buckeye

College Football 2014 Season

Recommended Posts

That's looks awful in my opinion. Understanding that the team has an alternate, that should've been the primary uniforms anyway. The scary thing is that I could see them going with that as their home look.

I digress with that statement. The picture below would still be the home look (with white pants being the optimal look). I think they would wear black against Miami (FL) or Florida State.

I wouldn't be shocked if they introduce a new uniform right before the season starts as the look above is too plain for Petrino. But I agree about the black chrome helmet as it looks horrid.

We could see this combo this year as well

new-louisville-cardinals-uniforms-1-570x

If the black helmet was a traditional finish or even matte it would look good with combination...but the current helmet looks bad, real bad:

1384534645LouisvilleChromeHelmets.jpg You know it's bad when you can't even see the logo in the bottom picture.

Too bad this helmet is fake as it would be better than the chrome:

blackouthelmit.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I dislik the teeth on that logo. Remove the teeth and it would be pretty solid though. Would need to be refined but below is a quick, rough, example.

LC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I dislik the teeth on that logo. Remove the teeth and it would be pretty solid though. Would need to be refined but below is a quick, rough, example.

LC.jpg

I actually prefer the teeth on the cardinal, but your quick mock-up is not bad either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless a supplier can turn a profit off licensing your merch (Texas etc.) which is probably the top 20% of D1, no supplier is going to give you product for free let alone cash on top. At best they would break even, which likely leaves the D1 mid majors's athletic departments to foot the bill for their uniforms the handful of smaller D1 programs that I know of definitely had to pay for their own gear. It may be at cost, but they are likely paying. There's just no way it's possible as it would cost a supplier to give away about $20k in free product (their cost not retail) to supply a football team.

You are very wrong. I have first hand knowledge of FCS programs that get hundreds of thousands of dollars in free products, plus a discount on anything they buy.

Which FCS programs? I'm not saying it's not possible as the ones with large student bodies and alumni bases could sell a ton of merchandise locally. Even a Vanderbilt/wake forest could be a challenge to get to a break even on a deal due the fact that their potential customer base is small compared to a UT or UNC. The flagship schools make sense from a promotion and a merchandise standpoint and most likely turn a profit. It's the middle of the pack that poses a challenge to justify.

In hindsight I came in too low with the 20% number but there's simply no way hundreds of college athletic departments get their uniforms for free, it wouldn't make financial sense to be in the uniform business at all if there ultimately isn't an end customer. The way the business model is typically set up is that adidas pays ucla to wear their tech fit uniforms so Akron will buy those same uniforms near cost, then the fcs schools pay a little bit more than akron, then high schools pay full boat. I'm sure there are a quite a few exceptions, as I know there are flagship high schools as well. AS a whole, in order for sponsorship to make sense you have to have a customer somewhere along the value chain paying full price. At some level you have to not only cover your costs, you have to make a profit which likely means you can't give product away to every college program.

If the only thing Nike and adidas and Under Armour made and provided to colleges were uniforms, you'd be right. However, these companies make a ridiculous amount of profit on T-shirts and replica jerseys that really allows the costs of uniforms to be free for all of D1/FBS and likely most of FCS. Nike gives Duke football uniforms for free because they make a ridiculous amount of money on other products. It's win-win for Nike, adidas and UA.

Think about it...I'll happily give you a jersey for free if I can make that amount 10-fold in licensed merchandise. Pretty much every FBS fanbase is large enough for the manufacturer to make money. The fanbase size really isn't an issue. Smaller fanbases will still spend money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless a supplier can turn a profit off licensing your merch (Texas etc.) which is probably the top 20% of D1, no supplier is going to give you product for free let alone cash on top. At best they would break even, which likely leaves the D1 mid majors's athletic departments to foot the bill for their uniforms the handful of smaller D1 programs that I know of definitely had to pay for their own gear. It may be at cost, but they are likely paying. There's just no way it's possible as it would cost a supplier to give away about $20k in free product (their cost not retail) to supply a football team.

You are very wrong. I have first hand knowledge of FCS programs that get hundreds of thousands of dollars in free products, plus a discount on anything they buy.

