ASU leaving Nike for adidas

[TheOldRoman]

I was going to reply that no school would be a stunner for me...forgot about Oregon though! That would be a shock. Once Michigan went to Adidas, I figured just about anything was possible.

Same here. Michigan was a shocker back then. As for who would "shock" now, I'm thinking North Carolina. The football teams isn't really relevant, but it would be a shock just because basketball: their close ties with Jordan and the fact that the basketball uniforms have been Jordan branded for the better part of a decade. Georgetown and Duke would also be shockers from the basketball standpoint.

[JPDesign]

Just to add some more context, here are Under Armour's top contracts:

I didn't realize Texas Tech was getting nothing!

And Russell's (lol).

And lastly, here is the top 10 highest apparel contracts. Only 4/10 are Nike.

I certainly think that helps explain why teams leave Nike for Under Armour/Adidas.

[MJWalker45]

I'm also thinking that adidas needs teams more thanNike. That explains why they and Under Armour throw more money at teams. I'm amazed Texas Tech's not getting anything other than free gear, especially since they were UA's guinea pig for looks this year.

[mjd77]

Don't forget, Tennessee is leaving Adidas for Nike starting next year. It is also known that Wisconsin is unhappy with Adidas and is actually involved in a lawsuit against them. Their current contract goes through 2016 so I would expect Bucky to change then if not before. This link is an old article from early 2013 but there are things related to that lawsuit that are still ongoing.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3390/why-are-colleges-at-odds-with-adidas

[OnWis97]

Those are alternates, though. By that logic, anyone that wears BFBS uniforms is "primarily black."

For a lot of schools, there is no such thing as an "alternate" anymore. They just mix and match piece by piece. The way ASU integrates black, it is firmly a regular part of their rotation.

Exactly. ASU wears black for what feels like a majority of their games. I don't know if that's actually true, but every time I see them they're wearing some form of black. So, it's different from other schools that have just a BFBS uniform. ASU football in recent years has been primarily black.

And even if they weren't primarily black can we all agree that Arizona State doesn't need any black uniforms?

Here's ASU's football unis last year, minus the Sparky helmet vs Arizona (which, btw, the decals were switched on the helmet last minuted in the middle of the night before the game. The Equipment team even tweeted out a photo of the helmets with pitchforks on them the day before.)

12 different combos. Three games with black (Fire/Black/Black, Black/White/Black, Black/Maroon/Black) plus Desert Fuel Gray/Copper uni against Notre Dame.

So eight out of 12 games with no black parts of the uniform. 2/3 of the games without black. That's a super majority no black uniform elements.

We all have our own thresholds, I guess. I don't know that 1/3 in non school colors (not to mention watering it all down with 12 different combos) is a good thing. If you point is simply "see, not a majority" then yes. But if it's that it's "only a third" is not so bad, then, well, to each their own...

[guest23]

I'm also thinking that adidas needs teams more thanNike. That explains why they and Under Armour throw more money at teams. I'm amazed Texas Tech's not getting anything other than free gear, especially since they were UA's guinea pig for looks this year.

Contract based business is messy to say the least. Forecasts of sales & revenues are often overly optimistic and suppliers across many industries will often overbid and sometimes even go into loss leader mode to secure flagship clients. Often they get caught up in bidding wars for clients and the strategy will be that somebody will figure out how things pencil out at a much later time. It also depends on what each providers strategy is at a given moment.

It appears nike is more than satisfied with their market share so they are placing very standardized bids that are focused on bottom line profitability above all else. UA looks to be overpaying flagship clients for market share and press with the hopes that they can drive more sales of mid-tier more profitable clients due to their increased prestige as a top tier supplier. Adidas is a real head scratcher. At one point it appeared that they were ready to get out of american football entirely and focus on global sports. After landing michigan and launching tech fit they've done a real minimal amount of promotion and product development. Their designs appear to be a complete afterthought. Financially they've been stagnant for a while (with the exception being the world cup), reebok is on the sales block at a 50% discount. All those signs pointed to a company that did not want to invest in the sport but now were seeing a small wave of new clients which would indicate that they've increased their budgets for college fb which may have been a result in a change of strategy and possibly new management.

