2011-2012 NCAA Football Uniform Thread

[IceCap]

Not that the "hot" uniforms matter. In an effort to disprove my point gdu made it. A team may have the most eye-catching "hot" uniforms out there, but no recruit serious about his future playing football is going to go to a school based on a uniform, regardless of how "hot" the uniform may be.

Holy crap. NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT. NOBODY.

Yes, they are. Go back. Read the countless threads that dealt with Oregon's NC uniforms if you want prime examples. It's full of claims that the uniforms increase recruitment. You yourself even made the claim.

Some examples of people WHO ARGUED EXACTLY THAT.

OK, I am as much of a "classic look" guy as anyone... and I'd bet dollars to donuts this won't become a classic... But who's to say that at least one of the things they are trying now isn't the "classic look" of the future. While I wouldn't be a fan of every team in the NCAA do this, I enjoy Oregon's "Test mule" status. Nike needs a way to judge fan reaction. Oregon gives them that opportunity.

Ryan Rosillo on ESPN Radio said today that 17 years old last night was sweating nervously to go to Oregon to wear new uniforms that they offer.

Wellp...looks like we'll have white, navy, and orange going up against chrome, white, and charcoal...with highlighter feet and trim.

That is actually a genius move by Nike. Recruits are going to be watching this, and Oregon looks like a modern team in the age of technology that the recruits can more easily relate to, whereas Auburn just looks stuck in the past.

Seriously. And it isn't just Oregon who uses uniforms as a recruiting advantage. Apparently, recruits love the special ProCombat rivalry uniforms that Nike comes out with every year. I remember reading quotes from recruits after Boise's win over VT (where both teams wore their rivalry uniforms), and almost all of them ended with something along the lines of "the uniforms looked awesome, too."

Oh, trust me. Kids care what the uniforms look like. When VaTech took the field in their PCs my news feed lit up with comments about the uniforms. In an ESPN article a year or two ago polling college football players, Oregon was voted to have the best unis, with some saying they'd transfer schools just because of that. Kids like what's cool, they like changing things up. Oregon is DEFINATELY cool.

This is EXACTLY the look I wanted for the national title game. Biggest game in school history and we're showing every 18 year old recruit in the country how f-ing bad ass we look.

[IceCap]

Some more...

I also like Oregon's set. StuckeyDuck raises a great point - recruits already love Oregon's uniforms. Why not showcase your aesthetic strength for all the recruits watching at home? It also will provide controversy which will get people talking about Oregon. Very smart decision by Nike and the Ducks.

Since we updated our logo and began regularly changing our uniforms the Ducks have begun a pretty steady rise in on-field performance and national prominence. Recruiting classes have gotten better almost yearly. We're playing in our FIRST national title and it is coming on the heels of our FIRST Rose Bowl game in nearly 20 years (2nd BCS game since 2001). Fan interest is at an all time high. Attendance is through the roof. Our [already top notch] facilities are expanding.

And neither do clown suits.

Exactly, which is why the argument that a certain type of uniform is part of a program's success is so absurd. The only program that could possibly claim uniforms as a small fragment of their success is Oregon, and that's only because they use theirs as a recruiting tool.

So I'm not over-exaggerating your opinion, or the opinions of others. People have actually tried to argue that "hot" uniforms increase recruitment. Which they don't. And it's been explained why they don't. So please stop claiming they do.

[LukeMayeux]

Only thing I've learned from going through this thread is that the collective college football knowledge at CC is quite lacking.

[Lights Out]

I still don't see where anyone said, "Wow, those recruits sure will be making their entire college decision on those uniforms." The point in pretty much all of those posts was that it gives schools something to show off in recruiting, thereby helping somewhat in recruiting. But nice try.

[walkerws]

Since Miami (OH) got a new coach, are they getting new stuff?

[knnhrvy16]

Only thing I've learned from going through this thread is that the collective college football knowledge at CC is quite lacking.

You haven't met willmorris yet.

[gdu]

No, I'm not implying that the list above means that the kids like traditional uniforms. What I'm saying is that the list proves that new Nike-style uniforms do not increase recruitment.

Lets say you're right, and most recruits love Nike's new stuff. Then it would stand to reason that if the uniforms played as much of a role in recruitment as the Nike guinea pig school supporters claim then Boise, TCU, and Oregon would be among that top 10. They aren't, however. Which means that even if most recruits love the new style uniforms, those uniforms aren't making a difference as far as recruitment goes. Despite what the rabid Nike/TCU/Boise State/Oregon supporters claim.

You said it yourself, there are plenty of legitimate reasons reasons for a recruit to go to a school that don't include the uniforms.

That's ridiculous for several reasons. The most important is one I have already mentioned: recruiting rankings don't mean anything. The schools with the most fans will have the most rivals/scout subscribers and therefore have the best recruiting rankings.

But if you want to pretend those rankings mean anything, TCU has gotten special Nike uniforms the past 2 seasons and have had their best 2 recruiting classes in history BY FAR after those two seasons. Do you think Oregon's recruiting has stayed the same since they started getting Nike love?

Like I have said several times, uniforms don't make a recruit pick a school, but they absolutely make them consider a school they otherwise would've ignored. It's alot easier for schools like TCU and Oregon (who don't have as much tradition, but have great facilities, etc) to get good recruits if they can get them on campus for a visit and that is where the new nike uniforms help. Kids want to visit Texas, USC etc bc of who they are. Not true of TCU and Oregon.

[IceCap]

I still don't see where anyone said, "Wow, those recruits sure will be making their entire college decision on those uniforms." The point in pretty much all of those posts was that it gives schools something to show off in recruiting, thereby helping somewhat in recruiting.

First of all, no, that's not what's being said. You accuse me of over-exaggerating your argument. In reality you're the one under-exaggerating your argument now that it's been debunked. You and others made a pretty big deal about new Nike uniforms being a key recruitment tool.

Secondly, I would argue they don't even help "somewhat." I'm willing to bet that none of us are looking at playing sports professionally as our means of employment. On top of that we're all logo/uniforms geeks. This means we're going to assign way to much importance to the role uniforms play in the recruitment process.

These kids are are serious about football being their livelihoods. It literally is their future on the line when they choose a school to play for. Something as utterly trivial as uniforms don't factor in. At all. Not even "somewhat." Oregon, TCU, and Boise State may show them off in an attempt to show the kids how "hip" and "with it" the school is, and the kids may, for the most part, love the looks. If Alabama, with their boring, traditional uniforms offers, offers someone a better chance at their future playing football then they're going to Alabama. Regardless of how much they may like the new Nike looks.

Even arguing that the uniforms play a small role in the decision is assigning them way to much importance.

But nice try.

Wish I could say the same

No, I'm not implying that the list above means that the kids like traditional uniforms. What I'm saying is that the list proves that new Nike-style uniforms do not increase recruitment.

Lets say you're right, and most recruits love Nike's new stuff. Then it would stand to reason that if the uniforms played as much of a role in recruitment as the Nike guinea pig school supporters claim then Boise, TCU, and Oregon would be among that top 10. They aren't, however. Which means that even if most recruits love the new style uniforms, those uniforms aren't making a difference as far as recruitment goes. Despite what the rabid Nike/TCU/Boise State/Oregon supporters claim.

You said it yourself, there are plenty of legitimate reasons reasons for a recruit to go to a school that don't include the uniforms.

That's ridiculous for several reasons. The most important is one I have already mentioned: recruiting rankings don't mean anything. The schools with the most fans will have the most rivals/scout subscribers and therefore have the best recruiting rankings.

Funny thing about lists. Those that are on them always defend them, those who aren't on it always call them meaningless. Like most things, the truth's probably somewhere in the middle.

But if you want to pretend those rankings mean anything, TCU has gotten special Nike uniforms the past 2 seasons and have had their best 2 recruiting classes in history BY FAR after those two seasons. Do you think Oregon's recruiting has stayed the same since they started getting Nike love?

Here's the way I see it. Oregon and TCU sign up for wacky Nike uniforms and thus get extra money kicked their way by Nike. This helps them upgrade their facilities. It's the facilities that ultimately attract the recruits, not the uniforms. Sure, they go hand in hand, but it's not the design of the uniforms that influences a recruit's decision.

Like I have said several times, uniforms don't make a recruit pick a school, but they absolutely make them consider a school they otherwise would've ignored. It's alot easier for schools like TCU and Oregon (who don't have as much tradition, but have great facilities, etc) to get good recruits if they can get them on campus for a visit and that is where the new nike uniforms help. Kids want to visit Texas, USC etc bc of who they are. Not true of TCU and Oregon.

I won't argue that point. All I'm saying is that once the uniforms get the school noticed their importance ends. Once the recruit considers the school the school's program itself has to stand on their own. The uniforms may get the school's foot in the door, but the uniforms aren't going to factor into the recruit's final decision past that point. At all.

[gdu]

1

Funny thing about lists. Those that are on them always defend them, those who aren't on it always call them meaningless. Like most things, the truth's probably somewhere in the middle.

2

Here's the way I see it. Oregon and TCU sign up for wacky Nike uniforms and thus get extra money kicked their way by Nike. This helps them upgrade their facilities. It's the facilities that ultimately attract the recruits, not the uniforms. Sure, they go hand in hand, but it's not the design of the uniforms that influences a recruit's decision.

3

I won't argue that point. All I'm saying is that once the uniforms get the school noticed their importance ends. Once the recruit considers the school the school's program itself has to stand on their own. The uniforms may get the school's foot in the door, but the uniforms aren't going to factor into the recruit's final decision past that point. At all.

1

I think I have a pretty unbiased point of view since I am a fan of TCU and Texas. Texas finishes with a top 5 recruiting class every year and they finished 5-7 last year. TCU has NEVER had a top 25 recruiting class and they finished #2 13-0 Rose Bowl champs last season. TCU has finished in the top 10 each of the last 3 seasons (only team in the country to do that) and 4 of the last 6. TCu had more people drafted than Texas last season and probably will this season as well.

2

Nike doesn't pay Oregon or TCU extra to wear these uniforms. Nike hasn't given TCU $1 to upgrade it's facilities. TCU is full of rich alums. They are paying $130MM+ in straight cash to build a new stadium. First time that has EVER been done int he country. None of that money is coming from Nike. TCU built their indoor practice facility before we wore any pro combat uniforms.

Facilities are very important to recruits, but they don't "ultimately attract the recruits." Recruits don't know what the facilities are like until they visit and TCU wasn't getting the 4 and 5-star talents to visit before these uniforms (and here's a hint: the facilities haven't changed while TCU's recruiting classes have improved).

It's things like reputation and uniforms that attract recruits to make a visit to a school. Then they can see the facilities, etc... and may decide to committ.

3

I don't disagree with that at all. In fact, that is exactly what I have been saying the whole time.

[IceCap]

I think I have a pretty unbiased point of view since I am a fan of TCU and Texas. Texas finishes with a top 5 recruiting class every year and they finished 5-7 last year. TCU has NEVER had a top 25 recruiting class and they finished #2 13-0 Rose Bowl champs last season. TCU has finished in the top 10 each of the last 3 seasons (only team in the country to do that) and 4 of the last 6. TCu had more people drafted than Texas last season and probably will this season as well.

My guess is that this will lead to better recruitment classes and sooner or later they'll break that top 10.

Nike doesn't pay Oregon or TCU extra to wear these uniforms. Nike hasn't given TCU $1 to upgrade it's facilities. TCU is full of rich alums. They are paying $130MM+ in straight cash to build a new stadium. First time that has EVER been done int he country. None of that money is coming from Nike. TCU built their indoor practice facility before we wore any pro combat uniforms.

Facilities are very important to recruits, but they don't "ultimately attract the recruits." Recruits don't know what the facilities are like until they visit and TCU wasn't getting the 4 and 5-star talents to visit before these uniforms (and here's a hint: the facilities haven't changed while TCU's recruiting classes have improved).

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

I don't disagree with that at all. In fact, that is exactly what I have been saying the whole time.

As have I

All I've been arguing is that the uniforms, when you get right down to it, don't impact a recruit's final decision. Which goes against what others (not you) have tried to pass off as fact.

[DrJack]

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

Lets get one thing straight. Phil Knight contributing money to the University of Oregon is not Nike contributing money. Nike has a contract with the U of O to outfit all their sports teams. It is an 8-year contract worth $22.7 million. By comparison, Nebraska's contract with Adidas is for roughly the same amount. The University of North Carolina has a 10-year contract with Nike worth $33.7 million. Nike, the corporation, has no direct affiliation with the school or the athletic department beyond that contract. If you would like to read the entire contract word for word, here is a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2010/05/university_of_oregon_under_ord.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29002478/Nike-University-of-Oregon-contract-complete

Phil Knight on the other hand is an alum of the University of Oregon. He is a very rich alum and a very generous booster and donor. He is also one of the co-founders of Nike. He is the chairman of the board at Nike, Inc. He donates a ton of money to the school and the school's athletic department. That money is used for upgrading the facilities (stadiums, practice fields, locker rooms, academic centers, athletic department offices, etc.) This is no different than any rich alumni base donating tons of money to any other school.

Can Oregon sign a contract with another company? Sure. Would it piss off their biggest donor and be the stupidest decision ever? Absolutely.

I just want to make sure everyone has their facts straight on this issue because it seems some people are very confused.

I'd love to argue about whether or not uniforms have an effect on a recruit's decision making process, but actually I don't.

[dfwabel]

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

Lets get one thing straight. Phil Knight contributing money to the University of Oregon is not Nike contributing money. Nike has a contract with the U of O to outfit all their sports teams. It is an 8-year contract worth $22.7 million. By comparison, Nebraska's contract with Adidas is for roughly the same amount. The University of North Carolina has a 10-year contract with Nike worth $33.7 million. Nike, the corporation, has no direct affiliation with the school or the athletic department beyond that contract. If you would like to read the entire contract word for word, here is a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2010/05/university_of_oregon_under_ord.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29002478/Nike-University-of-Oregon-contract-complete

Phil Knight on the other hand is an alum of the University of Oregon. He is a very rich alum and a very generous booster and donor. He is also one of the co-founders of Nike. He is the chairman of the board at Nike, Inc. He donates a ton of money to the school and the school's athletic department. That money is used for upgrading the facilities (stadiums, practice fields, locker rooms, academic centers, athletic department offices, etc.) This is no different than any rich alumni base donating tons of money to any other school.

Can Oregon sign a contract with another company? Sure. Would it piss off their biggest donor and be the stupidest decision ever? Absolutely.

I just want to make sure everyone has their facts straight on this issue because it seems some people are very confused.

I'd love to argue about whether or not uniforms have an effect on a recruit's decision making process, but actually I don't.

Not exactly. The issues with Knight and Under Armour's founder Kevin Plank (Maryland) is that there is a potential inherent conflict of interest in the student-athlete after his/her career is finished and to get them into their equipment at the professional level.

Mose other major donors to schools do not have that advantage for any of their core businesses.

[DrJack]

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

Lets get one thing straight. Phil Knight contributing money to the University of Oregon is not Nike contributing money. Nike has a contract with the U of O to outfit all their sports teams. It is an 8-year contract worth $22.7 million. By comparison, Nebraska's contract with Adidas is for roughly the same amount. The University of North Carolina has a 10-year contract with Nike worth $33.7 million. Nike, the corporation, has no direct affiliation with the school or the athletic department beyond that contract. If you would like to read the entire contract word for word, here is a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2010/05/university_of_oregon_under_ord.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29002478/Nike-University-of-Oregon-contract-complete

Phil Knight on the other hand is an alum of the University of Oregon. He is a very rich alum and a very generous booster and donor. He is also one of the co-founders of Nike. He is the chairman of the board at Nike, Inc. He donates a ton of money to the school and the school's athletic department. That money is used for upgrading the facilities (stadiums, practice fields, locker rooms, academic centers, athletic department offices, etc.) This is no different than any rich alumni base donating tons of money to any other school.

Can Oregon sign a contract with another company? Sure. Would it piss off their biggest donor and be the stupidest decision ever? Absolutely.

I just want to make sure everyone has their facts straight on this issue because it seems some people are very confused.

I'd love to argue about whether or not uniforms have an effect on a recruit's decision making process, but actually I don't.

Not exactly. The issues with Knight and Under Armour's founder Kevin Plank (Maryland) is that there is a potential inherent conflict of interest in the student-athlete after his/her career is finished and to get them into their equipment at the professional level.

Mose other major donors to schools do not have that advantage for any of their core businesses.

You are going to have to explain the conflict of interest to me, because I'm not sure what you are getting at. But I do think (and maybe this is what you are saying) that Oregon has a real advantage in recruiting because their #1 donor founded and sits on the board of an industry leader in an industry that is very exciting for a young athlete. Money is money and Knight's dollars are no more useful than T. Boone Pickens' dollars are. But the opportunity to rub elbows with Nike's management, tour Nike's offices, talk to a Nike recruiter if its a job market you are interested in, sit in on design meetings and offer input, etc., is probably really enticing to a 17 year-old who loves sports. At least more exciting then the same perks with a financial analysis firm or an oil company.

This is why I consider Phil Knight the most important booster in the country. Not just because of the money, but for all the other things his influence can bring the school and its athletes.

Am I making sense?

[MJWalker45]

So any other new uni rumors?

[oddball]

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

Lets get one thing straight. Phil Knight contributing money to the University of Oregon is not Nike contributing money. Nike has a contract with the U of O to outfit all their sports teams. It is an 8-year contract worth $22.7 million. By comparison, Nebraska's contract with Adidas is for roughly the same amount. The University of North Carolina has a 10-year contract with Nike worth $33.7 million. Nike, the corporation, has no direct affiliation with the school or the athletic department beyond that contract. If you would like to read the entire contract word for word, here is a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2010/05/university_of_oregon_under_ord.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29002478/Nike-University-of-Oregon-contract-complete

Phil Knight on the other hand is an alum of the University of Oregon. He is a very rich alum and a very generous booster and donor. He is also one of the co-founders of Nike. He is the chairman of the board at Nike, Inc. He donates a ton of money to the school and the school's athletic department. That money is used for upgrading the facilities (stadiums, practice fields, locker rooms, academic centers, athletic department offices, etc.) This is no different than any rich alumni base donating tons of money to any other school.

Can Oregon sign a contract with another company? Sure. Would it piss off their biggest donor and be the stupidest decision ever? Absolutely.

I just want to make sure everyone has their facts straight on this issue because it seems some people are very confused.

I'd love to argue about whether or not uniforms have an effect on a recruit's decision making process, but actually I don't.

Not exactly. The issues with Knight and Under Armour's founder Kevin Plank (Maryland) is that there is a potential inherent conflict of interest in the student-athlete after his/her career is finished and to get them into their equipment at the professional level.

Mose other major donors to schools do not have that advantage for any of their core businesses.

You are going to have to explain the conflict of interest to me, because I'm not sure what you are getting at. But I do think (and maybe this is what you are saying) that Oregon has a real advantage in recruiting because their #1 donor founded and sits on the board of an industry leader in an industry that is very exciting for a young athlete. Money is money and Knight's dollars are no more useful than T. Boone Pickens' dollars are. But the opportunity to rub elbows with Nike's management, tour Nike's offices, talk to a Nike recruiter if its a job market you are interested in, sit in on design meetings and offer input, etc., is probably really enticing to a 17 year-old who loves sports. At least more exciting then the same perks with a financial analysis firm or an oil company.

This is why I consider Phil Knight the most important booster in the country. Not just because of the money, but for all the other things his influence can bring the school and its athletes.

Am I making sense?

I'll agree with stucky on this one. What conflict of interest? A conflict of interest would be Phil Knight wearing attending and supporting a Reebok team and not a Nike team. Giving money to Oregon has no conflicts whatsoever. Undue influences on what gear a player wears after "school", eh. Most players are going to wear what they wear professionally, whether it because of comfort or because the contract is larger.

[dfwabel]

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

Lets get one thing straight. Phil Knight contributing money to the University of Oregon is not Nike contributing money. Nike has a contract with the U of O to outfit all their sports teams. It is an 8-year contract worth $22.7 million. By comparison, Nebraska's contract with Adidas is for roughly the same amount. The University of North Carolina has a 10-year contract with Nike worth $33.7 million. Nike, the corporation, has no direct affiliation with the school or the athletic department beyond that contract. If you would like to read the entire contract word for word, here is a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2010/05/university_of_oregon_under_ord.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29002478/Nike-University-of-Oregon-contract-complete

Phil Knight on the other hand is an alum of the University of Oregon. He is a very rich alum and a very generous booster and donor. He is also one of the co-founders of Nike. He is the chairman of the board at Nike, Inc. He donates a ton of money to the school and the school's athletic department. That money is used for upgrading the facilities (stadiums, practice fields, locker rooms, academic centers, athletic department offices, etc.) This is no different than any rich alumni base donating tons of money to any other school.

Can Oregon sign a contract with another company? Sure. Would it piss off their biggest donor and be the stupidest decision ever? Absolutely.

I just want to make sure everyone has their facts straight on this issue because it seems some people are very confused.

I'd love to argue about whether or not uniforms have an effect on a recruit's decision making process, but actually I don't.

Not exactly. The issues with Knight and Under Armour's founder Kevin Plank (Maryland) is that there is a potential inherent conflict of interest in the student-athlete after his/her career is finished and to get them into their equipment at the professional level.

Mose other major donors to schools do not have that advantage for any of their core businesses.

You are going to have to explain the conflict of interest to me, because I'm not sure what you are getting at. But I do think (and maybe this is what you are saying) that Oregon has a real advantage in recruiting because their #1 donor founded and sits on the board of an industry leader in an industry that is very exciting for a young athlete. Money is money and Knight's dollars are no more useful than T. Boone Pickens' dollars are. But the opportunity to rub elbows with Nike's management, tour Nike's offices, talk to a Nike recruiter if its a job market you are interested in, sit in on design meetings and offer input, etc., is probably really enticing to a 17 year-old who loves sports. At least more exciting then the same perks with a financial analysis firm or an oil company.

This is why I consider Phil Knight the most important booster in the country. Not just because of the money, but for all the other things his influence can bring the school and its athletes.

Am I making sense?

I'll agree with stucky on this one. What conflict of interest? A conflict of interest would be Phil Knight wearing attending and supporting a Reebok team and not a Nike team. Giving money to Oregon has no conflicts whatsoever. Undue influences on what gear a player wears after "school", eh. Most players are going to wear what they wear professionally, whether it because of comfort or because the contract is larger.

Example: Say you are HS student-athlete X. You are a top ranked WR and also a state champion in the 100m. The influence that Knight has on the Oregon athletic program does possess influence on the potential for your endorsements in either track or football at the next level. Knight is using his money to get Oregon championships now to continue to supply his company with a series of athletes to sell shoes/equipment in the future. The recent SI story by Michael Rosenberg details some of the issues.

Case in point, when the new AD is a friend of Knight and does not possess a collegiate degree, then tell me who is really concerned with the school's "academic mission"?

[oddball]

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

Lets get one thing straight. Phil Knight contributing money to the University of Oregon is not Nike contributing money. Nike has a contract with the U of O to outfit all their sports teams. It is an 8-year contract worth $22.7 million. By comparison, Nebraska's contract with Adidas is for roughly the same amount. The University of North Carolina has a 10-year contract with Nike worth $33.7 million. Nike, the corporation, has no direct affiliation with the school or the athletic department beyond that contract. If you would like to read the entire contract word for word, here is a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2010/05/university_of_oregon_under_ord.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29002478/Nike-University-of-Oregon-contract-complete

Phil Knight on the other hand is an alum of the University of Oregon. He is a very rich alum and a very generous booster and donor. He is also one of the co-founders of Nike. He is the chairman of the board at Nike, Inc. He donates a ton of money to the school and the school's athletic department. That money is used for upgrading the facilities (stadiums, practice fields, locker rooms, academic centers, athletic department offices, etc.) This is no different than any rich alumni base donating tons of money to any other school.

Can Oregon sign a contract with another company? Sure. Would it piss off their biggest donor and be the stupidest decision ever? Absolutely.

I just want to make sure everyone has their facts straight on this issue because it seems some people are very confused.

I'd love to argue about whether or not uniforms have an effect on a recruit's decision making process, but actually I don't.

Not exactly. The issues with Knight and Under Armour's founder Kevin Plank (Maryland) is that there is a potential inherent conflict of interest in the student-athlete after his/her career is finished and to get them into their equipment at the professional level.

Mose other major donors to schools do not have that advantage for any of their core businesses.

You are going to have to explain the conflict of interest to me, because I'm not sure what you are getting at. But I do think (and maybe this is what you are saying) that Oregon has a real advantage in recruiting because their #1 donor founded and sits on the board of an industry leader in an industry that is very exciting for a young athlete. Money is money and Knight's dollars are no more useful than T. Boone Pickens' dollars are. But the opportunity to rub elbows with Nike's management, tour Nike's offices, talk to a Nike recruiter if its a job market you are interested in, sit in on design meetings and offer input, etc., is probably really enticing to a 17 year-old who loves sports. At least more exciting then the same perks with a financial analysis firm or an oil company.

This is why I consider Phil Knight the most important booster in the country. Not just because of the money, but for all the other things his influence can bring the school and its athletes.

Am I making sense?

I'll agree with stucky on this one. What conflict of interest? A conflict of interest would be Phil Knight wearing attending and supporting a Reebok team and not a Nike team. Giving money to Oregon has no conflicts whatsoever. Undue influences on what gear a player wears after "school", eh. Most players are going to wear what they wear professionally, whether it because of comfort or because the contract is larger.

Example: Say you are HS student-athlete X. You are a top ranked WR and also a state champion in the 100m. The influence that Knight has on the Oregon athletic program does possess influence on the potential for your endorsements in either track or football at the next level. Knight is using his money to get Oregon championships now to continue to supply his company with a series of athletes to sell shoes/equipment in the future. The recent SI story by Michael Rosenberg details some of the issues.

Case in point, when the new AD is a friend of Knight and does not possess a collegiate degree, then tell me who is really concerned with the school's "academic mission"?

How is this different than Under Armor or Addias? Who Oregon hires for AD is not a conflict of interest and AD's aren't part of the academia.

[MJWalker45]

Most major schools are switching to business managers instead of actual athletic directors now. Heck, Pat Hayden never ran a program until last year. I'm sure his reputation was the main point of his hiring not a doctorate or any other degree. But back on topic, I really hope the Kent State helmet is just a prop for the recruiting day and not actually going to see the field. At least not unless some type of striping patten is put on it.

[DrJack]

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

Lets get one thing straight. Phil Knight contributing money to the University of Oregon is not Nike contributing money. Nike has a contract with the U of O to outfit all their sports teams. It is an 8-year contract worth $22.7 million. By comparison, Nebraska's contract with Adidas is for roughly the same amount. The University of North Carolina has a 10-year contract with Nike worth $33.7 million. Nike, the corporation, has no direct affiliation with the school or the athletic department beyond that contract. If you would like to read the entire contract word for word, here is a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2010/05/university_of_oregon_under_ord.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29002478/Nike-University-of-Oregon-contract-complete

Phil Knight on the other hand is an alum of the University of Oregon. He is a very rich alum and a very generous booster and donor. He is also one of the co-founders of Nike. He is the chairman of the board at Nike, Inc. He donates a ton of money to the school and the school's athletic department. That money is used for upgrading the facilities (stadiums, practice fields, locker rooms, academic centers, athletic department offices, etc.) This is no different than any rich alumni base donating tons of money to any other school.

Can Oregon sign a contract with another company? Sure. Would it piss off their biggest donor and be the stupidest decision ever? Absolutely.

I just want to make sure everyone has their facts straight on this issue because it seems some people are very confused.

I'd love to argue about whether or not uniforms have an effect on a recruit's decision making process, but actually I don't.

Not exactly. The issues with Knight and Under Armour's founder Kevin Plank (Maryland) is that there is a potential inherent conflict of interest in the student-athlete after his/her career is finished and to get them into their equipment at the professional level.

Mose other major donors to schools do not have that advantage for any of their core businesses.

You are going to have to explain the conflict of interest to me, because I'm not sure what you are getting at. But I do think (and maybe this is what you are saying) that Oregon has a real advantage in recruiting because their #1 donor founded and sits on the board of an industry leader in an industry that is very exciting for a young athlete. Money is money and Knight's dollars are no more useful than T. Boone Pickens' dollars are. But the opportunity to rub elbows with Nike's management, tour Nike's offices, talk to a Nike recruiter if its a job market you are interested in, sit in on design meetings and offer input, etc., is probably really enticing to a 17 year-old who loves sports. At least more exciting then the same perks with a financial analysis firm or an oil company.

This is why I consider Phil Knight the most important booster in the country. Not just because of the money, but for all the other things his influence can bring the school and its athletes.

Am I making sense?

I'll agree with stucky on this one. What conflict of interest? A conflict of interest would be Phil Knight wearing attending and supporting a Reebok team and not a Nike team. Giving money to Oregon has no conflicts whatsoever. Undue influences on what gear a player wears after "school", eh. Most players are going to wear what they wear professionally, whether it because of comfort or because the contract is larger.

Example: Say you are HS student-athlete X. You are a top ranked WR and also a state champion in the 100m. The influence that Knight has on the Oregon athletic program does possess influence on the potential for your endorsements in either track or football at the next level. Knight is using his money to get Oregon championships now to continue to supply his company with a series of athletes to sell shoes/equipment in the future. The recent SI story by Michael Rosenberg details some of the issues.

Case in point, when the new AD is a friend of Knight and does not possess a collegiate degree, then tell me who is really concerned with the school's "academic mission"?

The AD you are referring to (Pat Kilkenny) is no longer the AD. He was replaced by Mike Belotti (ex-football coach), who was replaced by Rob Mullens (formerly of Kentucky). Pat Kilkenny not having a college degree had no bearing on his being a qualified candidate for the job. He was an incredibly successful businessman and had been a long time booster who had a very good knowledge of the Oregon athletic department. He was also a good friend of Knight, which is a good thing, not bad. There is a lot of speculation that he was hired simply to get the new basketball arena project underway (it had been stalled out for years). As a businessman, booster, and friend of Knight, he was the best man to get that done and that is just what he did. Once the arena project was underway (financed by Knight's money), Kilkenny left the university. Oh yeah, the new basketball court is now named "Kilkenny Court". What any of this has to do with the school's "academic mission" is beyond me. I don't know what you are getting at.

Secondly, your story about "HS student-athlete X" is kind of pointless. The argument that Knight's influence could be used to attract a recruit is exactly what I said above. Yes, a very successful Oregon athlete would have the inside track to a Nike endorsement after school. Just like a very successful USC film student would have the inside track to a job with Lucasfilm. That is EXACTLY the argument I've been making. Knight's influence on the athletic department has the potential to pay lifelong dividends for successful Oregon athletes. Its a big draw for recruits. And yes, Knight is using his money to [try to] get Oregon championships. That is what EVERY SINGLE BOOSTER in the country is trying to do - they use their money to try and get a championship for their alma mater.

Lastly, you say that Knight using his money to "continue to supply his company with a series of athletes to sell shoes/equipment in the future"??? Here is a list of all of Nike's sponsorships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nike_sponsorships

It covers hundreds of athletes across a wide range of sports and multiple continents. The only former Duck I could find on the list??? Steve Prefontaine, who coincidentally was the the FIRST ever Nike-sponsored athlete and who was coached by Nike co-founder Bill Bowerman (who also coached . . . . Phil Knight). Now I'm sure that Knight would LOVE for the University of Oregon to produce the kind of world-class athlete that Nike could sponsor and make tons of money off. He would have loved it if Lance Armstrong or Derek Jeter or LaDanian Tomlinson went to Oregon. But so far it hasn't happened. Nike has, however, sponsored such players as Steven Jackson (Oregon St.) and Brandon Roy (Washington) who went to school at Oregon's biggest rivals.

