Couple things on Adidas deal

View as article
The fact that Blake talked w/ Al Golden about how felt wearing Adidas gear on the sideline according to Matt Porter vs. talking to him about our on-the-field and off-the-field issues is a huge problem w/ me.
Makes perfect sense actually, as Folden is Fake's boss.
 
Advertisement
Ultimately I still disagree with the switch, but it's one of those things that we would care less about if the state of the program was different.

come on Ariz. you are an aspiring journalist. it is not was, but were. the subjunctive mood. "was" is the past tense of the verb to be ---> "i was at the game". subjective ---> "if i were going to the game, i could take you."

your Columbdumb English prof must be having a heart attack.

I may be wrong here, but shouldnt it be was because pete is using indicative mood and suggesting something he believes is likely to be true? As a result of our prior success, it is likely that the state of the program will be different 5 years from now. Heck, the state of program was very different 3 years from now and an adidas deal may have been received differently. As a result, the "if" doesn't automatically indicate that pete should use were?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Miami has gobs of money. They just dont want football to outshine Donna's vast achievements of being a pretty good school that no one takes seriously as an "academic stalwart"

What people consistently and continuously fail to understand is that just because Miami has a $900 million endowment and receives numerous donations every year, those funds can only be used for their donated/intended purpose. Just because Miami has "gobs" of money, doesn't mean that the athletic department has gobs of money.

For example, the athletic department ran at a deficit of almost $2.8 million for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014 while football ran at a surplus of approximately $1.2 million.

Does this sound like the University has tons of money to buy out Al Golden's contract and hire a new head coach as well?

I'm certain that there are ways that it could be done if the University had the will to do so (which is of course why we're all frustrated) but that's a different topic.
 
Ultimately I still disagree with the switch, but it's one of those things that we would care less about if the state of the program was different.

come on Ariz. you are an aspiring journalist. it is not was, but were. the subjunctive mood. "was" is the past tense of the verb to be ---> "i was at the game". subjective ---> "if i were going to the game, i could take you."

your Columbdumb English prof must be having a heart attack.

I may be wrong here, but shouldnt it be was because pete is using indicative mood and suggesting something he believes is likely to be true? As a result of our prior success, it is likely that the state of the program will be different 5 years from now. Heck, the state of program was very different 3 years from now and an adidas deal may have been received differently. As a result, the "if" doesn't automatically indicate that pete should use were?

negative. he is not using the past tense of the verb to be. the subjective mood is used "to express a wish, a suggestion, a command, or a condition that is contrary to fact."

"if the program were different" is a condition that is contrary to fact (unfortunately!).
 
Miami has gobs of money. They just dont want football to outshine Donna's vast achievements of being a pretty good school that no one takes seriously as an "academic stalwart"

What people consistently and continuously fail to understand is that just because Miami has a $900 million endowment and receives numerous donations every year, those funds can only be used for their donated/intended purpose. Just because Miami has "gobs" of money, doesn't mean that the athletic department has gobs of money.

For example, the athletic department ran at a deficit of almost $2.8 million for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014 while football ran at a surplus of approximately $1.2 million.

Does this sound like the University has tons of money to buy out Al Golden's contract and hire a new head coach as well?

I'm certain that there are ways that it could be done if the University had the will to do so (which is of course why we're all frustrated) but that's a different topic.

Just as there will be ways to decrease the athletic budget so as the new influx of Adidas money won't realistically be used completely on athletics. And this earmarking of donation money argument is a joke anyway. The university doesn't operate even remotely by the pre-ordained allocation of funds dictating their budgets. It's not that simple (as you alluded to). They have access to enough unrestricted capital that'd it'd make anyone claiming their hands are tied blush.
 
Advertisement
Miami has gobs of money. They just dont want football to outshine Donna's vast achievements of being a pretty good school that no one takes seriously as an "academic stalwart"

What people consistently and continuously fail to understand is that just because Miami has a $900 million endowment and receives numerous donations every year, those funds can only be used for their donated/intended purpose. Just because Miami has "gobs" of money, doesn't mean that the athletic department has gobs of money.

For example, the athletic department ran at a deficit of almost $2.8 million for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014 while football ran at a surplus of approximately $1.2 million.

Does this sound like the University has tons of money to buy out Al Golden's contract and hire a new head coach as well?

I'm certain that there are ways that it could be done if the University had the will to do so (which is of course why we're all frustrated) but that's a different topic.

Just as there will be ways to decrease the athletic budget so as the new influx of Adidas money won't realistically be used completely on athletics. And this earmarking of donation money argument is a joke anyway. The university doesn't operate even remotely by the pre-ordained allocation of funds dictating their budgets. It's not that simple (as you alluded to). They have access to enough unrestricted capital that'd it'd make anyone claiming their hands are tied blush.

This is of course true. We all just wish they would make the decision to use it to fire Al Golden.
 
Miami has gobs of money. They just dont want football to outshine Donna's vast achievements of being a pretty good school that no one takes seriously as an "academic stalwart"

What people consistently and continuously fail to understand is that just because Miami has a $900 million endowment and receives numerous donations every year, those funds can only be used for their donated/intended purpose. Just because Miami has "gobs" of money, doesn't mean that the athletic department has gobs of money.

For example, the athletic department ran at a deficit of almost $2.8 million for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2014 while football ran at a surplus of approximately $1.2 million.

Does this sound like the University has tons of money to buy out Al Golden's contract and hire a new head coach as well?

I'm certain that there are ways that it could be done if the University had the will to do so (which is of course why we're all frustrated) but that's a different topic.

