, so ours were nothing more than an afterthought. aTm and tennessee had jersey photos several months before ours were even announced. we are NOT a priority to them whatsoever. now, i dont think we will be a priority to nike either, so that point is diminished somewhat, and i would like to emphasize that fact, but for a fanbase that was pining for a variant helmet/jersey because they were unhappy with the current version, the least they could do is provide us with something to appease the masses for a while. additionally, ucla, kansas, michigan, nebraska, and wisconsin all recieved new ugly uniforms within the last 2 seasons (excluding ucla's...i kinda liked them because they were nearly identical to their old ones except techfit)...we are an afterthought and giving us BOTTOM priority out of all those teams should give us a strong indication on where we sit.
im not trying to make it look like adidas doesnt give a **** about it, because they do want our business...and maybe more so now than ever, as their share in collegiate apparel is dwindling, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try our damnedest to get back to nike if at all possible. the financials are obviously a huge factor in the decision, but assuming the difference can be made up to some degree (as in tennessees case with an adjusted royalty), a switch should be heavily considered, yet without bids, our ad is tweeting out how much we love our partnership with adidas all while we get the **** end of the stick (reasons sited in my opening comments).
all that is without the recruiting aspect that should also be considered. said simply, recruits want to wear ugly **** from nike, not ugly **** from adidas...my article linked above said it was playing a role in recruiting. if a recruit is split 50-50 on two schools, its a near guarantee that he is going to pick the nike school over the adidas school. so what about the guy that is 51-49...52-48...55-45? who here can say kids that make dumb decisions all the time (as did most of us when we were that age) wont make another petty decision because of how they will look and their preconceptions of the team apparel they will be required to wear during official team activities?
IF we can get it reasonably close financially, we should suck-up the assumed loss in profits and make the switch to nike...at least in my modest opinion. it may be a ****** opinion, but programs are fleeing from adidas for a reason and their share is dwindling. im kind of crazy though because i think that had russell offered us twice what adidas had offered, we should still pick adidas...same thing here, although my perception regarding the disparity in contracts and brands are not that great.
Adidas is not the devil and their apparel is ok, but they are a brand struggling to secure their position in a sport that finds their offerings blah, cookie-cutter, and unimaginative, and as a result, their market share is shrinking. additionally, they do bad business and refused to compensate workers in one of their indonesia factories until michigan threatened to drop them.
honestly, in the end, i have an agenda, and that agenda is for mississippi state to look as appealing as possible to viewers, recruits, fans, and to all of the college athletics world. in my narrow field of view, that means switching to nike. image is reality and adidas appears weak now and have played second fiddle to nike longer than i can remember and on top of that, i have not been happy with their team apparel offerings as i find them lacking in style, direction, and signatures that make them unique to mississippi state.
not trying to pick a fight, and i agree with some of what you have posted. just my take on the apparel issue.
we finally got the announcement of some techfit jerseys....well, AFTER everyone else had unveiled theirs, so ours were nothing more than an afterthought. aTm and tennessee had jersey photos several months before ours were even announced. we are NOT a priority to them whatsoever. now, i dont think we will be a priority to nike either, so that point is diminished somewhat, and i would like to emphasize that fact, but for a fanbase that was pining for a variant helmet/jersey because they were unhappy with the current version, the least they could do is provide us with something to appease the masses for a while. additionally, ucla, kansas, michigan, nebraska, and wisconsin all recieved new ugly uniforms within the last 2 seasons (excluding ucla's...i kinda liked them because they were nearly identical to their old ones except techfit)...we are an afterthought and giving us BOTTOM priority out of all those teams should give us a strong indication on where we sit.
im not trying to make it look like adidas doesnt give a **** about it, because they do want our business...and maybe more so now than ever, as their share in collegiate apparel is dwindling, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try our damnedest to get back to nike if at all possible. the financials are obviously a huge factor in the decision, but assuming the difference can be made up to some degree (as in tennessees case with an adjusted royalty), a switch should be heavily considered, yet without bids, our ad is tweeting out how much we love our partnership with adidas all while we get the **** end of the stick (reasons sited in my opening comments).
all that is without the recruiting aspect that should also be considered. said simply, recruits want to wear ugly **** from nike, not ugly **** from adidas...my article linked above said it was playing a role in recruiting. if a recruit is split 50-50 on two schools, its a near guarantee that he is going to pick the nike school over the adidas school. so what about the guy that is 51-49...52-48...55-45? who here can say kids that make dumb decisions all the time (as did most of us when we were that age) wont make another petty decision because of how they will look and their preconceptions of the team apparel they will be required to wear during official team activities?
IF we can get it reasonably close financially, we should suck-up the assumed loss in profits and make the switch to nike...at least in my modest opinion. it may be a ****** opinion, but programs are fleeing from adidas for a reason and their share is dwindling. im kind of crazy though because i think that had russell offered us twice what adidas had offered, we should still pick adidas...same thing here, although my perception regarding the disparity in contracts and brands are not that great.