Which FCS programs? I'm not saying it's not possible as the ones with large student bodies and alumni bases could sell a ton of merchandise locally. Even a Vanderbilt/wake forest could be a challenge to get to a break even on a deal due the fact that their potential customer base is small compared to a UT or UNC. The flagship schools make sense from a promotion and a merchandise standpoint and most likely turn a profit. It's the middle of the pack that poses a challenge to justify.

In hindsight I came in too low with the 20% number but there's simply no way hundreds of college athletic departments get their uniforms for free, it wouldn't make financial sense to be in the uniform business at all if there ultimately isn't an end customer. The way the business model is typically set up is that adidas pays ucla to wear their tech fit uniforms so Akron will buy those same uniforms near cost, then the fcs schools pay a little bit more than akron, then high schools pay full boat. I'm sure there are a quite a few exceptions, as I know there are flagship high schools as well. AS a whole, in order for sponsorship to make sense you have to have a customer somewhere along the value chain paying full price. At some level you have to not only cover your costs, you have to make a profit which likely means you can't give product away to every college program.

If the only thing Nike and adidas and Under Armour made and provided to colleges were uniforms, you'd be right. However, these companies make a ridiculous amount of profit on T-shirts and replica jerseys that really allows the costs of uniforms to be free for all of D1/FBS and likely most of FCS. Nike gives Duke football uniforms for free because they make a ridiculous amount of money on other products. It's win-win for Nike, adidas and UA.

Think about it...I'll happily give you a jersey for free if I can make that amount 10-fold in licensed merchandise. Pretty much every FBS fanbase is large enough for the manufacturer to make money. The fanbase size really isn't an issue. Smaller fanbases will still spend money.

I totally agree with you in concept and it definitely makes sense where the merch sales revenue puts you in the black, that being the power conferences and schools with a strong regional or national brand. But does that business model pan out for the Akron's and San Jose State's of the world? That's where I tend to think that the business model does not pencil out as there's simply not enough demand. Additionally for some of these mid-majors you're competing against other licensees for key merch sales (sweatshirts, polos, etc) as well. Nonetheless there's a break even point out there and if I'm bored I'll see if some numbers are floating out on the internets to quantify some of these mid tier supplier deals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless a supplier can turn a profit off licensing your merch (Texas etc.) which is probably the top 20% of D1, no supplier is going to give you product for free let alone cash on top. At best they would break even, which likely leaves the D1 mid majors's athletic departments to foot the bill for their uniforms the handful of smaller D1 programs that I know of definitely had to pay for their own gear. It may be at cost, but they are likely paying. There's just no way it's possible as it would cost a supplier to give away about $20k in free product (their cost not retail) to supply a football team.

You are very wrong. I have first hand knowledge of FCS programs that get hundreds of thousands of dollars in free products, plus a discount on anything they buy.

Which FCS programs? I'm not saying it's not possible as the ones with large student bodies and alumni bases could sell a ton of merchandise locally. Even a Vanderbilt/wake forest could be a challenge to get to a break even on a deal due the fact that their potential customer base is small compared to a UT or UNC. The flagship schools make sense from a promotion and a merchandise standpoint and most likely turn a profit. It's the middle of the pack that poses a challenge to justify.

In hindsight I came in too low with the 20% number but there's simply no way hundreds of college athletic departments get their uniforms for free, it wouldn't make financial sense to be in the uniform business at all if there ultimately isn't an end customer. The way the business model is typically set up is that adidas pays ucla to wear their tech fit uniforms so Akron will buy those same uniforms near cost, then the fcs schools pay a little bit more than akron, then high schools pay full boat. I'm sure there are a quite a few exceptions, as I know there are flagship high schools as well. AS a whole, in order for sponsorship to make sense you have to have a customer somewhere along the value chain paying full price. At some level you have to not only cover your costs, you have to make a profit which likely means you can't give product away to every college program.

If the only thing Nike and adidas and Under Armour made and provided to colleges were uniforms, you'd be right. However, these companies make a ridiculous amount of profit on T-shirts and replica jerseys that really allows the costs of uniforms to be free for all of D1/FBS and likely most of FCS. Nike gives Duke football uniforms for free because they make a ridiculous amount of money on other products. It's win-win for Nike, adidas and UA.

