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.
Comments
-
Wanting to get rid of Nike because of Phil Knight's relationship with Oregon is the epitome of doogtarded.
-
No. Shit.4321DAWGS said:you just do not want nike involved with us because of oregon.
So do Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Tennessee rate as "higher" (as contrasted from "lower") profile football programs in your book? How about basketball programs like UCLA, Kansas and Indiana?4321DAWGS said:higher profile schools? besides notre dame wbo is more high profile than usc ogio state alabama and texas?
-
In this thread: TTJ reveals himself as a MAJOR Doog.
-
TTJ, what difference would it make if we didn't use Nike? The only difference I can come up with is we would get less money. If you can't understand that and are so simple minded to think we should avoid Nike because of Oregon, you deserve to get thrown head first into a fire. This thread sucks and is exactly what Cheers said... The epitome of doogtarded.
-
the schools i mentioned are overall much higher rated than your your list sucks. alabama over tennessee. texas over a and m. usc over ucla. fuck your list. we are talking about football. basketball players do not wear cleats fuck stick. i do not give a fuck abour basketball outside of the huskies. fuck basketballTTJ said:
No. Shit.4321DAWGS said:you just do not want nike involved with us because of oregon.
So do Michigan, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Tennessee rate as "higher" (as contrasted from "lower") profile football programs in your book? How about basketball programs like UCLA, Kansas and Indiana?4321DAWGS said:higher profile schools? besides notre dame wbo is more high profile than usc ogio state alabama and texas?
-
what about gymnastics? i hear under armor makes the sickest leotards. maybe we should use themRoadDawg55 said:TTJ, what difference would it make if we didn't use Nike? The only difference I can come up with is we would get less money. If you can't understand that and are so simple minded to think we should avoid Nike because of Oregon, you deserve to get thrown head first into a fire. This thread sucks and is exactly what Cheers said... The epitome of doogtarded.
-
Adidas has been a trainwreck for CFB uniforms. Every team that uses Adidas has worn some god-awful dreck at least once. They try to keep up with what Nike does with the Pro Combat series and fail miserably. Leave aside the Oregon hate, which is doogtarded. Under Armour hasn't been much better. Their alternate uniforms for Maryland were a laughingstock. I guess you could use Russell Athletic if you don't mind looking like a high school team from the 1980's.
Objectively speaking, Adidas sucks at football.
Objectively speaking, Adidas North America is still based in Portland, and is probably stocked with Oregon alums anyway.
Under Armour isn't much better.
Picking a uniform supplier based on your hatred of Oregon just means you should get comfortable with combustibles.
-
Ten or so years ago, on dawgman, right around the time Oregon was pimping Harrington for the Heisman with the Manhattan posters and related campaign goodies, there was this little dipshit Duck poster who would come over and use the word "brand" left and right.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?
We used to make fun of him for that mercilessly.
Now, today, guys like you, hanging paper while wrapped in the clothing of UW uber fandom, use it too, and oddly enough, in an original bitch session about Nike. Very rich.
"Brand" in college football doesn't require a Kellog MBA to understand. Winning is brand. Losing is brand. Hovering just above 500 is brand. That's about it.
UW doesn't have a brand, unless you want to suggest that slugging it out with UCLA to lay claim to [distant] second best in conference history is a "brand". And even if it did have a brand, making $$ from Nike wouldn't offend it.
Nike is a successful American company handing the Euro-trash, Nazi-founded fags, their asses. Fuck, they even have to deal with Nike in soccer, which they should own, but don't. What kind of an American are you anyway? Do you wear a dish towel on your head during the day?
-
UW's brand is "Oregon's Annual Plunger Rape Victim".creepycoug said:
Ten or so years ago, on dawgman, right around the time Oregon was pimping Harrington for the Heisman with the Manhattan posters and related campaign goodies, there was this little dipshit Duck poster who would come over and use the word "brand" left and right.TTJ said:Exactly how badly does UW need the money? And is the difference between Nike's offer and, say, adidas's so great that it's worth compromising your brand and promoting your arch rival?
We used to make fun of him for that mercilessly.
Now, today, guys like you, hanging paper while wrapped in the clothing of UW uber fandom, use it too, and oddly enough, in an original bitch session about Nike. Very rich.
"Brand" in college football doesn't require a Kellog MBA to understand. Winning is brand. Losing is brand. Hovering just above 500 is brand. That's about it.
UW doesn't have a brand, unless you want to suggest that slugging it out with UCLA to lay claim to second best in conference history is a "brand". And even if it did have a brand, making $$ from Nike wouldn't offend it.
Nike is a successful American company handing the Euro-trash, Nazi-founded fags, their asses. Fuck, they even have to deal with Nike in soccer, which they should own, but don't. What kind of an American are you anyway? Do you wear a dish towel on your head during the day?
Case closed.