I'm pretty sure though, that if Oregon ever does produce a sponsor worthy athlete, you can bet that they won't be signing with Adidas.

[dfwabel]

I know for a fact that Phil Knight (ie Nike) kicks a lot of money Oregon's way for the purposes of improving the athletic program's facilities. Rich alumni throwing money TCU's way has the same affect. Facilities are upgraded, and that's going to impact a recruit's final decision. Yes, the uniforms get them to consider the school. Once they're there touring the facilities, however, the uniforms all but vanish from the decision making process.

Lets get one thing straight. Phil Knight contributing money to the University of Oregon is not Nike contributing money. Nike has a contract with the U of O to outfit all their sports teams. It is an 8-year contract worth $22.7 million. By comparison, Nebraska's contract with Adidas is for roughly the same amount. The University of North Carolina has a 10-year contract with Nike worth $33.7 million. Nike, the corporation, has no direct affiliation with the school or the athletic department beyond that contract. If you would like to read the entire contract word for word, here is a link:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2010/05/university_of_oregon_under_ord.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29002478/Nike-University-of-Oregon-contract-complete

Phil Knight on the other hand is an alum of the University of Oregon. He is a very rich alum and a very generous booster and donor. He is also one of the co-founders of Nike. He is the chairman of the board at Nike, Inc. He donates a ton of money to the school and the school's athletic department. That money is used for upgrading the facilities (stadiums, practice fields, locker rooms, academic centers, athletic department offices, etc.) This is no different than any rich alumni base donating tons of money to any other school.

Can Oregon sign a contract with another company? Sure. Would it piss off their biggest donor and be the stupidest decision ever? Absolutely.

I just want to make sure everyone has their facts straight on this issue because it seems some people are very confused.

I'd love to argue about whether or not uniforms have an effect on a recruit's decision making process, but actually I don't.

Not exactly. The issues with Knight and Under Armour's founder Kevin Plank (Maryland) is that there is a potential inherent conflict of interest in the student-athlete after his/her career is finished and to get them into their equipment at the professional level.

Mose other major donors to schools do not have that advantage for any of their core businesses.

You are going to have to explain the conflict of interest to me, because I'm not sure what you are getting at. But I do think (and maybe this is what you are saying) that Oregon has a real advantage in recruiting because their #1 donor founded and sits on the board of an industry leader in an industry that is very exciting for a young athlete. Money is money and Knight's dollars are no more useful than T. Boone Pickens' dollars are. But the opportunity to rub elbows with Nike's management, tour Nike's offices, talk to a Nike recruiter if its a job market you are interested in, sit in on design meetings and offer input, etc., is probably really enticing to a 17 year-old who loves sports. At least more exciting then the same perks with a financial analysis firm or an oil company.

This is why I consider Phil Knight the most important booster in the country. Not just because of the money, but for all the other things his influence can bring the school and its athletes.

Am I making sense?

I'll agree with stucky on this one. What conflict of interest? A conflict of interest would be Phil Knight wearing attending and supporting a Reebok team and not a Nike team. Giving money to Oregon has no conflicts whatsoever. Undue influences on what gear a player wears after "school", eh. Most players are going to wear what they wear professionally, whether it because of comfort or because the contract is larger.

Example: Say you are HS student-athlete X. You are a top ranked WR and also a state champion in the 100m. The influence that Knight has on the Oregon athletic program does possess influence on the potential for your endorsements in either track or football at the next level. Knight is using his money to get Oregon championships now to continue to supply his company with a series of athletes to sell shoes/equipment in the future. The recent SI story by Michael Rosenberg details some of the issues.

Case in point, when the new AD is a friend of Knight and does not possess a collegiate degree, then tell me who is really concerned with the school's "academic mission"?

How is this different than Under Armor or Addias? Who Oregon hires for AD is not a conflict of interest and AD's aren't part of the academia.

I addressed Kevin Plank earlier.

Whether it is Plank, Pickens, or Knight, each are in essence "buying" the athletic department or football program. That does not occur at most schools in the academic or athletic sense. The specifics for an endowment are contractually set, while these donations are not necessarily covered, but in terms of the IRS and tax purposes. As a result, their ideas of uniforms are similar to that of a pro owner. In the NCAA football thread in "Sports In General" the idea that Mark Cuban wanting to have a playoff is taking what Knight and Pickens do to the next level...buying collegiate teams to form/own a league.

And Stuckey, I know that Kilkenny is no longer there and that Bellotti received a "golden parachute" payment on his AD job which he had no contract for. So we knows who runs and administers the program and it is not a state employee.