Think about it...I'll happily give you a jersey for free if I can make that amount 10-fold in licensed merchandise. Pretty much every FBS fanbase is large enough for the manufacturer to make money. The fanbase size really isn't an issue. Smaller fanbases will still spend money.

I totally agree with you in concept and it definitely makes sense where the merch sales revenue puts you in the black, that being the power conferences and schools with a strong regional or national brand. But does that business model pan out for the Akron's and San Jose State's of the world? That's where I tend to think that the business model does not pencil out as there's simply not enough demand. Additionally for some of these mid-majors you're competing against other licensees for key merch sales (sweatshirts, polos, etc) as well. Nonetheless there's a break even point out there and if I'm bored I'll see if some numbers are floating out on the internets to quantify some of these mid tier supplier deals.

I'm sure the business model pans out for the Akrons and San Jose States. One solid example is Temple and Under Armour - the football team averages 25,000 fans a game, but UA sponsors the team and gives them whatever they need. There are more than enough graduates at these kind of schools to buy a t-shirt or a hoody. Just because the football team averages 20,000 fans doesn't mean students and graduates aren't wearing merchandise. Think about someone getting the acceptance letter, what are they likely to do? Go to fanatics.com (or sister site fansdge.com) and buy a shirt. Probably a brand name. And also think about a freshman going into a bookstore for the first time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless a supplier can turn a profit off licensing your merch (Texas etc.) which is probably the top 20% of D1, no supplier is going to give you product for free let alone cash on top. At best they would break even, which likely leaves the D1 mid majors's athletic departments to foot the bill for their uniforms the handful of smaller D1 programs that I know of definitely had to pay for their own gear. It may be at cost, but they are likely paying. There's just no way it's possible as it would cost a supplier to give away about $20k in free product (their cost not retail) to supply a football team.

You are very wrong. I have first hand knowledge of FCS programs that get hundreds of thousands of dollars in free products, plus a discount on anything they buy.

Which FCS programs? I'm not saying it's not possible as the ones with large student bodies and alumni bases could sell a ton of merchandise locally. Even a Vanderbilt/wake forest could be a challenge to get to a break even on a deal due the fact that their potential customer base is small compared to a UT or UNC. The flagship schools make sense from a promotion and a merchandise standpoint and most likely turn a profit. It's the middle of the pack that poses a challenge to justify.

In hindsight I came in too low with the 20% number but there's simply no way hundreds of college athletic departments get their uniforms for free, it wouldn't make financial sense to be in the uniform business at all if there ultimately isn't an end customer. The way the business model is typically set up is that adidas pays ucla to wear their tech fit uniforms so Akron will buy those same uniforms near cost, then the fcs schools pay a little bit more than akron, then high schools pay full boat. I'm sure there are a quite a few exceptions, as I know there are flagship high schools as well. AS a whole, in order for sponsorship to make sense you have to have a customer somewhere along the value chain paying full price. At some level you have to not only cover your costs, you have to make a profit which likely means you can't give product away to every college program.

If the only thing Nike and adidas and Under Armour made and provided to colleges were uniforms, you'd be right. However, these companies make a ridiculous amount of profit on T-shirts and replica jerseys that really allows the costs of uniforms to be free for all of D1/FBS and likely most of FCS. Nike gives Duke football uniforms for free because they make a ridiculous amount of money on other products. It's win-win for Nike, adidas and UA.

Think about it...I'll happily give you a jersey for free if I can make that amount 10-fold in licensed merchandise. Pretty much every FBS fanbase is large enough for the manufacturer to make money. The fanbase size really isn't an issue. Smaller fanbases will still spend money.

I totally agree with you in concept and it definitely makes sense where the merch sales revenue puts you in the black, that being the power conferences and schools with a strong regional or national brand. But does that business model pan out for the Akron's and San Jose State's of the world? That's where I tend to think that the business model does not pencil out as there's simply not enough demand. Additionally for some of these mid-majors you're competing against other licensees for key merch sales (sweatshirts, polos, etc) as well. Nonetheless there's a break even point out there and if I'm bored I'll see if some numbers are floating out on the internets to quantify some of these mid tier supplier deals.