There is so much fuzzy math in relation to all of these Collegiate Athletic Department numbers, it would make the Dept. of Treasury blush
 
Sounds like a good switch to me...more money and we will be Addidas' poster child. Yes we suck and need a new coaching staff, but with facility upgrades, a new president, and an upgraded (crappy) stadium, we may be poised to make a resurgence once we get a good coach!
 
Oregon changed their look every freakin' week. They have no real identity. I could turn the TV on and not know who is playing until the announcer tells me. This is not what I want for Miami. I want The U brand to be instantly recognizable. Not sure if this "Oregon of Adidas" thing is a good idea. For me personally, it doesn't matter a bit because I'm not buying any more Miami stuff until changes are made.
 
Advertisement
I like the deal.... if we are #1 for them then cool... cause Nike has Oregon, and Under Armour has Maryland as their #1... why because owners of those companies went to those schools... I dnt think it had to do with a 6-7 record.... if u pay attention Oregon gets all the love from Nike with Different Uni Combos as does Maryland with UA and everyone else gets just new Jerseys.... im glad Miami will be #1 for something....

Regarding UA and Maryland, with the Domers on board and regardless of their founder attending Maryland, I'd bet the Domers are UA's new number one.
 
I like the deal.... if we are #1 for them then cool... cause Nike has Oregon, and Under Armour has Maryland as their #1... why because owners of those companies went to those schools... I dnt think it had to do with a 6-7 record.... if u pay attention Oregon gets all the love from Nike with Different Uni Combos as does Maryland with UA and everyone else gets just new Jerseys.... im glad Miami will be #1 for something....

Regarding UA and Maryland, with the Domers on board and regardless of their founder attending Maryland, I'd bet the Domers are UA's new number one.

notre dame has the biggest contract of any school in the country, so it's safe to say that they are under armour's top dog.
 
Typical. Donna jumping on more $$$$$. The team gets chit and we suck as usual.( Us being Adidas' "Oregon" when we go belly up to the damned 'Hoos and every other mediocre chit school with barely a pulse, LMFAO!)

Cluster#### for the ages!!
 
Advertisement
If one company will pay you $n for the privilege of sponsoring your bad football team (which you show little interest in improving), and another company will pay you $n+3M, you go with Company B.
 
A lot of people are showing their age here..The days of Nike sweat suits and Nike socks to match are over. These kids don't give a **** about that nowadays unless its AAU basketball. Football is different. As long as they look fly, phuckin' Sean John could be our sponsor for all they care. The only thing this generation of kids care about now as it pertains to Nike is Air Jordans. Air Max haven't been popular since the mid-90s.

So with that said, if these guys are going to pay us 8-9 million per year and Nike was only giving us $2mill...Its a no brainer. Lets not be silly here. I hate Golden and Blake too but if we had found out that they had turned this deal down this board would have shut down because of the traffic. Esp since the admins claim we have no money for football.
 
A lot of people are showing their age here..The days of Nike sweat suits and Nike socks to match are over. These kids don't give a **** about that nowadays unless its AAU basketball. Football is different. As long as they look fly, phuckin' Sean John could be our sponsor for all they care. The only thing this generation of kids care about now as it pertains to Nike is Air Jordans. Air Max haven't been popular since the mid-90s.

So with that said, if these guys are going to pay us 8-9 million per year and Nike was only giving us $2mill...Its a no brainer. Lets not be silly here. I hate Golden and Blake too but if we had found out that they had turned this deal down this board would have shut down because of the traffic. Esp since the admins claim we have no money for football.

+1
 
Advertisement
Our brand will always be recognizable. I was in California last week and I went to Venice wearing a Miami shirt. Through out the day people would yell out to me it's all about the U or even throw it up. Adidas is making moves, if they want to make us the face I'm all for it.
 
Oregon changed their look every freakin' week. They have no real identity. I could turn the TV on and not know who is playing until the announcer tells me. This is not what I want for Miami. I want The U brand to be instantly recognizable. Not sure if this "Oregon of Adidas" thing is a good idea. For me personally, it doesn't matter a bit because I'm not buying any more Miami stuff until changes are made.

Really? I know immidiately that it is oregon playing. Just because thier colors change doesn't mean they don't have a recognizable uniform. It's the same jersey, just in different color patterns. Their helmet is either the O, or the feathers. It is very easy to tell Oregon is playing.

Those Orange and Green helmets were not recognizable as Miami last year. Stop trying to act like Oregon's uniforms are bad either. Oregon easily has the best uni's in college. And they either go with the feathered look (feathers on shoulders and helmet) or with the classic look (simple jerseys, and the "O" logo on helmet). All they do is change the color arrangement, but it always looks good. Then every once in a while they do something like the pink for October uni's.
 
I'll be honest, I wasn't that happy about the switch. But I'm excited to see something new and to see UM get marketed the way it is so far. Nike's uniforms have been absolutely dreadful for the last 10 years, and the helmet thing this year was pathetic. If ADIDAS is willing to try some new stuff that actually works, what the ****.

It would be great if we could celebrate this contract with a new head coach, though. Al Golden will suck the fun out of this for everyone involved.
 
As far as the contract details, we can assume it will be less than Michigan, more than ASU. It will be interesting to see if it's similar to what UCLA gets. Difference is this is a 12 year deal which is pretty dam long.
Michigan gets $4.4M in equipment and $3.8M cash yearly. Nebraska gets $3M in equipment, and $1M in cash, with a National Championship bonus.
UCLA gets $4M in equipment and $3.5M in cash. But it gets a $75k bonus every football win, and a $15k bonus every basketball win.
I doubt we get around $4M in equipment because our athletic dept is much smaller than those teams. I'd say we probably will get $2.5-3M/yr in equipment. I'd then think we get around $3M cash. Plus bonus'. So I'd think in the $6M/yr range.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top