Chances of dropping Adidas after our contract is up?
- Thread starter RikeMiley
- Start date
Saunders
Administrator
Not if they weren't giving us as much stuff...
Last edited by a moderator:
Hoosker
New member
Never said they weren't happy.
They would be happier if they received loads of free stuff from a brand they prefer, wouldn't you agree?
Red Five
New member
Maybe. I would agree if we knew that they would prefer Nike or UA. But we do not know that. And do we know that Nike or UA would give the players as much free stuff?
Landlord
Banned
I've actually heard, without knowing for sure if it's true or not, that what Nike withholds in cash they make up for in more non-monetary benefits with swag and such.
Red Five
New member
All I know was that when I was in school to athletes (not just FB players) got a ton of clothing. They got everything under the sun - winter coats, sunglasses, workout shoes, casual shoes, hats, tshirts, hoodies, sweats, shorts, lightweight jackets, watches. My friend on the team would give away his adidas socks to us since he had too many to wear.
BigRedBuster
Active member
OMG...you were forced to wear Adidas socks?
Hoosker
New member
Red Five
New member
I would only wear them around my apartment. I was afraid that if I wore them in public multiple people would point and laugh at me because they weren't Nike or UA.
Last edited by a moderator:
cg_8
New member
The branding process by Nike is incredibly demanding.
For example, Nike made Tennessee get rid of the "Lady Vols" nickname for everything but Basketball. This caused a stir in Tennessee, and it was found out that Nike gets rid of the school's logo's and replaces them with one singular logo.
They do a lot during this process. But basically, they market the hell out of it.
It'd be worth reading this article that shows some case studies of what they did to previous school's logos (including Oregon State's).
http://deadspin.com/nike-to-tennessee-dont-talk-about-what-were-doing-1704544586
What I know is that we brand our sports with a singular "N" and that's the "Iron N"
But we also have "N"s specific to football. For example, the "football N" is the one on our helmets:
We also have a separate "N" for Baseball:
Honestly, the "football N" is awesome, but I love that it is "football specific".
Something tells me that we would most likely still be able to have all these separate logos. I have seen the "OS" hat from Oregon State on their baseball hats recently, for example. But we never see Sparky from ASU (which I hate because I hold grudges that are from 1996). I wouldn't be surprised to see Sparky back since ASU is with Adidas now.
Overall, I don't know how I feel about being pushed around by Nike. Which, unless I'm mistaken, sounds like what happened at Tennessee and some of these other schools.
For example, Nike made Tennessee get rid of the "Lady Vols" nickname for everything but Basketball. This caused a stir in Tennessee, and it was found out that Nike gets rid of the school's logo's and replaces them with one singular logo.
They do a lot during this process. But basically, they market the hell out of it.
It'd be worth reading this article that shows some case studies of what they did to previous school's logos (including Oregon State's).
http://deadspin.com/nike-to-tennessee-dont-talk-about-what-were-doing-1704544586
What I know is that we brand our sports with a singular "N" and that's the "Iron N"
But we also have "N"s specific to football. For example, the "football N" is the one on our helmets:
We also have a separate "N" for Baseball:
Honestly, the "football N" is awesome, but I love that it is "football specific".
Something tells me that we would most likely still be able to have all these separate logos. I have seen the "OS" hat from Oregon State on their baseball hats recently, for example. But we never see Sparky from ASU (which I hate because I hold grudges that are from 1996). I wouldn't be surprised to see Sparky back since ASU is with Adidas now.
Overall, I don't know how I feel about being pushed around by Nike. Which, unless I'm mistaken, sounds like what happened at Tennessee and some of these other schools.
Landlord
Banned
I think ALL of these apparel companies do whatever the athletic department's of the schools they pay allow them to.
They completely rebranded Oregon State and Arizona State because those schools could greatly benefit from the rebrand. I don't know of any examples of them doing anything crazy with OSU, Bama, LSU, Texas, etc.
They completely rebranded Oregon State and Arizona State because those schools could greatly benefit from the rebrand. I don't know of any examples of them doing anything crazy with OSU, Bama, LSU, Texas, etc.
ColoradoHusk
Donor
I thought it was awesome when NU went to solid pants (no stripes) in 1995. Most of the other top teams in that era had gone stripe less, and I thought it was a cool, clean look when Nu did it. I wouldn't mind NU going back to pants without stripes
Hoosker
New member
Exactly.
Nike completely rebrands teams that need it and leave the established powers alone (for the most part).
They don't need to mess with USC, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Ohio State, or Penn State because they are all instantly recognizable.
Although I will say they have put out some ugly alternates for OU in recent years.
cg_8
New member
You're right. Texas has the "T" on their baseball caps instead of the Longhorn logo. And as I said, Oregon State has the "OS" on their caps.
They tried to re-brand MSU and trademarked a new logo. But the fans got a hold of it ahead of time and threw a fit. The change in the "Spartan" logo was incredibly minimal, but enough to start a huge campaign from the fans. In the end, the Athletic Dept decided not to make the change and Nike complied. From what I read, they also wanted to change the shade of green, which, they eventually did.
But they re-branded Duke, which had no need for a re-brand.
You have to wonder why Nike re-brands. Probably to "create a new logo" for the sake of exclusivity of that logo "created" by Nike. Which is fine if you don't mind a company owning that logo exclusively.
I'm not saying this is what will happen, I am just merely relaying information from an article I read and saying that it's interesting. Nike did seem to push Tennessee around, unless you read into it differently than I did. But Nike seems to have a lot of "play by our rules" mentality.
Truth be told, I remember something from what Kenny Bell said about Adidas, when we got the new deal with Adidas.
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/nebraska-extends-deal-with-adidas/article_84b7681e-e7ca-5b20-b5d9-2ca6bf74254f.html
Say what you want about what us fans want, and I can't speak for how well Nike's "customer service" is, but with Michigan gone, we're practically Adidas' #1 client. Sure we might get better alternates with Nike and Under Armour. Woo! But what they do for the student athlete seems kind of important too. Nike might do that, too. But we know Adidas does it for us.