nuordr Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 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 therehttp://auburnuniforms.blogspot.com/2014/12/auburn-andadidas-what-apparel-contract.htmlJust 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.Also, Tennessee is switching to Nike next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldRoman Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 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. No. They look like football players. And you scoff at Nike's marketing speak, but then use it yourself in your last sentence. Nike doesn't make the players look stronger, sleeker or more aggressive. And yes, Nike's fits are far better than Adidas's, which is the equivalent of a XL dad trying to fit into his old size M jersey from high school. But there are still plenty of flaws with Nike's jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLEstones Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 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. No. They look like football players. And you scoff at Nike's marketing speak, but then use it yourself in your last sentence. Nike doesn't make the players look stronger, sleeker or more aggressive. And yes, Nike's fits are far better than Adidas's, which is the equivalent of a XL dad trying to fit into his old size M jersey from high school. But there are still plenty of flaws with Nike's jerseys.Wrong on a few points:The visual I get when I see the Nike mockups and uniform debuts and what it looks like on the field makes me think warrior. That's my interpretation. That is how they present the uniforms, that is the visual they try to impose. That seems to be how they market it and the aesthetic they go for. Nike's fit is better... that isn't just a simple sizing thing. Adidas uniforms dont appear to fit with the pads or communicate well with the pads and various layers the players wear. UnderArmor is much better, Nike seems to have the best fit. Its not just as simple as moving a size up or size down... its more of a square peg round whole sorta thing.Nike speak is as I said previously "fly wire technology..." or "combination of chain male mesh and sweat zone material..." and other buzz words. All I am saying is that the uniforms, design, fit, etc. make the players look stronger, faster, sleeker. That's just the visual one gets from it. Its not just randomly spewing out buzz words and industry jargon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJM Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Nice to see Adidas keeping Plummer in the fold. (MLF) Chicago Cannons, (IHA) Phoenix Firebirds - 2021 Xtreme Cup Champions (WAFL) Phoenix Federals - WAFL World Bowl XII Champions (Defunct) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Nice to see Adidas keeping Plummer in the fold.I think those will be pretty dangerous on the handball court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Who's Ake the Snake? On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 So how does logo copyright work? I assume the fork was designed by Nike (but am I wrong?). Is it in the contract that Nike designed a logo to represent ASU and therefore, ASU can use it for as long as it wishes, regardless of whether it sticks with Nike? I.e., does Nike essentially "sell" the copyright to ASU?Sorry...not up on the biz. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Who's Ake the Snake?Evil twin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugevolsfan Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 So how does logo copyright work? I assume the fork was designed by Nike (but am I wrong?). Is it in the contract that Nike designed a logo to represent ASU and therefore, ASU can use it for as long as it wishes, regardless of whether it sticks with Nike? I.e., does Nike essentially "sell" the copyright to ASU?Sorry...not up on the biz.I may be wrong but Nike contracts out their logos to guys like Davidson so not sure they would have anything to keep. My Fictional Football League Version 3 My Fictional Football Leagues WebsiteMy Church Website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Arizona State bought teh pitchfork and the logos from the redesign, otherwise the jersey held by Snoop would have used generic lettering and numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TornadoGTS Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Im pretty sure I read before that Nike held onto the copyright for the first year or 2 then it defaulted to the school. But some recent changes seem to be going directly to the school. Facebook: CustomSportsCovers Twitter: CSCovers Quote No because when the Irish came to Ireland and first came in contact with the leprechaun people, they didn't take their land away and force them to move west. Instead, the two groups learned to assimilate peacefully. However, certain tribes of the leprechaun refused to taint the pure blood and moved north into the forests of Ireland, only to be seen rarely, usually at the same time of a rainbows appearance and occasionally at the factories of Lucky Charms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clintau24 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I've mentioned it before that Nike owns the MSU logo and specific color for Mississippi State. Adidas and the school had to redo everything with the switch. So it's possible those "tricks of the trade" have changed and teams finally smartened up and took ownership of everything. "I believe in Auburn and love it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 I've mentioned it before that Nike owns the MSU logo and specific color for Mississippi State. Adidas and the school had to redo everything with the switch. So it's possible those "tricks of the trade" have changed and teams finally smartened up and took ownership of everything.Every contract is different. Nike designed a bunch of logos like the interlocking MSU in the mid-late 90's specifically for nike branded uniforms and merchandise. Schools that switched suppliers either had the option to buy the marks from nike, or if that option was not available they would be forced to develop new marks. This practice seems to be less common as it gives the schools much more control of their branding (which they should have done in the 1st place) to develop and own their athletic marks. I'm sure it still happens to a degree with nike contracting or subcontracting some logo design. In terms of the ASU situation, I believe ASU already owned the pitchfork but not the font/wordmarks. I also believe that nike had a 2 year exclusive window to sell pitchfork related merchandise which is now over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC in Da House w/o a Doubt Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Bring this helmet back full time and we'll be good, Adidas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJM Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 Im pretty sure I read before that Nike held onto the copyright for the first year or 2 then it defaulted to the school. But some recent changes seem to be going directly to the school.You are correct. Nike had full ownership in year one and a quasi-shared relationship existed in the next years until now in terms of ownership. ASU owns the pitchfork logo and the Sun Devil Bold font created from the partnership and will use it with Adidas. (MLF) Chicago Cannons, (IHA) Phoenix Firebirds - 2021 Xtreme Cup Champions (WAFL) Phoenix Federals - WAFL World Bowl XII Champions (Defunct) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRice16 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 So how does logo copyright work? I assume the fork was designed by Nike (but am I wrong?). Is it in the contract that Nike designed a logo to represent ASU and therefore, ASU can use it for as long as it wishes, regardless of whether it sticks with Nike? I.e., does Nike essentially "sell" the copyright to ASU?Sorry...not up on the biz.Schools are doing a much better job of getting ownership of the custom logos and fonts than they did in years past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 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.They're completely lost even with classic stripes... just ask UCLA. Even the simplest possible uniforms without any striping at all still look ugly due to the way that the TechFit template warps and distorts the numbers, wordmarks, and logos. And ironically, despite Adidas trying to focus on the fit of the uniform, Nike and Under Armour's uniforms look like they fit a thousand times better than Adidas'. POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 If Arizona State goes with the classic look with their current number on the sleeves it might be salvageable. The shockweb pattern really hampers the jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 So how does logo copyright work? I assume the fork was designed by Nike (but am I wrong?). Is it in the contract that Nike designed a logo to represent ASU and therefore, ASU can use it for as long as it wishes, regardless of whether it sticks with Nike? I.e., does Nike essentially "sell" the copyright to ASU?Sorry...not up on the biz.Schools are doing a much better job of getting ownership of the custom logos and fonts than they did in years past. Correct This can be done in a variety of ways. The best way is for the school to develop its own marks independently of a uniform or merchandise supplier. If there's development in conjunction with a rebrand etc. then it's up to the institution to ensure there's language that specifically indicates who owns what and what the terms of separation are if the contract is terminated.As it appears at least anecdotally if schools are going to change suppliers much more frequently based solely on the $ figures and they are able to own more of their marks and design elements we may very well see proprietary designs that cross suppliers like the nfl has and some of the last traditional schools currently do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdu Posted December 18, 2014 Author Share Posted December 18, 2014 http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blog/threads_and_laces/2014/12/nike-split-about-more-than-cash-says-arizona-state.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.