forums

New uniform material and more? (official)

calinative umstudent said:
No I just thought it was funny - and a relevant point - but of course you'd read deep into it and pretend I was saying that's your trademark lol.

Riiiight. I liked us switching to Adidas because they've given us better uniforms and was a better offer that Nike was unwilling to match (admitted by you and @Rellyrell in the past as I literally already provided evidence of), Therefore I'm a Blake James and Adidas fanboy.

You know that post with the picture evidence? Well at the end of it there is a link to the discussion we had 2 years ago. Why don't you go on ahead and give that a click and see what I said at the time, and how I absolutely did say then (and have said now) that I very much prefer Nike to Adidas and always have. I have also said Nike is clearly a better brand than Adidas lol. The idea that I NEED to say it "EVERY SINGLE TIME" is ******* stupid.

Man this how I know you're getting old man, you can't even remember saying this literally less than a day ago:

I mean if that isn't you claiming I never agreed that the 12 year contract length was bad, I just don't know what the **** to say lol. And let not even start with the idea you have never accused me of lying, which we both know would be ridiculous since you accuse everyone of that. You're always just making **** up about what I said or didn't say and ESPECIALLY what I meant to say.

I didn't complain about the length of the agreement until you or Relly pointed it out... Uh you know in that post from 2 years ago I linked, what if I told you that was THE FIRST TIME I entered into that discussion. smfh, was I supposed to go back in time to have talked about something before I ever did just so I could have said it before you? Like what are we even doing here. What the **** would it even matter if yall talked about it first If I agreed from the very beginning about that, it just doesn't make any sense.

As far as IF we had taken a shorter contract, I haven't talked about it because you don't actually ******* know how much the contract would change. You are making major assumptions. Same way you are assuming we WOULD HAVE made more money on the backend had we agreed to the higher royalty contract. Well we do know - as mentioned by Relly - that Nike had the option to match the Adidas offer. Can you tell me why the Nike analysis ended with them not wanting to match because they thought it wasn't good value for them, but that our analysis HAS to be that the backend WOULD HAVE absolutely made up for it? We all ******* get why it's beneficial for Nike and Us to have a performance based contract. But idk why you are living in a world where an upfront contract can't possibly have far higher probability of leading to more.... Same way you are living in fantasyland about that, you are about the term length guaranteeing a SUBSTANTIALLY different payout. Sure it likely would have been different. We don't have any idea how substantial that difference would be though. And we **** sure don't know that if it was shorter it would have resulted in us receiving less than under Nike lol. **** what we do know is that we are in year what like 9 of the deal? Hmmm how much success have we had since that was signed - Thats important cause both of yall have repeatedly said Nikes deal was essentially performance incentivized. Yall had always said IF we turned our on-field results around we would have been rewarded. Well if Nike was offering us a 6 or 8 year deal we'd be entering a new deal without those results again wouldn't we lol. Yall even went as far as saying in 22 that Adidas wouldn't even give us the same offer if our contract was up then and there lol. You're just talking to talk man.

So then why don't you objectively try to apply your own definition then haha. This is getting ridiculous at this point. So now you're saying I'm blindly and breathlessly builing up all the positives and haven't addressed any negatives? smh.

Anyways I'm pretty much done responding to your BS about this. We have great uniforms today from Adidas. And we are going to start hopefully our best stretch of on-field results since 99. We will see what the leads to in the future regarding our apparel sponsor.
Click to expand...



If you even knew how to edit, this wouldn't be such a chore. To be honest, I didn't even bother reading your whole post, because it's the same old garbage.

You're terrible at analyzing business. You just are. It's so obvious from the "you don't actually ******* know how much the contract would change". Give me a ******* break. I absolutely know it. There is no way in **** that adidas would have paid $6.5M for a shorter contract. For you to deny that is just insane. At least acknowledge that it would ABSOLUTELY be less money for a shorter contract, and then we can start to compare apples to apples.

The other truly and profoundly dumb point you keep making, over and over and over again, is that Nike didn't "match". Again, it's not a one-term contract. If the entire contract only said "$6.5 million per year", and Nike did not agree to that same exact SINGLE term, that would be an instance of "not matching". But, as we have pointed out, the Nike offer was for a different mix of payouts (both guarantee vs. royalty as well as cash vs. equipment), and I know for a fact that Nike did not try to lock us into a 12 year contract. So your overly simplistic binary response of "Nike didn't match" has no bearing on anything, since you don't know why or how Nike didn't "match". Yes, they did not Xerox the adidas contract and write "Nike" everywhere it said "adidas". Agreed.

As for the rest of your garbage, I realize THIS THREAD is only 2 years old. But the conversation about UM's contractual relationships has been going on much longer. I'm not asking you to present documentary evidence of your opinions from 9 years ago. But it is EASY to make the claim "oh, the contract was too long" when it is year 7 or 8 and everyone in college sports is surpassing you. And it was CERTAINLY easy to make this argument over the past two years when you REPEATEDLY told us that adidas was paying us SOOOO much more than Nike would have.

Here's how an honest and balanced discussion would go:

"Yes, adidas offered a larger guarantee than Nike did. But that honeypot came with a catch, which was a longer-than-average contract term. And while it may have been hard to quantify whether a higher royalty rate from Nike would have offset the higher guarantee from adidas, it is now quite clear that a royalty-rich deal would have resulted in a higher overall payout, since the growth of Fanatics and other online-retailers have spurred rapid growth in the sales of college-branded apparel."

And you never said anything remotely close to that over the past two years. You just kept hammering on "adidas offered more money" and "Nike wouldn't match". Both of which are very shallow takes on a more complex financial calculation.

Again, this is not about whether you like Nike or New Balance or Under Armour or Lululemon. I don't care about your personal preferences, I care about your public pro-adidas/anti-Nike arguments. This is about you repeating falsehoods regarding the last few years of Beta Blake's dishonest dealings with Nike (which have come to light and are part of the reason why he was fired) and this is about you refusing to acknowledge the possibility, let alone the strong likelihood, that Miami would have made more money with Nike given the changes in the sports apparel marketplace.

As for the "reasons Nike didn't match", I've already given them. Beta Blake was converting Nike equipment and apparel into cash, then blaming Nike for not giving more, even as Nike produced the best jersey ("Smokes") that they produced in a decade. A jersey that sold out at all the Miami stores and caused a massive social media reaction from the Miami players, but which ultimately did not matter since Beta Blake had already stacked the deck for adidas to "win" the new contract.

I know you don't understand this contractual stuff. Just admit it. ****, the primary reason ESPN does not want to release its TV contract is because it doesn't want competitors (TV networks) or other parties (other conferences and universities) to be able to out-negotiate them. You naively act as if Nike was somehow aware that its VERY FAIR offer was structurally different from the adidas offer, or that Nike had the time to respond with a counter-offer. And, no, complex contracts are not as simple as "match this or exit the negotiations". I know what happened in this situation, and while Nike knew that adidas was bidding, they did not know the contractual terms offered by adidas until the eleventh hour.

So keep building your myth about how this was such a fair and honest process, and Nike just didn't want to play ball. Except, that's not true.

Beta Blake was fired for a reason. Actually, several reasons. And this is why it's so funny that you keep sticking up for him and the adidas contract. Because that entire process is one of the primary reasons he was fired.
 

Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
A true "prove it" deal is all or nothing. The Nike offer was lower guarantee/higher royalty, which is an "improve it" deal. And, again, one of the reasons for the shift was that Beta Blake was cashing in the equipment/apparel for cash money, and Nike wasn't a fan of being blamed for our "sub-par equipment".

I've seen plenty of deals where people have taken different forms of compensation. I just saw the owner of a company we acquired take nearly 15% of his comp in stock, when our stock price is DOWN. And we are not talking about a 5-year payout, he will get the stock a year from now (when we still expect our stock price to be down). He believes that the business combo will work over the long haul.