I'm sure the business model pans out for the Akrons and San Jose States. One solid example is Temple and Under Armour - the football team averages 25,000 fans a game, but UA sponsors the team and gives them whatever they need. There are more than enough graduates at these kind of schools to buy a t-shirt or a hoody. Just because the football team averages 20,000 fans doesn't mean students and graduates aren't wearing merchandise. Think about someone getting the acceptance letter, what are they likely to do? Go to fanatics.com (or sister site fansdge.com) and buy a shirt. Probably a brand name. And also think about a freshman going into a bookstore for the first time...

Or someone visiting the city/campus. I've heard of a lot of people who collect such shirts. And it goes so far beyond just shirts. Hats, pants, shorts, whatever. And plus, with all this mid-week primetime games, these smaller schools get a good bit of television which shows off that logo right on the chest. Any apparel company is not hurting when it comes to pairing up with a college and their athletics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Big Ten ever expands to 16 I'd like to see them add Missouri and Pittsburgh (1st choice) or Missouri and Notre Dame (2nd Choice) or Missouri and Boston College (3rd choice). that would put 1 more team in the east and one more in the west. Also, I'd like to see Maryland start using Testudo as their primary logo again.

Your first choice is the only one of these that would be allowed to happen currently. In order to gain B1G membership, a school must be a member school in the Association of American Universities (Nebraska is the only school that isn't currently a member, but was one when it joined the Big Ten). Missouri and Pitt are both members, so they'd both be viable options, but neither Notre Dame or BC would be accepted under the current rules.

Mizzou is not leaving the SEC. Besides, the B1G doesn't see MU as attractive. It already has the St. Louis TV market because of Illinois and the KC TV market isn't worth it to the conference.

And if the B1G could get Notre Dame, there would be a "special exception" for the AAU thing. ND has always been the B1G's white whale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which FCS programs?

I can name two in the CAA, and it's like that elsewhere as well. These places don't just sign deals with Nike or UA because they think their stuff looks cool. It's because the company is willing to give them free product and discounts. It's not all about how many sweatshirts they can sell; in fact, I would assume in most cases that it has little to nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which FCS programs?

I can name two in the CAA, and it's like that elsewhere as well. These places don't just sign deals with Nike or UA because they think their stuff looks cool. It's because the company is willing to give them free product and discounts. It's not all about how many sweatshirts they can sell; in fact, I would assume in most cases that it has little to nothing to do with it.

You don't think manufacturers sign deals with schools based on some sort of return?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think manufacturers sign deals with schools based on some sort of return?

I don't think manufacturers sign deals with most schools because they know they will sell a ton of shirts or jerseys. I think it's more about exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think manufacturers sign deals with schools based on some sort of return?

I don't think manufacturers sign deals with most schools because they know they will sell a ton of shirts or jerseys. I think it's more about exposure.

Why would they want exposure? So people can buy their stuff?

Trust me...it's all about selling product. It's not about something intangible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think manufacturers sign deals with schools based on some sort of return?

I don't think manufacturers sign deals with most schools because they know they will sell a ton of shirts or jerseys. I think it's more about exposure.

Why would they want exposure? So people can buy their stuff?

Trust me...it's all about selling product. It's not about something intangible.

Actually, I think Ben5 might have a point on this one--and my mind immediately goes to Boise State circa 2007-2011. Before they became the media cinderella darling story that wouldn't die, (i'm almost positive) they purchased their stuff through Nike...stock option templates to boot. After that Fiesta Bowl upset over Oklahoma catapulted them into the national spotlight (coupled with Boise's continued success over some of the "big boys"), it went from Boise buying Nike to Nike sponsoring Boise--which I'm willing to bet would've never happened had Boise not become a more visible program due to to their on-field success, which led to more TV time, which led to even more exposure of the Nike swoosh, and, eventually, new Nike-fied uniforms to show off--in essence, more Nike exposure. The same thing kinda happened with Texas Christian's "rise to prominence", as well.

