batman1211 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I'm sure firing their "money trumps all" AD put a few wrinkles in these negotiations. No doubt he would have gone to the highest bidder no matter who it was.Would there be any other option with an open bidding process for a public institution? Going with the lowest bidder would be illogical. Since all three companies are capable of providing the same support, the amount of the bid would be the only other variable to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 The interim AD is less interested in which one makes them more money. The Under Armour deal was significantly more than Nike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I'm sure firing their "money trumps all" AD put a few wrinkles in these negotiations. No doubt he would have gone to the highest bidder no matter who it was.Would there be any other option with an open bidding process for a public institution? Going with the lowest bidder would be illogical. Since all three companies are capable of providing the same support, the amount of the bid would be the only other variable to consider.Well technically contracts for the exact same service can contain several elements of compensation that aren't strictly cash which can be assigned different valuations depending on the terms. Also the cash payment terms of the contracts like lump sums or royalties can vary quite a bit which makes things less cut and dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batman1211 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I'm sure firing their "money trumps all" AD put a few wrinkles in these negotiations. No doubt he would have gone to the highest bidder no matter who it was.Would there be any other option with an open bidding process for a public institution? Going with the lowest bidder would be illogical. Since all three companies are capable of providing the same support, the amount of the bid would be the only other variable to consider.Well technically contracts for the exact same service can contain several elements of compensation that aren't strictly cash which can be assigned different valuations depending on the terms. Also the cash payment terms of the contracts like lump sums or royalties can vary quite a bit which makes things less cut and dry.Correct. Commercials which promote your school, guaranteeing your school the latest and greatest over the other schools under the brand, as well as many other factors that would be what was in the manufacturers control. All of which any of the big three manufacturers could offer. As far as money the present value of whatever cash payouts to the school is what would be looked at by the AD when taking the monetary aspect into consideration. If all services are the same, then the AD would look at the present value of the cash payout. So the AD would not want to go for the worse monetary deal. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest23 Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Theoretically yes but in practice not always. It's easy to come up with a valuation model to score each contract but there's enough minor variance between the vendors and bids to sway a decision against an objective winner. Things like more cash up front despite less benefit over the life of the contract will be valued even higher despite an lesser overall score if a department has immediate budget holes that they need to fill (which I believe was rumored to be a big influence for miami and asu). Relationships also play a huge role in influencing decisions as these things are never as cut and dry as they seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webfooter Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 So much for them changing suppliers as Texas is about to or has signed a new 15-year deal with Nike that is reportedly larger than Michigan's deal.http://www.hookem.com/story/sources-texas-reaches-15-year-deal-to-stay-with-nike/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j'villejags Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 It's a 15-year deal worth $250 million to stay with Nike. http://texas.247sports.com/Bolt/Texas-15-year-250-million-deal-with-Nike-approved-by-regents-40667094 My NFL concept series (in progress) --ATL, CLE, NE, WAS done. AZ updated 04/21/23. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.