Adidas is not the devil and their apparel is ok, but they are a brand struggling to secure their position in a sport that finds their offerings blah, cookie-cutter, and unimaginative, and as a result, their market share is shrinking. additionally, they do bad business and refused to compensate workers in one of their indonesia factories until michigan threatened to drop them.
honestly, in the end, i have an agenda, and that agenda is for mississippi state to look as appealing as possible to viewers, recruits, fans, and to all of the college athletics world. in my narrow field of view, that means switching to nike. image is reality and adidas appears weak now and have played second fiddle to nike longer than i can remember and on top of that, i have not been happy with their team apparel offerings as i find them lacking in style, direction, and signatures that make them unique to mississippi state.
not trying to pick a fight, and i agree with some of what you have posted. just my take on the apparel issue.
What do we have to do to become a priority to Adidas?! We're in the smallest town of all 14 schools and the smallest state of the 11. We have a super small footprint compared to just about everyone except Ole Miss... Who is unhappy with their contract with Nike because they feel the same way as we do, that we get slighted by other schools with the "same" contract.
The reality is if we switch to Nike we go from 5th or 10th on the priority list to 50th. Want to see some recycled gear? Sign with Nike and don't draw much national attention.
Adidas pads our wallets generously, we get their superior products (compared to teams like USM who when they had Nike got the same stuff little leagues wear and buy from Dick's Sporting Goods... Likely the same **** we'd get), and it's different. We just need to make it better from our end (ie offer Howard's, Crazy 8's, and the rest of their shoe line, select one of their other samples for basketball and football, and continue to say "hell no" when they give us **** Astros uniforms).
If you as a fan prefer Nike (reasonable) you can buy a Nike MSU polo at the book store.
The reality is if we switch to Nike we go from 5th or 10th on the priority list to 50th. Want to see some recycled gear? Sign with Nike and don't draw much national attention.
Adidas pads our wallets generously, we get their superior products (compared to teams like USM who when they had Nike got the same stuff little leagues wear and buy from Dick's Sporting Goods... Likely the same **** we'd get), and it's different. We just need to make it better from our end (ie offer Howard's, Crazy 8's, and the rest of their shoe line, select one of their other samples for basketball and football, and continue to say "hell no" when they give us **** Astros uniforms).
If you as a fan prefer Nike (reasonable) you can buy a Nike MSU polo at the book store.
with only a handfull of fbs aq schools under contract with adidas, we should have been somewhat of a priority simply because there isnt much competition for attention. think of it like this...say you have a waiter with only 3 tables to serve...you expect a certain amount of attention and quality because said waiter is not occupied with other tables. yet, adidas is forcing us to give nasty looks just to get a damn refill. their food (read clothes) is/are not good enough to outweigh their unattentive and lazy service.
im unaware of any complaints from other schools because nike is giving painfully generic uniforms that are nearly identical to other schools. nike is more unique and does a bit more than insert color and logo.
as stated, i think it goes beyond what i like or dislike about the company. it has implications in recruiting, appearance to the nation, and our history with nike was a good one until our run-in with oregon.
if nike can get close to matching adidas (maybe through royalty agreements), we would be fools to stay on the sinking ship that is adidas. if aTm drops adidas as they have openly discussed, we will be the only ones left with adidas in the sec. some athletic directors have chosen to forgo the up front cash that adidas offers and take their chances with nike who is the king of collegiate and nfl football apparel. its not a wild thought that perhaps our ad should follow suit and when you feel snubbed by your supplier (generic uniforms, one stripe instead of two, finally giving us techfit after every one else in the nation, save kansas), it just makes me want to bail on them even more. they are not good stewards of our business and their stuff is second tier.
all this debate is for naught because stricklin has made it clear he likes adidas and wants to continue the partnership, but i think its a mistake. probably not a huge mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. the status quo is so much easier, but with a brand that is getting pushed to the periphery the way adidas is in college athletics, i think now is the right time to make nice with nike and put this incessant uniform talk to bed.
im unaware of any complaints from other schools because nike is giving painfully generic uniforms that are nearly identical to other schools. nike is more unique and does a bit more than insert color and logo.
as stated, i think it goes beyond what i like or dislike about the company. it has implications in recruiting, appearance to the nation, and our history with nike was a good one until our run-in with oregon.
if nike can get close to matching adidas (maybe through royalty agreements), we would be fools to stay on the sinking ship that is adidas. if aTm drops adidas as they have openly discussed, we will be the only ones left with adidas in the sec. some athletic directors have chosen to forgo the up front cash that adidas offers and take their chances with nike who is the king of collegiate and nfl football apparel. its not a wild thought that perhaps our ad should follow suit and when you feel snubbed by your supplier (generic uniforms, one stripe instead of two, finally giving us techfit after every one else in the nation, save kansas), it just makes me want to bail on them even more. they are not good stewards of our business and their stuff is second tier.
all this debate is for naught because stricklin has made it clear he likes adidas and wants to continue the partnership, but i think its a mistake. probably not a huge mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. the status quo is so much easier, but with a brand that is getting pushed to the periphery the way adidas is in college athletics, i think now is the right time to make nice with nike and put this incessant uniform talk to bed.