[H11K]

So is this where Arizona finally looks better than ASU??? Apparently if the jersey snoop has is the actual jersey.

[Sport]

Those are alternates, though. By that logic, anyone that wears BFBS uniforms is "primarily black."

For a lot of schools, there is no such thing as an "alternate" anymore. They just mix and match piece by piece. The way ASU integrates black, it is firmly a regular part of their rotation.

Exactly. ASU wears black for what feels like a majority of their games. I don't know if that's actually true, but every time I see them they're wearing some form of black. So, it's different from other schools that have just a BFBS uniform. ASU football in recent years has been primarily black.

And even if they weren't primarily black can we all agree that Arizona State doesn't need any black uniforms?

Here's ASU's football unis last year, minus the Sparky helmet vs Arizona (which, btw, the decals were switched on the helmet last minuted in the middle of the night before the game. The Equipment team even tweeted out a photo of the helmets with pitchforks on them the day before.)

12 different combos. Three games with black (Fire/Black/Black, Black/White/Black, Black/Maroon/Black) plus Desert Fuel Gray/Copper uni against Notre Dame.

So eight out of 12 games with no black parts of the uniform. 2/3 of the games without black. That's a super majority no black uniform elements.

We all have our own thresholds, I guess. I don't know that 1/3 in non school colors (not to mention watering it all down with 12 different combos) is a good thing. If you point is simply "see, not a majority" then yes. But if it's that it's "only a third" is not so bad, then, well, to each their own...

I knew someone was going to make a chart explaining why Arizona State doesn't wear primarily black to the dictionary definition of the word primary. I hoped to avoid that by saying "ASU wears black for what feels like a majority of their games. I don't know if that's actually true, but every time I see them they're wearing some form of black". I don't watch every Sun Devil football game, but the five times I saw them this year they were in black three times, and dark grey once.

So yeah, okay, they don't wear black every game, but they also still wear it too much and don't wear their school colors enough. Only one game this season with gold-maroon-gold is not okay.

[St Louis Cardinals]

Those are alternates, though. By that logic, anyone that wears BFBS uniforms is "primarily black."

For a lot of schools, there is no such thing as an "alternate" anymore. They just mix and match piece by piece. The way ASU integrates black, it is firmly a regular part of their rotation.

Exactly. ASU wears black for what feels like a majority of their games. I don't know if that's actually true, but every time I see them they're wearing some form of black. So, it's different from other schools that have just a BFBS uniform. ASU football in recent years has been primarily black.

And even if they weren't primarily black can we all agree that Arizona State doesn't need any black uniforms?

Here's ASU's football unis last year, minus the Sparky helmet vs Arizona (which, btw, the decals were switched on the helmet last minuted in the middle of the night before the game. The Equipment team even tweeted out a photo of the helmets with pitchforks on them the day before.)

12 different combos. Three games with black (Fire/Black/Black, Black/White/Black, Black/Maroon/Black) plus Desert Fuel Gray/Copper uni against Notre Dame.

So eight out of 12 games with no black parts of the uniform. 2/3 of the games without black. That's a super majority no black uniform elements.

We all have our own thresholds, I guess. I don't know that 1/3 in non school colors (not to mention watering it all down with 12 different combos) is a good thing. If you point is simply "see, not a majority" then yes. But if it's that it's "only a third" is not so bad, then, well, to each their own...

So yeah, okay, they don't wear black every game, but they also still wear it too much and don't wear their school colors enough. Only one game this season with gold-maroon-gold is not okay.

Two actually, vs arizona.

I actually don't mind the black Arizona State uses. Two games at home and one on the road doesn't seem like too much to me.

[AJM]

So is this where Arizona finally looks better than ASU??? Apparently if the jersey snoop has is the actual jersey.

Not with the uni numbers Arizona uses...all joking aside, its probably best to reserve any judgement until the reveal.

