Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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

TSchekler said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point badly in this situation. CU should be earning significantly more money than CSU in this situation. And Utah, A FORMER MWC SCHOOL, is now earning about twice what we earn. Nike, addias, UA has been paying significantly more money in recent years.

  • Utah, like CU, is the only P5 school in their state. CO has more people than Utah. Utah has seven D1 schools versus five D1 schools in CO. By default, CU would have more alumni & fans who could be buying more Nike products. This one is on RG.
  • CSU's football jerseys are pretty much the same as CU's football jerseys including the light reflection material on the numbers. Only difference is the pants with the "RAMS" lettering and the bighorn on the sleeves. That means CU could have switched companies without dramatically altering CU's current uniforms. Is UA trying to send CU a message in this case since they were probably talking with RG unless CU was still in the exclusive negotiating window with Nike?
I'm not saying that CU would be getting those crazy deals but if CU's new deal was for like $5M/year, I think people would have been satisfied with that.

This new Nike deal was a huge slap in the face to CU fans. No CU fan should be defending this deal AT ALL.
 
Jalapeno said:
You are missing the point badly in this situation. CU should be earning significantly more money than CSU in this situation. And Utah, A FORMER MWC SCHOOL, is now earning about twice what we earn. Nike, addias, UA has been paying significantly more money in recent years.

  • Utah, like CU, is the only P5 school in their state. CO has more people than Utah. Utah has seven D1 schools versus five D1 schools in CO. By default, CU would have more alumni & fans who could be buying more Nike products. This one is on RG.
  • CSU's football jerseys are pretty much the same as CU's football jerseys including the light reflection material on the numbers. Only difference is the pants with the "RAMS" lettering and the bighorn on the sleeves. That means CU could have switched companies without dramatically altering CU's current uniforms. Is UA trying to send CU a message in this case since they were probably talking with RG unless CU was still in the exclusive negotiating window with Nike?
I'm not saying that CU would be getting those crazy deals but if CU's new deal was for like $5M/year, I think people would have been satisfied with that.

This new Nike deal was a huge slap in the face to CU fans. No CU fan should be defending this deal AT ALL.
Click to expand...

Why does the deal matter to the fans? We aren't getting any of that money. The fans seem to like Nike gear, and the university kept the Nike gear. So the fans should be happy.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Why does the deal matter to the fans? We aren't getting any of that money. The fans seem to like Nike gear, and the university kept the Nike gear. So the fans should be happy.
Click to expand...
Because if we want the AD to improve the facilities, we the fans will have to come up with more money to donate to improve the facilities.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Why does the deal matter to the fans? We aren't getting any of that money. The fans seem to like Nike gear, and the university kept the Nike gear. So the fans should be happy.
Click to expand...
For a team struggling to keep the AD budget in the black, and working in a conference where our Tier 3 rights are one step from worthless, the cash in the gear deals is extremely meaningful.
 
CitizenKane said:
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.
Click to expand...

Make sure to consider much of the value in these contracts is in 'free' apparel. The cash value would have been significantly less than $25-35 million. But $1-1.5 million cash more per year was likely available by leaving Nike.
 
Last edited:
The only issue I have with the deal is the length. I would have preferred something on a shorter term to take advantage of the expected rise in national profile of the football and basketball programs over that time period.
 
UA's checks will start bouncing within five years and teams signed on with them will have to scramble to outfit their players before the season starts, taking the field in Riddell pennies.
 
Highlander said:
For a team struggling to keep the AD budget in the black, and working in a conference where our Tier 3 rights are one step from worthless, the cash in the gear deals is extremely meaningful.
Click to expand...

And upcoming contract extension for HCMM.
 
Randy.Watson said:
UA's checks will start bouncing within five years and teams signed on with them will have to scramble to outfit their players before the season starts, taking the field in Riddell pennies.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're joking. UA has incredible brand recognition among the generation that will be entering the coveted 25-34 age demographic over the next decade.

What we don't see here are the licensing deals. Maybe Nike pays a better royalty to CU than UA? Maybe CU figures it sells more Nike gear than it would UA gear? I'm guessing there are many factors other than the team apparel deal. (Maybe CU didn't want its national champion CC teams in UA running shoes?)
 
CU's contract with Nike aside, what is with the hate for UA? I'm all for personal preference but I assure you UA's checks are not going to "start bouncing within five years"
 
The other thing that is not being brought up is what sort of deal Nike did on paying a piece of our coach compensation with their Nike deals. I don't know where to find those numbers, but if Nike is helping us keep Tad and others happy it is a big damn deal.
 
Buffnik said:
The other thing that is not being brought up is what sort of deal Nike did on paying a piece of our coach compensation with their Nike deals. I don't know where to find those numbers, but if Nike is helping us keep Tad and others happy it is a big damn deal.
Click to expand...

The notion that Nike pays coaches' salaries is a misnomer these days. In the old days, coaches would have a separate agreement with Nike (or whomever they chose), but now that's not the case. It's actually better for the coaches this way as they are getting universities to guarantee the entirely of their salary, which matters when they are canned. All money that Nike gives CU should be in that contract (which is only obtained when the media requests it).
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Why does the deal matter to the fans? We aren't getting any of that money. The fans seem to like Nike gear, and the university kept the Nike gear. So the fans should be happy.
Click to expand...

Agree, I don't see any money and I only want Nike. I'd hate it if we went to Under Armor or even worse Adidas. I think its a bigger slap in the face when you're a school that isn't a Nike school. It's as if the companies know that CSU is a second class citizen and Nike runs the other way.

*notes - Do not reply to my post with some BS about Notre Dame being Adidas. I don't care because they are not the rule they are the exception.
 
HawaiiBUFF said:
Agree, I don't see any money and I only want Nike. I'd hate it if we went to Under Armor or even worse Adidas. I think its a bigger slap in the face when you're a school that isn't a Nike school. It's as if the companies know that CSU is a second class citizen and Nike runs the other way.

*notes - Do not reply to my post with some BS about Notre Dame being Adidas. I don't care because they are not the rule they are the exception.
Click to expand...
Miami – Adidas
Michigan – Adidas
Nebraska – Adidas
Wisconsin – Adidas
Kansas – Adidas
Arizona State – Adidas
UCLA – Adidas
Auburn – Under Armour
Texas A&M – Adidas

Others: Louisville, GT, BC, TT, NW, NC St, and Maryland.

Source: http://footballscoop.com/news/nike-adidas-or-ua-who-wears-what-in-fbs/
 
Here is a another question for your apparel contract experts; Does the number of qualifying sports materially impact the dollar amount of the contract? i.e., does Utah have baseball while we do not? A hockey team? Wrestling?
 
Adidas is definitely on the way down. Michigan is Jordan (Nike) now. UCLA and Wisconsin are going to UA next year. Notre Dame already left for UA.

My guess is Adidas sales just didn't see any increase after spending all that $$$. Of course things like stupid zubazz NCAA Tourney gear didn't help.

Now, try going to a UA Store back to back with a Nike Store. UA still makes some weird crap, but in some ways their stores compare favorably to Nike's... and they have just as many people in them. Some of the Nike stuff just looked ratty in comparison.
 
Last edited:
UA, for the record, is rated a buy over Nike by a lot of stock analysts that list Nike as a hold in most cases. In other words, they dont expect the Nike stock to grow while the expect UA will.

The soccer uniforms our club had with UA were better quality and stiching then the new Nike uniforms they switched us to. Bags as well. Logos went from embroidered stitch to glue on. Me no likey nike. But I do prefer their cleats.
 
Highlander said:
Miami – Adidas
Michigan – Adidas
Nebraska – Adidas
Wisconsin – Adidas
Kansas – Adidas
Arizona State – Adidas
UCLA – Adidas
Auburn – Under Armour
Texas A&M – Adidas

Others: Louisville, GT, BC, TT, NW, NC St, and Maryland.

Source: http://footballscoop.com/news/nike-adidas-or-ua-who-wears-what-in-fbs/
Click to expand...

Okay, good to know. I wanted to offer a break down of the Power 5 schools and which company represents them, only to back-up my statement that you replied to. Below, we take a closer look at the different conferences and how the companies are represented in each one. Each conference has the amount of teams included as well as the overall ranking of the school on the All-Time Win Percentage list for FBS schools.

ACC (14 Schools):
Nike (9) - Florida State #13, Virginia Tech #23, Clemson #24, Pittsburgh #42, Syracuse #46, North Carolina #50, Virginia #77, Duke #93 & Wake Forest #123
Adidas (3) - Miami #18, Louisville #73 & NC State #86
Under Armor (1) - Boston College #43
Riddell (1) - Georgia Tech #31

BIG10 (14 Schools):
Nike (9) - Michigan #1, Ohio State #4, Penn State #11, Michigan State #25, Minnesota #47, Iowa #70, Purdue #74, Illinois #80 & Rutgers #85
Adidas (2) - Nebraska #9 & Wisconsin #41
Under Armor (2) - Maryland #72 & Northwestern #113

BIG 12 (10 Schools):
Nike (8) - Oklahoma #5, Texas #7, West Virginia #28, TCU #68, Baylor #81, Oklahoma State #83, Kansas State #100 & Iowa State #108
Adidas (1) - Kansas #99
Under Armor (1) - Texas Tech #53

PAC 12 (12 Schools):
Nike (10) - USC #8, Arizona State #21, Washington #22, Colorado #37, Stanford #39, Arizona #45, Oregon #49, California #58, Washington State #100 & Oregon State #103
Adidas (1) - UCLA #30
Under Armor (1) - Utah #33

SEC (14 Schools):
Nike (10): Alabama #6, Tennessee #12, LSU #14, Georgia #15, Florida #19, Arkansas #32, Ole Miss #52, Missouri #63, Vanderbilt #92 & Kentucky #94
Adidas (2): Texas A&M #26 & Mississippi State #97
Under Armor (2): Auburn #20 & South Carolina #82


A closer look reveals that Nike is represented by 46 schools, Adidas 9 schools, Under Armor 7 schools and with Riddell 1 school. Before you say, "well of course Nike will have more top Universities because they are represented more times than any other school", stop and ponder that because that is the point of the argument. Also, to add additional stats, I broke down the Top-10 schools for each company.

Nike - Michigan #1, Ohio State #4, Oklahoma #5, Alabama #6, Texas #7, USC #8, Penn State #11, Tennessee #12, Florida State #13 & LSU #14
Adidas - Nebraska #9, Miami #18, Texas A&M #26, UCLA #30, Wisconsin #41, Louisville #73, NC State #86, Mississippi State #97 & Kansas #99
Under Armor - Auburn #20, Utah #33, Boston College #43, Texas Tech #53, Maryland #72, South Carolina #82 & Northwestern #113
Riddell - Georgia Tech #31

Maybe now you are going to bring up, Non-Power 5 Schools or exceptions to the rule like Notre Dame, so I've covered those here.

Independents:

Notre Dame - Adidas #2
BYU - Nike #40

Top 10 Non-Power 5 Schools:

Boise State - Nike #3
Old Dominion - Nike #10 (Please note that they have recently become a Division I program, they are an outlier)
Georgia Southern - Adidas #16
Appalachian State - Nike #17
Miami Ohio - Adidas #27
Central Michigan - Adidas #29
Western Kentucky - Riddell #34
Bowling Green - Adidas #35
Fresno State - Nike #36
Southern Miss - Riddell #38

Nike - 4
Adidas - 4
Riddell - 2

We see that Adidas and Riddell become much more represented as we get into the Non-Power 5 schools. This and the records of the Nike vs Adidas Power-5 schools, just proves that staying with Nike is staying with the First Class and going with Adidas or Under Armor would be a step down. Why would we want to leave Nike, a brand that most fans prefer, just to secure a larger contract? Overtime, I bet we would sell more product with Nike, overall making more a larger profit than switching to a larger contract with Adidas or Under Armor.
 
HawaiiBUFF said:
Why would we want to leave Nike, a brand that most fans prefer, just to secure a larger contract? Overtime, I bet we would sell more product with Nike, overall making more a larger profit than switching to a larger contract with Adidas or Under Armor.
Click to expand...
To simplify the reply, let's focus on the piece. Yes, Nike has most of the P5 schools and most of the Top 25.

To say "most people prefer Nike" is, I'm sorry, horse**** on multiple levels:
1) I could care less the brand as long as it quality (and Under Armor is at least as high of quality - at least)
2) Nik alluded to this earlier, but sometimes the decision comes down to alignment with AAU programs within critical recruiting areas. This is where UCLA's move to Under Armor is ground shaking. Couple that with Kansas being with Adidas and it starts to show that Nike's hold on supremacy is past cracking.

I fully agree that money is only one factor. But I do believe that if you were a quality program (UCLA, Kansas for B-Ball, Nebraska, or Notre Dame), you have to weigh multiple factors rather than just sign with Nike for whatever they offered. It may be that we **** the bed so bad the past 10 years that the non-economic variables for UA or Adidas simply weren't a factor - meaning they were not that interested in CU and didn't offer a significant premium over what Nike had offered. Unfortunately, we will probably never know.
 
Highlander said:
To simplify the reply, let's focus on the piece. Yes, Nike has most of the P5 schools and most of the Top 25.

To say "most people prefer Nike" is, I'm sorry, horse**** on multiple levels:
1) I could care less the brand as long as it quality (and Under Armor is at least as high of quality - at least)
2) Nik alluded to this earlier, but sometimes the decision comes down to alignment with AAU programs within critical recruiting areas. This is where UCLA's move to Under Armor is ground shaking. Couple that with Kansas being with Adidas and it starts to show that Nike's hold on supremacy is past cracking.

I fully agree that money is only one factor. But I do believe that if you were a quality program (UCLA, Kansas for B-Ball, Nebraska, or Notre Dame), you have to weigh multiple factors rather than just sign with Nike for whatever they offered. It may be that we **** the bed so bad the past 10 years that the non-economic variables for UA or Adidas simply weren't a factor - meaning they were not that interested in CU and didn't offer a significant premium over what Nike had offered. Unfortunately, we will probably never know.
Click to expand...


And I have to strongly disagree with #1. I think if you took a poll people buy based on brand loyalty. If you told me that I had to choose between a Nike product or Adidas product (could be anything, Tee, Jersey etc), and that they cost the same but the only difference was the Adidas was a 10-15% high quality than the Nike, I would still choose Nike all-day.

Call me an idiot, but I would bet that most people would do the same. That brings up my argument of would you rather sign with Nike for $5 million a year or Adidas for $7 million, knowing that we would sell more Nike product over time, ultimately gaining the most revenue?

It's all about brand recognition. Nike is the bigger brand and people associate that with quality.
 
HawaiiBUFF said:
And I have to strongly disagree with #1. I think if you took a poll people buy based on brand loyalty. If you told me that I had to choose between a Nike product or Adidas product (could be anything, Tee, Jersey etc), and that they cost the same but the only difference was the Adidas was a 10-15% high quality than the Nike, I would still choose Nike all-day.

Call me an idiot, but I would bet that most people would do the same. That brings up my argument of would you rather sign with Nike for $5 million a year or Adidas for $7 million, knowing that we would sell more Nike product over time, ultimately gaining the most revenue?

It's all about brand recognition. Nike is the bigger brand and people associate that with quality.
Click to expand...
HB - don't take offense to this, but how old are you? I am mid-late 40's and I could care less about a brand as long as I know it is quality.

UA makes fantastic gear - I own a lot of it. I actually find it easier to find discount Nike stuff on the rack than I do UA. Adidas, I don't really care about. I haven't bought a piece of Russel gear in 15 years. Your complete dismissal of UA from a consumer perspective just seems odd. I would argue they are equal or higher quality in consumer clothes. Nike is also famous for Chinese sweat shops with terrible worker conditions. They jump to correct when it hits the media, but this seems to happen every few years. I haven't seen UA in the news for the same, but I am not an expert on their manufacturing processes. Are you comfortable with this situation?

The rest becomes stuff neither of us can quantify.
 
BuffLuKe said:
I could donate some toilets for the stadium and put what emblem on the bowl? I'm not doing the plumbing though, too many of y'all have been in there lol.
Click to expand...
And props to BuffLuke for attempting to tack this thread in the right direction - or at least noting its current situation.
 
Highlander said:
HB - don't take offense to this, but how old are you? I am mid-late 40's and I could care less about a brand as long as I know it is quality.

UA makes fantastic gear - I own a lot of it. I actually find it easier to find discount Nike stuff on the rack than I do UA. Adidas, I don't really care about. I haven't bought a piece of Russel gear in 15 years. Your complete dismissal of UA from a consumer perspective just seems odd. I would argue they are equal or higher quality in consumer clothes. Nike is also famous for Chinese sweat shops with terrible worker conditions. They jump to correct when it hits the media, but this seems to happen every few years. I haven't seen UA in the news for the same, but I am not an expert on their manufacturing processes. Are you comfortable with this situation?

The rest becomes stuff neither of us can quantify.
Click to expand...

No offense taken. I am 27, graduated from CU in '11. Right in that age group where we are removed from college but not enough to stop purchasing product.

I am saying that the majority of people will buy based on brand name. I am a Sociology Major, actually did a study on brand recognition in college and have worked in the food industry doing studies based on these principles ever since. People buy based on brands. It's fact.

A great example would be name brand products over generic. My family has been in the food distribution business here in Hawaii for 50 years. My uncle is the Kellogg rep for Hawaii and my dad's company has a line that brings the generic foods into grocery stores such as Safeway etc. Can you guess which brand does better day-in and day-out? Does the Kellogg Brand that sells a Raisin Bran box for $5 do better than the knock-off that sells Raisin Delight cereal for $3.50? Well the answer is yes. The Kellogg brand does better everyday. Why is this you might ask? It's because of branding. People have seen Kellogg for years and trust it. Why disturb their routine for $1.50? Its the same with Nike and Adidas. People trust Nike. Adidas is not Nike and never will be, plain and simple.
 
Under armors quality is probably fine, they just make some stupid looking **** and the Nike swoosh as an emblem looks a ton better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top