Cheap football jerseys.

They're just the imitation kind with no names (they have numbers though).  I don't care though, $35.  That means that it's basically official that UM is leaving Addidas (we knew that though).  Figure that I might as well pick up a #21 at that price.  

The M Den on campus in Ann Arbor.

There are also a ton of 98's there.  I don't think they'll be bought anytime soon (if ever).

I don't think that means anything. They have close outs every year. I really hope we don't sacrifice $4 million just to go with Nike.

Who's "we"? 4 million dollars is chump change to the athletic department. I'd be disappointed if the athletic department wasn't okay with "sacrificing" that money to go with a far superior brand of apparel. The basketball uniforms are God awful.

This..... (awful)



Or this..... (one of the best college basketball uniforms of all time)

wshoes wrote:

I don't think that means anything. They have close outs every year. I really hope we don't sacrifice $4 million just to go with Nike.

Pretty sure that Michigan is switching. I've heard a lot of talk, although it's only talk, that it's Nike. When I went to the register with the jersey the cashier who rang me up asked if I could find everything (they always do, no big deal). I replied "Yes, and I even saw these and figired even though Michigan is switching back to Nike for $35 ya can't beat it." He smiled and nodded...

That means nothing but all of those nothings that I've heard add up to Nike coming in this Fall.

$4 million isn't nothing. Where do you think it comes from. Are you going to make up the difference? We have a budget. Are we currently running a $4 million surplus? How do you feel about increased prices so that we can wear Nike. If that were the trade-off would you be willing to do it? Or would you cut back on services or facilities (many of which we are already committed to and have debt out there to finance?

Nike is one of the marketing brainwashing successes of my lifetime.

More writing on the wall....

http://www.sneakerfiles.com/2012/11/02/nike-air-max-pillar-michigan-available-saturday-at-awol/

wshoes wrote:

$4 million isn't nothing. Where do you think it comes from. Are you going to make up the difference? We have a budget. Are we currently running a $4 million surplus? How do you feel about increased prices so that we can wear Nike. If that were the trade-off would you be willing to do it? Or would you cut back on services or facilities (many of which we are already committed to and have debt out there to finance?

Nike is one of the marketing brainwashing successes of my lifetime.

Keep saying "we" as if we pay the $4 million out of pockets. How much would prices really have to increase to cover that? Are you sure that merchandise sales won't increase due to better, more appealing apparel? Brands are influencing recruiting more than ever, and Nike is unquestionably the most respected brand. Adidas has been pretty terrible. Time to right the ship.

Also, do you follow recruiting anymore shoes? Look at the AAU circuit and realize how much influence the brands have. What you saw with Diamond Stone (choosing Maryland because of Under Armor) is going to get more and more common. When that starts happening, you wanna be with Nike and not a cheapened brand. Surely you've heard what the EYBL is, right? It's the who's who of AAU circuits.

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

wshoes wrote:

$4 million isn't nothing. Where do you think it comes from. Are you going to make up the difference? We have a budget. Are we currently running a $4 million surplus? How do you feel about increased prices so that we can wear Nike. If that were the trade-off would you be willing to do it? Or would you cut back on services or facilities (many of which we are already committed to and have debt out there to finance?

Nike is one of the marketing brainwashing successes of my lifetime.

Keep saying "we" as if we pay the $4 million out of pockets. How much would prices really have to increase to cover that? Are you sure that merchandise sales won't increase due to better, more appealing apparel? Brands are influencing recruiting more than ever, and Nike is unquestionably the most respected brand. Adidas has been pretty terrible. Time to right the ship.

As a grad, season ticket holder in two sports, donor, and long time major fan, I'm not going to apologize for saying "we."

As for making more money with Nike apparel sales, that is highly debatable. We are number 3 in sales with Adidas, and that's with a 5-7 football team. If football rebounds the way we think it will, apparel sales will take off higher no matter who the manufacturer is.

I will never convince multiple generations of fans who have been brainwashed, very effectively from birth, that Nike isn't a higher quality, but they are not. They spend a higher amount per unit than the competition on marketing- that means a lesser amount per unit is going into the quality. Spare me the anecdotal incidents of torn jerseys etc- we had the same thing with Nike, no one remembers it.

I have said before if we go back to Nike I will continue to buy Mich gear. I don't like the company, but my love for Michigan is far greater. I just think it is not a good idea to take $4 million less for the privilege of wearing the swoosh.

Failed to answer any of my questions and, instead, continued to spin.

1. How much would prices really need to increase to cover $4 million over an entire year of Michigan athletics?

2. Are we sure that the $4 million, over an entire year, wouldn't be at least partially recouped in other areas (ie. increased merchandise sales)?

3. Is it possible that the switch to Nike could lead to landing higher profiled recruits (see: the EYBL circuit and the Diamond Stone recruitment) that could lead to increased revenue down the road?

4. When did I ever say anything about quality? I said that Nike was a more appealing brand to the masses, which is not even debatable. I always said that I believe Nike has better looking uniforms, at least for Michigan, and that seems to be the opinion of the vast majority. When did I EVER say anything about "incidents of torn jerseys etc"? That has nothing to do with my point.

5. Michigan's projected budget this year was $151 million with projected expenses of $145.9 million. That is a $5.1 million surplus even IF (big if) Nike doesn't bring any increase in revenue.

6. Switching to Nike goes far beyond simply "being able to wear the swoosh". The fact that you can't even acknowledge there are other benefits shows how ridiculously biased you are.

Does your wife work for Adidas or something? I've never seen someone piss and moan so much about this.

Failed to answer any of my questions and, instead, continued to spin.

1. How much would prices really need to increase to cover $4 million over an entire year of Michigan athletics?

I don't know, but why should we have to raise prices at all because Nike won't make a competitive bid? 7 home games, call it 700,000 seats divided into $4 million, that would be $5.71 per ticket, but aren't we lowering student ticket prices?

2. Are we sure that the $4 million, over an entire year, wouldn't be at least partially recouped in other areas (ie. increased merchandise sales)?

No we aren't sure- but as I pointed out, there is little to suggest it would be offset.

3. Is it possible that the switch to Nike could lead to landing higher profiled recruits (see: the EYBL circuit and the Diamond Stone recruitment) that could lead to increased revenue down the road?

Is it possible? I guess, but do you really want a recruit who is going to choose the school on this basis? I guess you do.

4. When did I ever say anything about quality? I said that Nike was a more appealing brand to the masses, which is not even debatable. I always said that I believe Nike has better looking uniforms, at least for Michigan, and that seems to be the opinion of the vast majority. When did I EVER say anything about "incidents of torn jerseys etc"? That has nothing to do with my point.

Others have raised the quality issue if you have not. The looks are subjective and I have already granted that Nike is a supreme marketing master.

5. Michigan's projected budget this year was $151 million with projected expenses of $145.9 million. That is a $5.1 million surplus even IF (big if) Nike doesn't bring any increase in revenue.

So you would prefer a $1.1 million surplus to $5.1 million. What if next year the surplus would have been $2.2 million- you would be OK with a $1.9 million deficit? If you think $4 million is insignificant, than you and I see things differently.

6. Switching to Nike goes far beyond simply "being able to wear the swoosh". The fact that you can't even acknowledge there are other benefits shows how ridiculously biased you are.

What benefits are there other than satisfying the biases of a generation of fan-boys who have grown up believing Nike is where it's at, and willing to kill for a pair of Air Jordans?

Does your wife work for Adidas or something? I've never seen someone piss and moan so much about this.

No one I know works for any of the companies. I don't love Adidas, but I have bought and worn all of the brands over many years and as I've said Nike is vastly overrated. ASICS has the highest quality, but as far as I know they don't supply teams in this market space. Nike pays more for endorsements and way more for advertising- it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is paying for that (the consumer) and that for every $100 of cost in a product, that less of that $100 is going into the materials and labor used to create it.

I piss and moan about it? It seems to be that the Nike fan-boys have been pissing and moaning for years.

1. Um, are you forgetting basketball games? Are you forgettin concession revenue? Are you forgetting merchandise revenue? Football ticket increase is not the only way to offset the $4 million. It could be a combination of things. Pretty ridiculous logic.

2. Who said it had to offset? It's not an all or nothing thing. It can be a combination of things. Nike sales, whether it be from better marketing or more appealing product, usually sells better than Adidas.

3. Why wouldn't I want a recruit like Diamod Stone? I don't hold kids being loyal to their AAU sponsers against them. This thing is going to become more and more common, and your lack of understanding this shows how much you've given up following recruiting.

4. So you are reciting old talking points despite them never being brought up in this thread? If you are going to have a discussion with me, don't assume I agree with points others have made.

5. You're the one who asked if Michigan was operating with a $4 million surprise. They, in fact, are operating in a larger surplus. Keep spinning now that asking that question backfired on you.

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

1. Um, are you forgetting basketball games? Are you forgettin concession revenue? Are you forgetting merchandise revenue? Football ticket increase is not the only way to offset the $4 million. It could be a combination of things. Pretty ridiculous logic.

2. Who said it had to offset? It's not an all or nothing thing. It can be a combination of things. Nike sales, whether it be from better marketing or more appealing product, usually sells better than Adidas.

3. Why wouldn't I want a recruit like Diamod Stone? I don't hold kids being loyal to their AAU sponsers against them. This thing is going to become more and more common, and your lack of understanding this shows how much you've given up following recruiting.

4. So you are reciting old talking points despite them never being brought up in this thread? If you are going to have a discussion with me, don't assume I agree with points others have made.

5. You're the one who asked if Michigan was operating with a $4 million surprise. They, in fact, are operating in a larger surplus. Keep spinning now that asking that question backfired on you.

I'll let you have the last word on this because Lord knows- you have to have the last word on everything.

Bye Felicia.

hailtoyourvictor wrote:

...3. Why wouldn't I want a recruit like Diamod Stone? I don't hold kids being loyal to their AAU sponsers against them. This thing is going to become more and more common, and your lack of understanding this shows how much you've given up following recruiting...

I would much rather have a recruit that wants to be at UM because of the school and the program but if he or she wants to come because of an apparel affiliation then I wouldn't mind that either, especially for a big name recruit like Diamond Stone. And I have to agree with hail's point that apparel affiliation is going to become much more common.  so basically I've gotta agree with both points here. 

AAU sponsors are getting more and more prevalent and we will see this much more in the future. I liken it to the days when kids picked UM because they wore a winged helmet in high school.

Exactly. The recruiting landscape is evolving and a kid being loyal to his AAU sponser/league doesn't make him a bad kid.