I just saw that Under Armour and Wisconsin agreed on a 10 yr $96m deal. I know Wisconsin has been consistently solid for a while now, but almost $7m more a year than what CU could get from Nike??
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU's Nike Contract - June 30th Expiration
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Wisconsin has been in the national title in basketball and a couple rose bowls in the last ten years. They also have a passionate fanbase that covers the entire state so yes.
And the Nke brand toe cheese is a big hit up there!
PBJ put together a database http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/feature/ncaa-deals-nike-adidas-under-armour.html
here's a snapshot of the Pac 12
here's a snapshot of the Pac 12
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but CU didn't leave any money on the table and RG knows exactly what he is doing here.
Under Armor sucks.
Pretty sure Utah is UA's flagship brand in the West. They also have been good recently. CU was in a bad negotiating position unfortunately.
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
Utah has no where to go but down. They are in a significantly smaller market and their national brand does worse than CU's even while CU is down (both sales and tv ratings are worse than CU). Bottom line, RG hasn't flubbed many things since arriving at CU but this he flubbed badly.
I'm going to go ahead and trust the successful businessman and former MLB team President that is running things. Thanks for the input, though!
Utah sports are a pretty big deal in SLC. I don't really understand where these "facts" are coming from.
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
I certainly understand your position given RG's success in most everything else he has done. He is an asset to CU and we are lucky to have him. Further, I'll give it to RG on the fund raising side of things. He knows how to raise funds and he knows how to handle people. Two skills that are vital to his success as an AD.
However, I can promise you RG didn't do a good job here. He left somewhere between $25 and $34 million dollars on the table over the ten year term of the agreement. If he can fix that by getting a big donation from someone to cover that difference, then I will consider it a wash. But I can't wear blinders just because someone is generally good. Don't be surprised come year five if RG admits to this and uses the opt out language in the agreement to try and fix the error and get a new deal.
Hate to bring this up but CU's Nike deal isn't that much better than CSU's UA deal: http://www.coloradoan.com/story/spo...mour-extend-deal-11-million-dollars/76688814/
Arizona: http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...-agrees-extension-nike-through-2025/31627007/
I wonder why CU keeps going with Nike?
Arizona: http://www.azcentral.com/story/spor...-agrees-extension-nike-through-2025/31627007/
I wonder why CU keeps going with Nike?
Do you have some tangible evidence of this?
Jalepeno posted all the evidence you need.
Doesn't CSU's contract include a bunch of advertising in the new stadium though? Not exactly comparing apples to apples.
CU was always going to leave some money on the table going with Nike again, and there is nothing wrong with that since UA sucks.
Because CSU has a worse deal with UA than CU does with Nike and because Arizona has a ****ty deal with Nike? Doesn't really provide any evidence. As others have stated, CU was in a bad position to negotiate. Had the discussions taken place in summer 2017, after an 8-4 or 9-3 season where CU ended up ranked, maybe things are different, but contrary to what CK thinks, CU's brand has been worthless up to this point.
I think RG left a lot of money on the table here. If he had to, sign a 2 year deal... He knew we were improving. Utah and Colorado (pre 2016) should be somewhat equal in value... I see no way to defend it.
Just like we should have blindly trusted Larry Scott to negotiate with DirecTV? I love me some RG, but doing a below-market, long-term deal made absolutely zero sense to me. Not to mention, I can't find any decent CU gear anywhere in Denver. I can go to my local Costco and laugh at all the unsold CSU gear, but at least their fans have the option to buy it. I know I'm not alone here - how many of you were SOL for white (the fabric color) Buffs shirts because no online retailer could deliver on time? People are finally ready to open their pockets and the product is nowhere to be found.
CitizenKane
Well-Known Member
TSheck, just sent you a PM.
Yep. They are the only thing in town (and state for the most part) other than the Jazz. They have tons of support. My brother in law works for the School and Salt Lake City supports their athletics programs very well.
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
Bingo. That **** is infuriating!! I can't find anything I want. I can't even buy a white jersey online. Wtf is that? Meanwhile Nike carries 77 different Oregon jerseys.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
I think there may be another possible angle to this story.
The CU leadership group could use a couple of years of on-field success as a bargaining tool and start flirting with another suitor in 2018 or 2019. When confronted by Nike, CU could tell them that a law suit would not cost that much. Perhaps they get Nike back at the table that much sooner.
The CU leadership group could use a couple of years of on-field success as a bargaining tool and start flirting with another suitor in 2018 or 2019. When confronted by Nike, CU could tell them that a law suit would not cost that much. Perhaps they get Nike back at the table that much sooner.
Supply and Demand.
CU fans apparently don't buy a ton of gear. Oregon fans buy everything.
That's how I read it. CU traded money for recruiting. Getting the Hyper Elites for hoops, the uniform updates for football, etc. while increasing status with Nike with its 7on7, AAU and Camp Series.
This is from the link thisbuff provided. I'm not bitter CU only received $2.35M for 2016-2017 given our terrible on the field performance for the previous decade. I am annoyed that Nike dangled $2M in cash in front of us and we agreed to a 10 year deal at this schedule. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
Supply and demand. Nike will start offering more CU fan attire as soon as we start buying more. (Actually probably has little to do with most here - Nike will start offering more CU fan attire as soon as casual and fair weather fans start buying more.) Would've preferred RG negotiated a five year extension, but I do not know how these deals work. Ten years may be the industry standard.
UCLA will be UA's west coast flagship starting in 2017. It's the biggest deal in apparel sponsorship history, so I'd say national flagship too (unless UA finds a big east coast team and signs them to more). UA's deal with UCLA ($280mil/15 yrs) is bigger then the freshly minted deals Nike has with Michigan ($170mil/15yrs) and Texas ($250mil/15yrs). Notre Dame is only getting $90mil/10 years.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/la-sp-0525-ucla-under-armour-20160525-snap-story.html
Cal also will be a UA school starting in 2017, receiving $86 million/10yrs.
The key number in most of these deals is the cash received per year. The value of the apparel is dependent on what the manufacturer decides retail price is, not what it costs them. And if I'm Under Armor and I want to make a splash, I rig that number so that these deals appear bigger than Nike... and do so by using an overpriced retail price in comparison to Nike. Why not? Basically, both Nike and UA are giving schools enough apparel credit to outfit their teams, then adding more and more. But that's not exactly useful if it just means more Maryland style ugly ass unis. I don't think any P5 schools actually exceeds their uniform 'allowance', they use it up, and if it's bigger, they buy more swaq, aka unnecessary gear.
When comparing CU to CSU and Utah, I say look at the cash:
CSU - no cash, all uniforms from UA. What do you think UA pays the Malasyian worker for that $2mil in gear?
CU - $750k, $2 million in gear. Not a headline number, but if CU can outfit its teams for $2 million, does the gear amount matter if it's $2 million or $4 million? The base football uniforms are some of the most legit in all of CFB.
Utah - $1.75 million cash, 4.8 million in gear. I agree that CU and Utah should be similar sized deals even now. Would it have been worth ditching Nike for $1 million extra in cash?
Now the big deals (CASH value only):
UCLA - $12mil/yr average
Texas - $8mil/yr avg
Mich - $6.8mil/yr avg
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/10/30/ut-signs-record-apparel-deal-nike-250-million-over/
Last edited: