- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 49,909
I'm not a big fan of the older high-tops of yesteryear that require a couple of hours to lace and unlace. I like Jordan 1 lows and mids.
Last edited:
forums
MEGA New Miami Adidas Ultraboost🔥 - The Shoe and Nike/Adidas Thread.
- Thread starter TravelingCane
- Start date
I'm not a big fan of the older high-tops of yesteryear that require a couple of hours to lace and unlace. I like Jordan 1 lows and mids.
Advertisement
GeorgiaHurricane
Recruit
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2017
- Messages
- 1,134
You don’t care but recruits do care. Miami has lost out on a few recruits because they aren’t a Nike school. Teenagers and young adults care about these things.
CANESCANES
Junior
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2024
- Messages
- 2,152
Majority of the fan base hates Adidas as well
Merchandise sales would be a lot higher if we were a Nike school
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 49,909
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 33,226
Bro, I just don’t know why ppl don’t understand the simple equation of cause & effect.
Like there’s a couple in this fan base that r stubborn af.
Here’s an article from 2017 that has come to full fruition some 8 yrs later:
Nike Dominates College Football, and it Shows No Signs of Ever Letting Up
For years Nike has completely dominated the college football landscape.
www.samford.edu
This is something I discussed w/ @LeedsCane on a podcast, as to why so many top kids attend Nike branded schools
By the numbers: Once Nike gets a five-star college recruit, he's unlikely to ever leave
To companies like Nike and Adidas, every basketball player is a walking commercial. And they hope the athletes wearing their gear will become stars.
www.courier-journal.com
And UTSA, a long time Adidas brand just bounced to Nike. I told everyone Nike had vengeance on their mind. They r becoming more & more entrenched at the grass roots level, with their influence growing. We’ve lost a ton of recruits b/c of this, 7 off the top of my head in the past 3 cycles.
Last edited:
Advertisement
GeorgiaHurricane
Recruit
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2017
- Messages
- 1,134
Some people can’t see the bigger picture. They only look at things from their pov. It’s obvious as **** Miami need to go back to Nike. Mario was at Oregon and he saw first hand how Nike works. And I believe that works to our favor.Bro, I just don’t know why ppl don’t understand the simple equation of cause & effect.
Like there’s a couple in this fan base that r stubborn af.
Here’s an article from 2017 that has come to full fruition some 8 yrs later:
Nike Dominates College Football, and it Shows No Signs of Ever Letting Up
For years Nike has completely dominated the college football landscape.
This is something I discussed w/ @LeedsCane on a podcast, as to why so many top kids attend Nike branded schools
By the numbers: Once Nike gets a five-star college recruit, he's unlikely to ever leave
To companies like Nike and Adidas, every basketball player is a walking commercial. And they hope the athletes wearing their gear will become stars.www.courier-journal.com
And UTSA, a long time Adidas brand just bounced to Nike. I told everyone Nike had vengeance on their mind. They r becoming more & more entrenched as the grass roots level, with their influence growing. We’ve lost a ton of recruits b/c of this, 7 off the top of my head in the past 3 cycles.
CANESCANES
Junior
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2024
- Messages
- 2,152
Hopefully DRad is long gone before those negotiations start
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 33,226
in fairness, he did negotiate this deal. Also, as me & @TheOriginalCane have been preaching, notice their royalty deal.
The Clemson & Nike Partnership
clemsontigers.com
Per a fiscal report, Clemson generated $21.1m in sponsorship revenue, Nike being their biggest sponsor which includes all Clemson x Nike branding across all platforms either e-commerce or bricks & mortar. $5.8/yr in cash equipment + 14% royalties = they are making more $$$ than our apparel contract w Adidas which is cash & apparel only.
CANESCANES
Junior
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2024
- Messages
- 2,152
Would he be on board with leaving Adidas?in fairness, he did negotiate this deal. Also, as me & @TheOriginalCane have been preaching, notice their royalty deal.
The Clemson & Nike Partnership
Per a fiscal report, Clemson generated $21.1m in sponsorship revenue, Nike being their biggest sponsor which includes all Clemson x Nike branding across all platforms either e-commerce or bricks & mortar. $5.8/yr in cash equipment + 14% royalties = they are making more $$$ than our apparel contract w Adidas which is cash & apparel only.
The quality of the Nike apparel, I still own from years ago. And bring back New Era for hats please.
I cringe when shopping online for Miami merchandise, Adidas sucks
Advertisement
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 49,909
in fairness, he did negotiate this deal. Also, as me & @TheOriginalCane have been preaching, notice their royalty deal.
The Clemson & Nike Partnership
Per a fiscal report, Clemson generated $21.1m in sponsorship revenue, Nike being their biggest sponsor which includes all Clemson x Nike branding across all platforms either e-commerce or bricks & mortar. $5.8/yr in cash equipment + 14% royalties = they are making more $$$ than our apparel contract w Adidas which is cash & apparel only.
You are THE MAN, @Rellyrell ...
I know some of the "but I want a big guarantee" crowd are pretty clueless about this ****, but 14% is a very high royalty rate.
I may not be a big fan of what Radakovich is doing in his "Miami retirement", but he did a **** fine job for Clemson while he was there.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 33,226
He’s worked with Nike at both GT & Clemson, and allegedly has a good relationship with them. GT was a a Russell Athletics school, but Nike provided their footwear.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 49,909
In 2017, adidas announced a 10 year deal with Louisville that was for $160M. That is $16 M per year.
In 2015, adidas announced a 12 year deal with Miami that was for $93.6M. That is $7.8 M per year.
And before you think that something wild happened between 2015 and 2017, please realize that adidas had ALREADY given Louisville $7.8 M per year JUST ONE YEAR before the Miami deal. So, somehow, between 2014 and 2015, the market did not increase AT ALL, but between 2015 and 2017, the market DOUBLED?
In just TWO YEARS, adidas was willing to pay a rival school in our own conference MORE THAN DOUBLE what it agreed to pay "flagship" Miami. Amazing. Outrageous.
Now, I realize that these numbers are a combination of base comp, "activation", and products. Specifically:
1. Louisville got $10 M of base comp annually for the first 3 years, then $7 M of base comp for the next 7 years, for a total of $79 M.
2. Louisville received $3 M of activation annually for the first 3 years, then $1 M of activation for the next 7 years, for a total of $16M.
3. Louisville received $6M of product annually for the first 2 years, $6.1 M for the next 3, and then $6.2M for the final 5, for a total of $61.3M.
These three components add up to $156.3 million, so there's another $3.7 million hiding in there somewhere.
If you applied similar percentages, this would mean Miami got:
1. Base comp of $46.2 M over 12 years, or $3.85 M per year.
2. Activation of $9.36 M over 12 years or $780 K per year.
3. Product of $35.86 M over 12 years or $2.99 M per year.
Just think about this. Only TWO YEARS into a TWELVE-YEAR DEAL, the market price for an ACC team had DOUBLED.
So, yeah, anyone who thinks that we should be oh-so-grateful to bid-daddy-adidas, or praising Beta Blake for getting us SO MUCH MORE MONEY, feel free to keep making your pro-adidas arguments, because nothing will ever change your mind.
As for me, I'll be happy making a 15% royalty rate. **** all this used-car-salesman mumbo jumbo, between base comp and activation and product.
adidas took advantage of our desperation, they locked us into a favorable deal, and then they gave Louisville DOUBLE what they paid us, and only 2 years later.
In 2015, adidas announced a 12 year deal with Miami that was for $93.6M. That is $7.8 M per year.
And before you think that something wild happened between 2015 and 2017, please realize that adidas had ALREADY given Louisville $7.8 M per year JUST ONE YEAR before the Miami deal. So, somehow, between 2014 and 2015, the market did not increase AT ALL, but between 2015 and 2017, the market DOUBLED?
In just TWO YEARS, adidas was willing to pay a rival school in our own conference MORE THAN DOUBLE what it agreed to pay "flagship" Miami. Amazing. Outrageous.
Now, I realize that these numbers are a combination of base comp, "activation", and products. Specifically:
1. Louisville got $10 M of base comp annually for the first 3 years, then $7 M of base comp for the next 7 years, for a total of $79 M.
2. Louisville received $3 M of activation annually for the first 3 years, then $1 M of activation for the next 7 years, for a total of $16M.
3. Louisville received $6M of product annually for the first 2 years, $6.1 M for the next 3, and then $6.2M for the final 5, for a total of $61.3M.
These three components add up to $156.3 million, so there's another $3.7 million hiding in there somewhere.
If you applied similar percentages, this would mean Miami got:
1. Base comp of $46.2 M over 12 years, or $3.85 M per year.
2. Activation of $9.36 M over 12 years or $780 K per year.
3. Product of $35.86 M over 12 years or $2.99 M per year.
Just think about this. Only TWO YEARS into a TWELVE-YEAR DEAL, the market price for an ACC team had DOUBLED.
So, yeah, anyone who thinks that we should be oh-so-grateful to bid-daddy-adidas, or praising Beta Blake for getting us SO MUCH MORE MONEY, feel free to keep making your pro-adidas arguments, because nothing will ever change your mind.
As for me, I'll be happy making a 15% royalty rate. **** all this used-car-salesman mumbo jumbo, between base comp and activation and product.
adidas took advantage of our desperation, they locked us into a favorable deal, and then they gave Louisville DOUBLE what they paid us, and only 2 years later.
University of Louisville celebrates new $160 million Adidas contract
Louisville, at a press conference on Friday, confirmed the details of its new apparel contract extension with Adidas.
www.courier-journal.com
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 49,909
Also, for the math-challenged, with a 15% royalty:
If you want to make $5 M per year BASE COMP (I am now ignoring "activation" and products), you would need to sell $33.33 M of merch.
If you want to make $10 M per year BASE COMP, you would need to sell $66.67 M of merch.
And at this point, I hope everyone can figure out that if you sell $100 M of merch, you would make $15 M in royalties.
If you want to make $5 M per year BASE COMP (I am now ignoring "activation" and products), you would need to sell $33.33 M of merch.
If you want to make $10 M per year BASE COMP, you would need to sell $66.67 M of merch.
And at this point, I hope everyone can figure out that if you sell $100 M of merch, you would make $15 M in royalties.
Advertisement
TouchMoney26
Presidente del U
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2018
- Messages
- 1,541
new uni's?
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 16,943
But do we get the match or not. If we’d are contractually obligated to be the highest paid then it would be a good think Louisville got double.In 2017, adidas announced a 10 year deal with Louisville that was for $160M. That is $16 M per year.
In 2015, adidas announced a 12 year deal with Miami that was for $93.6M. That is $7.8 M per year.
And before you think that something wild happened between 2015 and 2017, please realize that adidas had ALREADY given Louisville $7.8 M per year JUST ONE YEAR before the Miami deal. So, somehow, between 2014 and 2015, the market did not increase AT ALL, but between 2015 and 2017, the market DOUBLED?
View attachment 321118
In just TWO YEARS, adidas was willing to pay a rival school in our own conference MORE THAN DOUBLE what it agreed to pay "flagship" Miami. Amazing. Outrageous.
Now, I realize that these numbers are a combination of base comp, "activation", and products. Specifically:
1. Louisville got $10 M of base comp annually for the first 3 years, then $7 M of base comp for the next 7 years, for a total of $79 M.
2. Louisville received $3 M of activation annually for the first 3 years, then $1 M of activation for the next 7 years, for a total of $16M.
3. Louisville received $6M of product annually for the first 2 years, $6.1 M for the next 3, and then $6.2M for the final 5, for a total of $61.3M.
These three components add up to $156.3 million, so there's another $3.7 million hiding in there somewhere.
If you applied similar percentages, this would mean Miami got:
1. Base comp of $46.2 M over 12 years, or $3.85 M per year.
2. Activation of $9.36 M over 12 years or $780 K per year.
3. Product of $35.86 M over 12 years or $2.99 M per year.
Just think about this. Only TWO YEARS into a TWELVE-YEAR DEAL, the market price for an ACC team had DOUBLED.
So, yeah, anyone who thinks that we should be oh-so-grateful to bid-daddy-adidas, or praising Beta Blake for getting us SO MUCH MORE MONEY, feel free to keep making your pro-adidas arguments, because nothing will ever change your mind.
As for me, I'll be happy making a 15% royalty rate. **** all this used-car-salesman mumbo jumbo, between base comp and activation and product.
adidas took advantage of our desperation, they locked us into a favorable deal, and then they gave Louisville DOUBLE what they paid us, and only 2 years later.
University of Louisville celebrates new $160 million Adidas contract
Louisville, at a press conference on Friday, confirmed the details of its new apparel contract extension with Adidas.www.courier-journal.com
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 49,909
Nooooo...
I'm going to try to be nice here. I think you make more good faith efforts than a lot of the other hard-headed porsters.
It is possible that we got a bump in BASE COMP. But the most-favored-nation clause has nothing to do with the components related to "activation" and product (and this is common practice in the industry, which I can tell you from reading these kinds of contracts in one of my previous jobs).
You are also overlooking the point that I made about locking into a TWELVE YEAR DEAL. As I stated, we signed our adidas deal ONE YEAR after Louisville's 2014 deal, and got EQUAL average annual total money value (base comp + activation + product). Both Louisville and Miami were getting $7.8 million total money value in 2015. And though adidas wanted Miami sooooo badly, and Miami was going to be the adidas flagship and whatnot, adidas did not offer Miami a penny more than what they were already paying Louisville in 2014.
But then TWO YEARS LATER, while we had TEN YEARS LEFT on the Miami deal, adidas gave Louisville MORE THAN DOUBLE what they were paying to Miami. So regardless of whether we got a bump later, it proves how much more important LOSERVILLE was to adidas than Miami was. And it is hard to know the exact terms. Thus, if Loserville got 10 extra years in 2017 (at 10 M base comp for the first 3 years and 7 M base comp for the next 7 years), it is possible that we got a big 3-year raise, and then dropped back to 7 M for the remaining 7 years on our contract.
But that doesn't mean that Miami is entitled to more activation and product.
Now, if you want to act like some extra money (which was only paid belatedly, after someone had to tell Beta Blake that we were woefully underpaid) makes everything all better, that is up to you and your conscience. Personally, I'd rather have a higher royalty rate and a shorter term of years, so that we could take advantage of the massive changes within the marketplace.
But, yeah, I guess some people want to make a 12-year living out of "but we had a great offer in 2015". Even if you try to discount the Louisville situation because of the most-favored nation clause, that still doesn't address some of the massive new deals that Nike is offering to other schools since 2017. Sure, maybe Loserville was the "fourth largest deal" in 2017, but that is no longer the truth in 2025.
And we've got TWO-PLUS YEARS TO GO in this stupid adidas deal.
Advertisement
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 49,909
CANESCANES
Junior
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2024
- Messages
- 2,152
12 years is beyond brain dead
TAMU at least only did a 5 year 47 million deal
Terms of Texas A&M, Adidas revealed, runs through 2027
Texas A&M’s athletic department has entered into a new five-year equipment and apparel contract with Adidas worth more than $47M over the course of the deal and extending its relationship with the German brand which began in 2007.
www.sportsbusinessjournal.com
'No Customization!' Why Texas A&M's New Deal With Adidas 'Rubs Students the Wrong Way'
Seventeen years after inking their initial deal, the Texas A&M Aggies will stick with stripes over checks. As first reported by The Eagle, the Aggies are now be
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2014
- Messages
- 16,943
Bruh we not about to get into you trying to lecture me about the length of contract again lol. Proven time after time that I've been in alignment with y'all about that from day1 lol
But
for the rest
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 49,909
Bruh we not about to get into you trying to lecture me about the length of contract again lol. Proven time after time that I've been in alignment with y'all about that from day1 lol
But
Fair enough.
Advertisement