bulldawg989
11-12-2014, 05:57 PM
So at least once a week there is a uniform thread whereby ?Adidas sucks? invariably gets thrown up. I don?t think the majority of the ?Adidas sucks? crowd understands how college apparel contracts actually work, it extends beyond the uniform that is worn for a game. It is spread across all sports, men?s & women?s including apparel worn for practice, training and as a representation of the university, i.e., ?brand?.
The ?Adidas sucks? crowd is quick to claim Nike or Under Armor are better alternatives. I have a good friend who used to work for Adidas and now works for Under Armor on the high school level who also happens to be a UT grad. UT will be switching from Adidas to Nike next year, UT has been with Adidas for a while and has been one of the ?premier brands? for Adidas, obviously their recent decline in football and basketball (post Pearl and to an extent post Summitt) has seen that brand somewhat diminished. The reality of the switch, based on what I was told is that while the football program will get a boost from the Nike deal (a mix of uniforms, practice & game and apparel), the rest of the programs including basketball, baseball & softball are taking a hit and getting less than they had with Adidas. In short they are a mid-tier Nike client, not bigger than Bama, LSU, Florida, or Georgia. Throw in Kentucky (much bigger on the basketball side), Missouri, Ole Miss & Vandy and based on the sport UT is at that level.
MSU is rising fast across all sports, men?s basketball notwithstanding, and Adidas has taken notice. I agree there are similarities between State and A&M, with the color palettes being so similar it is hard not to share similarities. The overall theme of the uniforms for all schools is similar from year to year, Nike included ? they don?t vary much from team to team with Oregon being an outlier for obvious reasons. The Nike basketball uniforms for the upper-tier teams (UK, Duke, UNC, Michigan State, UF) are all very similar with minor school-specific tweaks.
I would much rather MSU be a top-tier Adidas school than a mid-tier Nike school, just within the SEC if you don?t think Bama, LSU, UF and UGA would get more Nike love than MSU you?re dreaming, there?s history they draw from. MSU is making its history now and Adidas is on board and giving us a lot and I daresay if our improvement continues in football and baseball alone we?ll see those contracts get better and better. Just look at the equipment Adidas has given the baseball team, bats, gloves, cleats ? it is a very good deal that Nike couldn?t match.
I?m not saying all of Adidas uniforms are awesome, they?re not but the coaches have a lot of input into them. The players like alternate uniforms, they get excited about them ? like it or not players get younger and fans get older and it?s part of the ever-changing landscape of college sports. So far, I think Adidas has been receptive to trying to distinguish State from other schools and programs ? they are forging a new identity for each other.
I?m sure this debate will rage on but the whole ?Adidas sucks? commentary is getting old.
The ?Adidas sucks? crowd is quick to claim Nike or Under Armor are better alternatives. I have a good friend who used to work for Adidas and now works for Under Armor on the high school level who also happens to be a UT grad. UT will be switching from Adidas to Nike next year, UT has been with Adidas for a while and has been one of the ?premier brands? for Adidas, obviously their recent decline in football and basketball (post Pearl and to an extent post Summitt) has seen that brand somewhat diminished. The reality of the switch, based on what I was told is that while the football program will get a boost from the Nike deal (a mix of uniforms, practice & game and apparel), the rest of the programs including basketball, baseball & softball are taking a hit and getting less than they had with Adidas. In short they are a mid-tier Nike client, not bigger than Bama, LSU, Florida, or Georgia. Throw in Kentucky (much bigger on the basketball side), Missouri, Ole Miss & Vandy and based on the sport UT is at that level.
MSU is rising fast across all sports, men?s basketball notwithstanding, and Adidas has taken notice. I agree there are similarities between State and A&M, with the color palettes being so similar it is hard not to share similarities. The overall theme of the uniforms for all schools is similar from year to year, Nike included ? they don?t vary much from team to team with Oregon being an outlier for obvious reasons. The Nike basketball uniforms for the upper-tier teams (UK, Duke, UNC, Michigan State, UF) are all very similar with minor school-specific tweaks.
I would much rather MSU be a top-tier Adidas school than a mid-tier Nike school, just within the SEC if you don?t think Bama, LSU, UF and UGA would get more Nike love than MSU you?re dreaming, there?s history they draw from. MSU is making its history now and Adidas is on board and giving us a lot and I daresay if our improvement continues in football and baseball alone we?ll see those contracts get better and better. Just look at the equipment Adidas has given the baseball team, bats, gloves, cleats ? it is a very good deal that Nike couldn?t match.
I?m not saying all of Adidas uniforms are awesome, they?re not but the coaches have a lot of input into them. The players like alternate uniforms, they get excited about them ? like it or not players get younger and fans get older and it?s part of the ever-changing landscape of college sports. So far, I think Adidas has been receptive to trying to distinguish State from other schools and programs ? they are forging a new identity for each other.
I?m sure this debate will rage on but the whole ?Adidas sucks? commentary is getting old.