Again "getting equipment and gear" was not a nightmare of Nike's creation. They put out a great jersey in the final year of the contract, the "smokes" sold a ton (I remember Harry from AllSports verifying that). Nike was stepping up while Beta Blake was cashing out the equipment and gear because he already wanted to jump to adidas. I know for a fact that adidas was courting Beta Blake for multiple years prior to the expiration of the Nike deal. And I'm not criticizing that, adidas can pitch whatever they want whenever they want, but it certainly rationalizes why Beta Blake was squeezing every last penny out of Nike when he knew he wouldn't be re-upping.

I love when people qualify the whole "as long as adidas is treating UM well" rationale. Was it OK when we got embroiled in the FBI investigation? Was it OK when adidas never paid us equivalent Louisville money, even though they were contractually obligated to do so? Is it OK that adidas rarely releases any of their top shoes in UM colorways and/or logo versions, outside of the UltraBoost?

If all of that is "adidas treating UM so well", then we have some very different standards. If adidas is treating us poorly because Radakovich has already made up his mind to switch to Nike, then we are all even-steven.

But we have 3 years left in a 12 year contract. It's a bit late in the day to get our font and our v-neck FINALLY correct on the jersey. It's a bit late in the day to start offering the general public UM colorways on the best adidas shoes.

Whatever. We still have two posters telling us mythological stories from 10 years ago about how Nike treated us so poorly. Ignoring the fact that Beta Blake was cashing out of the Nike deal. It's just insane how the Beta Blake/adidas fanboys are trying to gaslight us on what really happened.
Click to expand...
Adidas doesn't have exclusives, ignore contracts and lowball offers for long lasting partners because of "heritage and history", yet offer record deals for potential new customers that have enough clauses to not pay out the full deal that everyone's head starts spinning.

There's a reason why Adidas, with all the star potential they have and had, are not even close to Nike.
 
calinative umstudent said:
I like the all White Pro Combats as an alt. the feathers? (or crown - literally no idea what its supposed to be) on the shoulders could have been changed to make them better. But they're nice and clean. I like the number color split as a one off.
The last Nike design could have been solid. But the mortal sin was what they did to our helmets. Any other complaint is like a bug on the windshield.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you are talking about. Feathers? That's an adidas thing. Crown? Huh?

It's just lines. Lots of thin lines. It's not supposed to be anything. Just like the various swooping lines on the jerseys from 2000-2008. It's just lines.

As for the helmets, that's an easy one. JUST SAY NO. Nike is not about to sell "helmets" to the masses. If the AD and/or coach vetoes the propsed changes, IT"S OVER. Where are all the Alabama and Michigan alternate helmets?

Again, this is where you refuse to acknowledge reality. We have no idea whether Nike has ever proposed alternate helmets to Alabama or Michigan BECAUSE ALABAMA AND MICHIGAN REFUSE TO MAKE THE CHANGE. We all know the individual Miami ADs who accepted all of these wildly different helmets, but you choose to put the blame on Nike rather than on the ADs who approved what Nike proposed.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Anywhere I post, you will eventually see Angry Ibis sniffing around my *******, looking to make trouble.

Another one of your worthless, useless posts where you try to extract belated revenge on someone who has owned you on other threads.

Try harder.
Click to expand...
You are very upset in this thread, as well as others, constantly tagging people about nonsense projecting some mope mentality on every topic...

We get it..you hate the 3 Stripe Life... It is OK, grab some new Rockports, draw a swoosh on them and yell at clouds...
 
TheOriginalCane said:
If you even knew how to edit, this wouldn't be such a chore. To be honest, I didn't even bother reading your whole post, because it's the same old garbage.

You're terrible at analyzing business. You just are. It's so obvious from the "you don't actually ******* know how much the contract would change". Give me a ******* break. I absolutely know it. There is no way in **** that adidas would have paid $6.5M for a shorter contract. For you to deny that is just insane. At least acknowledge that it would ABSOLUTELY be less money for a shorter contract, and then we can start to compare apples to apples.

The other truly and profoundly dumb point you keep making, over and over and over again, is that Nike didn't "match". Again, it's not a one-term contract. If the entire contract only said "$6.5 million per year", and Nike did not agree to that same exact SINGLE term, that would be an instance of "not matching". But, as we have pointed out, the Nike offer was for a different mix of payouts (both guarantee vs. royalty as well as cash vs. equipment), and I know for a fact that Nike did not try to lock us into a 12 year contract. So your overly simplistic binary response of "Nike didn't match" has no bearing on anything, since you don't know why or how Nike didn't "match". Yes, they did not Xerox the adidas contract and write "Nike" everywhere it said "adidas". Agreed.

As for the rest of your garbage, I realize THIS THREAD is only 2 years old. But the conversation about UM's contractual relationships has been going on much longer. I'm not asking you to present documentary evidence of your opinions from 9 years ago. But it is EASY to make the claim "oh, the contract was too long" when it is year 7 or 8 and everyone in college sports is surpassing you. And it was CERTAINLY easy to make this argument over the past two years when you REPEATEDLY told us that adidas was paying us SOOOO much more than Nike would have.

Here's how an honest and balanced discussion would go:

"Yes, adidas offered a larger guarantee than Nike did. But that honeypot came with a catch, which was a longer-than-average contract term. And while it may have been hard to quantify whether a higher royalty rate from Nike would have offset the higher guarantee from adidas, it is now quite clear that a royalty-rich deal would have resulted in a higher overall payout, since the growth of Fanatics and other online-retailers have spurred rapid growth in the sales of college-branded apparel."

And you never said anything remotely close to that over the past two years. You just kept hammering on "adidas offered more money" and "Nike wouldn't match". Both of which are very shallow takes on a more complex financial calculation.

Again, this is not about whether you like Nike or New Balance or Under Armour or Lululemon. I don't care about your personal preferences, I care about your public pro-adidas/anti-Nike arguments. This is about you repeating falsehoods regarding the last few years of Beta Blake's dishonest dealings with Nike (which have come to light and are part of the reason why he was fired) and this is about you refusing to acknowledge the possibility, let alone the strong likelihood, that Miami would have made more money with Nike given the changes in the sports apparel marketplace.

As for the "reasons Nike didn't match", I've already given them. Beta Blake was converting Nike equipment and apparel into cash, then blaming Nike for not giving more, even as Nike produced the best jersey ("Smokes") that they produced in a decade. A jersey that sold out at all the Miami stores and caused a massive social media reaction from the Miami players, but which ultimately did not matter since Beta Blake had already stacked the deck for adidas to "win" the new contract.

I know you don't understand this contractual stuff. Just admit it. ****, the primary reason ESPN does not want to release its TV contract is because it doesn't want competitors (TV networks) or other parties (other conferences and universities) to be able to out-negotiate them. You naively act as if Nike was somehow aware that its VERY FAIR offer was structurally different from the adidas offer, or that Nike had the time to respond with a counter-offer. And, no, complex contracts are not as simple as "match this or exit the negotiations". I know what happened in this situation, and while Nike knew that adidas was bidding, they did not know the contractual terms offered by adidas until the eleventh hour.

So keep building your myth about how this was such a fair and honest process, and Nike just didn't want to play ball. Except, that's not true.

Beta Blake was fired for a reason. Actually, several reasons. And this is why it's so funny that you keep sticking up for him and the adidas contract. Because that entire process is one of the primary reasons he was fired.
Click to expand...
Ah the classic I aint reading all that when you're dead wrong about ssomething lol. Like I said I'm doing myself a favor and choosing not to fully respond to this lame **** throwing you keep trying to do. We've repeatedly discussed this, you keep acting like nobody can comprehend differences in deals. I fully stand by what I said then and now and encourage anyone who wants to go read through those discussions. I think I entered (For the first time) around here:
Calinative

Post in thread 'Nike deal'

Rellyrell said:
Bro, it’s so much false narratives that’s spit. From the jump, I said Blake signed a dumb contract. It wasn’t until last yr when all of his incompetencies came to fruition that the vague language was revealed, & how Adidas snuck us on their own language. The problem w/ Blake was he wanted tier 1 pricing w/o tier 1 production. Adidas was desperate during this time to make a splash & said anything to make the deal happen. Blake, not looking at the fine print, didn’t see ambiguous language in the contract, nor did this fool even remotely think like “Heyyyyyy! How is UL making double the...
Click to expand...
  • Like

I still 100% believe your argument has not been a good one regarding the financial decision making when it's basically reliant on A) performance that with hindsight hasn't been there B) and therefore What-ifs or Could-haves and C) Fanatics "changing the landscape" when we are 9 years into the deal that was announced in 2015. Anyways aside from the money and subjective uniform design aspect of the deal, even though you won't like to admit it, I have actually agreed with pretty much everything else RellyRell has said - that's the truly funny thing about all of this, and how much my opinion has worked you and him up. I'll carry on now....
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
I have no idea what you are talking about. Feathers? That's an adidas thing. Crown? Huh?

It's just lines. Lots of thin lines. It's not supposed to be anything. Just like the various swooping lines on the jerseys from 2000-2008. It's just lines.

As for the helmets, that's an easy one. JUST SAY NO. Nike is not about to sell "helmets" to the masses. If the AD and/or coach vetoes the propsed changes, IT"S OVER. Where are all the Alabama and Michigan alternate helmets?

Again, this is where you refuse to acknowledge reality. We have no idea whether Nike has ever proposed alternate helmets to Alabama or Michigan BECAUSE ALABAMA AND MICHIGAN REFUSE TO MAKE THE CHANGE. We all know the individual Miami ADs who accepted all of these wildly different helmets, but you choose to put the blame on Nike rather than on the ADs who approved what Nike proposed.
Click to expand...
Yeah you know what you're right, the one thing I want is for an AD to be THE GUY having to tell the design/clothing/brand experts for a multi-billion dollar company who were the very first to be an all-sport apparal provider is how to design uniforms and not absolutely **** us.

Also Nike was the first with the feathers lol. Theres this little school in the pacific northwest....
 
Advertisement
BWCD said:
Honest question though - don't we have patented legit pantone colors for our orange/green? By hue, are you referring to having that pantone base color, but just the warmth/coolness of the colors? There have been some Nike things in the past where I felt like they either went too dark w/the Green and too washed out w/the Orange, just like some people are angry about the Adidas stuff not having the "true hue". I also feel like it varies with fan apparel vs team issue stuff, and even simply with weather conditions...high/low light, sun or rain, etc...
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Advertisement
calinative umstudent said:
Ah the classic I aint reading all that when you're dead wrong about ssomething lol. Like I said I'm doing myself a favor and choosing not to fully respond to this lame **** throwing you keep trying to do. We've repeatedly discussed this, you keep acting like nobody can comprehend differences in deals. I fully stand by what I said then and now and encourage anyone who wants to go read through those discussions. I think I entered (For the first time) around here:
Calinative

Post in thread 'Nike deal'

Rellyrell said:
Bro, it’s so much false narratives that’s spit. From the jump, I said Blake signed a dumb contract. It wasn’t until last yr when all of his incompetencies came to fruition that the vague language was revealed, & how Adidas snuck us on their own language. The problem w/ Blake was he wanted tier 1 pricing w/o tier 1 production. Adidas was desperate during this time to make a splash & said anything to make the deal happen. Blake, not looking at the fine print, didn’t see ambiguous language in the contract, nor did this fool even remotely think like “Heyyyyyy! How is UL making double the...
Click to expand...
  • Like

I still 100% believe your argument has not been a good one regarding the financial decision making when it's basically reliant on A) performance that with hindsight hasn't been there B) and therefore What-ifs or Could-haves and C) Fanatics "changing the landscape" when we are 9 years into the deal that was announced in 2015. Anyways aside from the money and subjective uniform design aspect of the deal, even though you won't like to admit it, I have actually agreed with pretty much everything else RellyRell has said - that's the truly funny thing about all of this, and how much my opinion has worked you and him up. I'll carry on now....
Click to expand...


It's not "classic I ain't reading all that" when you refuse to use paragraph breaks or any other mechanism that helps the reader to digest your nonsense.

Nobody cares about "the first time you entered the conversation". The important thing is that you never said ANYTHING about how a 12-year contract was ALWAYS a bad idea. Always. Such a long-term deal is usually bypassed within a few years ("hey, I want what you're paying Miami") and locks you out of whatever marketplace changes arise.

I'm not saying "nobody can comprehend differences in deals". I'm saying that YOU can't comprehend differences in deals.

Again, I am not arguing that Beta Blake should have predicted Fanatics. What I am saying is that it is FOOLISH to act as if there will NOT be any significant changes in the marketplace while you are locked into a 12-year contract. That doesn't require you to be Nostradamus, just a careful person who doesn't overcommit to an overly long contractual period.

And Fanatics didn't change the landscape in only the past 12 months. Don't act like we are ONLY screwed in Year 9 of the deal. Fanactics has been blowing up FOR YEARS. Before we even made it to the halfway point of the contract.

Finally, no, I'm not giving you credit "for agreeing with Rellyrell". Even a moron should be agreeing with @Rellyrell because he knows what the **** he is talking about. So, no, I'm not going to pat you on the back and give you a cookie for saying "I agree with Rellyrell".

While @Rellyrell is ignoring you, he and I have conversed FOR YEARS about the ins and outs of the Miami apparel contract and the ACC TV contract. He is very well-connected with the sports industry, and he knows my connections and experience in the sports industry.

Meanwhile, you keep pasting your same-old, same-old about "adidas offered more money" without engaging in anything resembling analysis.

I realize that someone can make a mistake when entering into a 12-year apparel contract a couple of years before Fanatics revolutionizes the market. But then trying to rationalize and justify that mistake? When a 6-year contract would have allowed us to reset and take advantage of the changing marketplace?

That's where you lose everyone. Literally everyone. And no amount of your "I hope other posters read my ravings" will fix that.
 
calinative umstudent said:
Yeah you know what you're right, the one thing I want is for an AD to be THE GUY having to tell the design/clothing/brand experts for a multi-billion dollar company who were the very first to be an all-sport apparal provider is how to design uniforms and not absolutely **** us.

Also Nike was the first with the feathers lol. Theres this little school in the pacific northwest....
Click to expand...


What a dopey response.

I never said that the AD should tell an apparel company how to design things. But that same AD can ABSOLUTELY veto any proposed ideas that go too far from what the university is comfortable with.

As for "feathers", I was clearly referring to Miami, not Oregon, and the fact that adidas added those to the Miami jersey. But there you go again, trying to act like you caught someone making a mistake. YOU were the one who hypothesized that a bunch of lines on a jersey were "feathers".

Keep pointing the finger at everyone else when you make a mistake. It's your brand.
 
Hurracanes said:
Miami is going back to its core values and branding. Changing your uniforms every week is lame as ****. This is no longer a Mickey Mouse program.
Click to expand...

I’m confused by this statement. At what point were we changing uniforms every week? Since Richt took over, we’ve gone back to the 80’s style uniforms. The only thing that’s changed is the material that Adidas have been using. We still had an alternate last season w/ Adidas’ newest version of Miami Nights.

So what’s changed besides Adidas changing materials? Real ?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top