[slapshot]

It will be a lateral change at best. Bad move, ASU. Bad move.

How is at a bad move to swap ugly Nike uniforms for ugly Adidas uniforms, only Adidas pays you more money?

Because there are a lot of fanboys who praise at the altar of Nike. Nike can do no wrong, and anything with the Adidas three stripes is automatically ugly.

[H11K]

Not with the uni numbers Arizona uses...all joking aside, its probably best to reserve any judgement until the reveal.

Yea I agree, Ive been a Arizona fan for years now and i can't stand the uniforms that we have.

[hailstateunis]

Just to add some more context, here are Under Armour's top contracts:

I didn't realize Texas Tech was getting nothing!

And Russell's (lol).

And lastly, here is the top 10 highest apparel contracts. Only 4/10 are Nike.

I certainly think that helps explain why teams leave Nike for Under Armour/Adidas.

So is Southern Miss switching to Under Armour?

[MJWalker45]

Ouch... my condolences, ASU fans.

It will be a lateral change at best. Bad move, ASU. Bad move.

How is at a bad move to swap ugly Nike uniforms for ugly Adidas uniforms, only Adidas pays you more money?

The Nike uniforms weren't ugly at all. The Adidas uniforms will be.

The uniforms weren't ugly until the coaches let the players pick the combos. And that bowling ball helmet was the worst helmet design after Miami's bowling ball lids.

[Clintau24]

I wrote a piece about this situation and the (small, quiet) rumors of Auburn also switching to adidas in 2016. A lot of this info is on there

http://auburnuniforms.blogspot.com/2014/12/auburn-andadidas-what-apparel-contract.html

Just to add some more context, here are Under Armour's top contracts:



I didn't realize Texas Tech was getting nothing!

And Russell's (lol).



And lastly, here is the top 10 highest apparel contracts. Only 4/10 are Nike.



I certainly think that helps explain why teams leave Nike for Under Armour/Adidas.

So is Southern Miss switching to Under Armour?

No, this list was put together before Southern Miss switched to Russell.

[Webfooter]

It will be a lateral change at best. Bad move, ASU. Bad move.

How is at a bad move to swap ugly Nike uniforms for ugly Adidas uniforms, only Adidas pays you more money?

Because there are a lot of fanboys who praise at the altar of Nike. Nike can do no wrong, and anything with the Adidas three stripes is automatically ugly.

As long as Adidas continues to use their Techfit tiretread pattern/template, they'll always be behind Nike and Under Armour.

[mjd77]

It will be a lateral change at best. Bad move, ASU. Bad move.

How is at a bad move to swap ugly Nike uniforms for ugly Adidas uniforms, only Adidas pays you more money?

Because there are a lot of fanboys who praise at the altar of Nike. Nike can do no wrong, and anything with the Adidas three stripes is automatically ugly.

Well, for football, everything Adidas pretty much is ugly compared to Nike and UA.

[Kevin W.]

The uniforms weren't ugly until the coaches let the players pick the combos.

They were ugly the moment they got rid of Sparky on the helmets and introduced black uniforms, so yeah, they were ugly from the beginning.

[MJWalker45]

Good point. When they had ASU on the sleeves instead of Sparky or numbers it wasn't the best. It'll be interesting to see what they do for basketball and baseball.

[CLEstones]

It just seems like Adidas doesn't exactly know what they are doing. They can't seem to figure out how to make a nice template or a nice uniform. If it isn't classic stripes, they are completely lost.

UnderArmor kinda feels like "Hey, we're just going to throw as much crap out there as possible. Whether is gothic looks, fallen soldier looks, massive pattern looks, clean looks... let just get stuff out there. We'll pick up the pieces after we figure out what people respond to."

For all the complaining we do about Nike's redesigns that highlight their templates, the uniforms actually look good on field and the players look like warriors. For all the "innovative flywire..." and "chain mail fabric..." and "fastest uniform materials ever created by man..." BS that we have to read through, the uniforms actually do look like they fit well with the pads and base layers to make a cohesive, aggressive, sleek, strong looking player.