Methinks whatever Boise/TCU product sold as a result of that was more a windfall of the increased exposure rather than the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Big Ten ever expands to 16 I'd like to see them add Missouri and Pittsburgh (1st choice) or Missouri and Notre Dame (2nd Choice) or Missouri and Boston College (3rd choice). that would put 1 more team in the east and one more in the west. Also, I'd like to see Maryland start using Testudo as their primary logo again.

Your first choice is the only one of these that would be allowed to happen currently. In order to gain B1G membership, a school must be a member school in the Association of American Universities (Nebraska is the only school that isn't currently a member, but was one when it joined the Big Ten). Missouri and Pitt are both members, so they'd both be viable options, but neither Notre Dame or BC would be accepted under the current rules.

Mizzou is not leaving the SEC. Besides, the B1G doesn't see MU as attractive. It already has the St. Louis TV market because of Illinois and the KC TV market isn't worth it to the conference.

And if the B1G could get Notre Dame, there would be a "special exception" for the AAU thing. ND has always been the B1G's white whale.

Nebraska essentially lost/did not renew our AAU membership during our courting phase with the Big Ten. The league has shown that academic progress is important (NU had just received a multi-million dollar Fed grant for livestock research) but that it's not 100% contingent on AAU membership.

Obviously, they made an exception with us; they'd make the same exception for Notre Dame.

Regarding Missouri, the only reason I could see them leaving the SEC would be a combination of poor athletic performance and extra travel costs. Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois and a bunch of other schools are still much closer than South Carolina, Florida and others, considering MU is in the SEC East.

However, the Tigers have shown they can compete, so a conference switch is likely not going to happen.

Tangent - all you SEC fanboys - I found it hilarious the two of the best "SEC" teams have been TAMU and Mizzou. So much for Big 12 (or ACC, PAC, B1G) inferiority. Guess even a mid-grade Big 12 team like Mizzou can win a division in the mighty SEC. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I INTERRUPT THIS THREAD FOR AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

NOTRE DAME WILL NEVER JOIN THE B1G

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I INTERRUPT THIS THREAD FOR AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

NOTRE DAME WILL NEVER JOIN THE B1G

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming:

Neither will Bowling Green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I INTERRUPT THIS THREAD FOR AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:

NOTRE DAME WILL NEVER JOIN THE B1G

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming:

Neither will Bowling Green.

Lol. Kent State either. Can't break up those two rivals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think manufacturers sign deals with schools based on some sort of return?

I don't think manufacturers sign deals with most schools because they know they will sell a ton of shirts or jerseys. I think it's more about exposure.

Why would they want exposure? So people can buy their stuff?

Trust me...it's all about selling product. It's not about something intangible.

Actually, I think Ben5 might have a point on this one--and my mind immediately goes to Boise State circa 2007-2011. Before they became the media cinderella darling story that wouldn't die, (i'm almost positive) they purchased their stuff through Nike...stock option templates to boot. After that Fiesta Bowl upset over Oklahoma catapulted them into the national spotlight (coupled with Boise's continued success over some of the "big boys"), it went from Boise buying Nike to Nike sponsoring Boise--which I'm willing to bet would've never happened had Boise not become a more visible program due to to their on-field success, which led to more TV time, which led to even more exposure of the Nike swoosh, and, eventually, new Nike-fied uniforms to show off--in essence, more Nike exposure. The same thing kinda happened with Texas Christian's "rise to prominence", as well.

Methinks whatever Boise/TCU product sold as a result of that was more a windfall of the increased exposure rather than the other way around.

I think we all agree about exposure, but really, exposure = $$. They really aren't mutually exclusive. Nike isn't thinking "We want more exposure with Boise, but we don't care if we sell more product or not because of it". In the financial statements, there is no line item for "exposure".

Nike has a new contract with the University of Buffalo, in which Buffalo received roughly $100,000 of free product the last two years. Buffalo barely has a following outside of upstate New York. But I bet you Nike makes an overall profit on its licensed Buffalo Bulls products every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maryland's uniforms are an absolute abortion.

Then call me pro choice, because I absolutely LOVE them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.