Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Deadspin: Nike forced schools to return gear that needed more swooshes.

13

Comments

  • AZDuck
    AZDuck Member Posts: 15,468
    You guys should definitely ink a deal with Adidas.

    image

    Can't think of a more deserving fan base.
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 116,018 Founders Club
    Sounds like someone needs to give his wife a Koranic beating and get some perspective
  • tracker
    tracker Member Posts: 866
    TTJ said:

    Exactly how badly does UW need the money? And is the difference between Nike's offer and, say, adidas's so great that it's worth compromising your brand and promoting your arch rival?

    I'd like to think the Ducks are our arch rival but I doubt that Oregon shares my point of view.
  • TTJ
    TTJ Member Posts: 4,827
    Dick_B said:

    As a dad that has bought his share of cleats, both baseball and football, I can tell you that Nike makes the best cleats, and it's not close.

    So you must be having a good belly laugh in the press box that Wisconsin and Auburn and Notre Dame and UCLA and Michigan and Maryland and Texas Tech and Texas A&M and Tennessee and Kansas and many others are all wearing gear that puts them at such a marked competitive disadvantage. This stunning insight must have made you a fortune in Vegas by now.

    You could probably almost touch the rim in Air Jordans too, right?
  • 4321DAWGS
    4321DAWGS Member Posts: 98
    TTJ said:

    4321DAWGS said:

    there are no football cleats that come close to as good as nike.

    Jack H. Lockner. The cleats? So Notre Dame, UCLA and others (who, unlike UW, actually play home games on grass) are wilfully putting themselves at some appreciable competitive disadvantage by signing up for adidas's inferior cleats? Fuck off.
    how much do you know about cleats?
  • TTJ
    TTJ Member Posts: 4,827
    Nothing at all. But I know that plenty of good teams don't wear Nike.
  • 4321DAWGS
    4321DAWGS Member Posts: 98
    TTJ said:

    Nothing at all. But I know that plenty of good teams don't wear Nike.

    do you think that maybe they could havr reasons brsides tbe cleats not to wear nike? for example under armour ceo is a maryland alum
  • TTJ
    TTJ Member Posts: 4,827
    I suspect UA can only afford to outbid Nike in a few places. Adidas is bigger but just appears to have a different collegiate marketing strategy: instead of being everywhere, they seem happy outfitting just a small number of higher profile schools. (Memo to UW: Win games, get on natl TV, and watch outfitters try harder to compete for your business.)

    Again, most schools just go with the highest bidder, which tells me *they* think there's little difference in the quality of the gear.
  • Fire_Marshall_Bill
    Fire_Marshall_Bill Member Posts: 26,245 Standard Supporter
    None of the Nike stuff I've ever worn seems any more durable than other major brands. Granted I haven't worn cleats in 20 years...
  • 4321DAWGS
    4321DAWGS Member Posts: 98
    TTJ said:

    I suspect UA can only afford to outbid Nike in a few places. Adidas is bigger but just appears to have a different collegiate marketing strategy: instead of being everywhere, they seem happy outfitting just a small number of higher profile schools. (Memo to UW: Win games, get on natl TV, and watch outfitters try harder to compete for your business.)

    Again, most schools just go with the highest bidder, which tells me *they* think there's little difference in the quality of the gear.

    higher profile schools? besides notre dame wbo is more high profile than usc ogio state alabama and texas? you do not know jack shit about tbe bids, contracts or even the numbers involved in this market. you just do not want nike involved with us because of oregon. who fuckibg cares? if we left nike right now it would not make a dent in uncle phils contributions