Texas A&M athletics, Adidas have begun five-year, $47 million deal https://t.co/wIYz4ZPgbt
— 𝕋𝕣𝕒𝕧𝕚𝕤 𝕃. 𝔹𝕣𝕠𝕨𝕟 (@Travis_L_Brown) May 4, 2024
Why continue with adidas….highest bidder?
Adidas!!
6,184 Views |
40 Replies |
Last: 12 days ago by AgfromHOU
Why continue with adidas….highest bidder?
Justice Beaver
Joined:
Feb 25, 2011
Posts:
4,725
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good. Adidas is far superior to Nike.
Damnit, I was really pulling for a sketchers deal…
All hail the crooked hats
Oh boy, the same Chinese factory that makes all adidas, Nike, etc clothing will have to keep up with the right logos.
Now bring back the 1939 Throwback uniforms!
The contract term started in July 2022 and we're just now hearing about it?
Oh the moral outrage…an Aggie being mad to try and incite fellow Aggies against the school.AtticusMatlock said:
The contract term started in July 2022 and we're just now hearing about it?
Unbelievable.
Now we'll never win a conference title.
/s
Now we'll never win a conference title.
/s
As an old, I'll never understand the fascination with a certain brand of uniforms. Of course, I am perfectly fine with wearing Walmart clothes.
Last of the Old Army
Adidas is not my preference. Just don't bring back any gimmicky uniforms!
I thank God that Jimbo introduced us to Elko and brought back traditional recognizable Aggie uniforms!
I thank God that Jimbo introduced us to Elko and brought back traditional recognizable Aggie uniforms!
Did we even consider British Knights or Starter?!
Facts
AGDAD14 said:
Adidas is not my preference. Just don't bring back any gimmicky uniforms!
I thank God that Jimbo introduced us to Elko and brought back traditional recognizable Aggie uniforms!
Yeah, players hate that.
/Oregon
lotoarmy said:
As an old, I'll never understand the fascination with a certain brand of uniforms. Of course, I am perfectly fine with wearing Walmart clothes.
You seem to be more of a Target kind of guy.
Who cares what the players like? The fans are the ones paying the bills. The players are just hired employees at this point. They get their money. They wear their work uniform.
I wonder if being a nike school over adidas is a recruiting advantage, I guess nothing matters besides NIL nowadays anyway.
Alex580 said:
I wonder if being a nike school over adidas is a recruiting advantage, I guess nothing matters besides NIL nowadays anyway.
I doubt it matters in the world of Pay for Play. I guess it may matter if Nike spends more for on college athletes for advertising and shows a preference for athletes frim Nike schools.
More 56' throwbacks please!!!!
Why would it be a recruiting advantage?Quote:
I wonder if being a nike school over adidas is a recruiting advantage, I guess nothing matters besides NIL nowadays anyway.
17yos deciding between schools aren't wearing more Nike than Adidas.
Pat Henry may disagree…his contract permits him an exception from the Adidas relationship. Presumably that matters to him.20ag07 said:Why would it be a recruiting advantage?Quote:
I wonder if being a nike school over adidas is a recruiting advantage, I guess nothing matters besides NIL nowadays anyway.
17yos deciding between schools aren't wearing more Nike than Adidas.
The reason that Track is exempted from the rest of the relationship is that it is irrelevant to the business model.Quote:
Pat Henry may disagree…his contract permits him an exception from the Adidas relationship. Presumably that matters to him.
Pat Henry isn't recruiting track athletes based on the brand of spikes that they wear.
And the rest of the relevant sports are not full of kids who are wearing Nike everyday and are disappointed they might have to wear Adidas.
Is it really $9million+? Thats in the Notre Dame/Texas/Ohio State ballpark…it may even be more than Adidas previous experimental flagship (Louisville)
TexAggie1999 said:
Who cares what the players like? The fans are the ones paying the bills. The players are just hired employees at this point. They get their money. They wear their work uniform.
Like it or not, recruits care about that kind of thing.
There is not a recruit in America who cares about whether they are wearing Nike or Adidas.Quote:
Like it or not, recruits care about that kind of thing.
It's not the 90s anymore.
You didn't explain why Henry affiliates with Nike. You did wave your hands around a lot.20ag07 said:The reason that Track is exempted from the rest of the relationship is that it is irrelevant to the business model.Quote:
Pat Henry may disagree…his contract permits him an exception from the Adidas relationship. Presumably that matters to him.
Pat Henry isn't recruiting track athletes based on the brand of spikes that they wear.
And the rest of the relevant sports are not full of kids who are wearing Nike everyday and are disappointed they might have to wear Adidas.
NoahAg said:TexAggie1999 said:
Who cares what the players like? The fans are the ones paying the bills. The players are just hired employees at this point. They get their money. They wear their work uniform.
Like it or not, recruits care about that kind of thing.
They seem to care a lot more about their payments to play. It is now just a business. I doubt the work uniform is that big of a deal in a world of Pay for Play.
Who knows, some may care, but I suspect the dollar signs is primarily what matters at this point.
Why not Puma?
Y'all should read this, it's extremely interesting. It also explains how Puma grew out of Adidas:
Adidas - Wikipedia
Adidas - Wikipedia
Nike's game has really fallen off. The Yankees disaster and the Olympic uniforms fiasco is showing how bad it's gotten there, like they're just piping designs through a badly prompted AI engine and hoping for the best. They can't even make colors match anymore and the unis are so sheer you can see the skid marks on players' underwear.
Adidas just has a much better overall game right now and they're highly motivated to topple Nike.
Adidas just has a much better overall game right now and they're highly motivated to topple Nike.
20ag07 said:There is not a recruit in America who cares about whether they are wearing Nike or Adidas.Quote:
Like it or not, recruits care about that kind of thing.
It's not the 90s anymore.
No doubt. As of 2021 Adidas had almost 30% of of the 130 FBS schools aligned with the brand.
https://boardroom.tv/ncaa-football-apparel-brand-partners/
Quote:
Arizona State, Arkansas State, Central Michigan, East Carolina, Eastern Michigan, FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern, Kansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana Tech, Louisville, Massachusets, Miami (FL), Miami (OH), Mississippi State, NC State, Nebraska, Nevada, Northern Illinois, Ohio, Rice, Rutgers, San Jose State, South Alabama, South Florida, Southern Miss, Texas A&M, Texas State, Troy, Tulsa, UTSA, Washington, Western Michigan, Wyoming
Oh an obnoxious poster trying to be clever.greg.w.h said:Oh the moral outrage…an Aggie being mad to try and incite fellow Aggies against the school.AtticusMatlock said:
The contract term started in July 2022 and we're just now hearing about it?
greg.w.h said:You didn't explain why Henry affiliates with Nike. You did wave your hands around a lot.20ag07 said:The reason that Track is exempted from the rest of the relationship is that it is irrelevant to the business model.Quote:
Pat Henry may disagree…his contract permits him an exception from the Adidas relationship. Presumably that matters to him.
Pat Henry isn't recruiting track athletes based on the brand of spikes that they wear.
And the rest of the relevant sports are not full of kids who are wearing Nike everyday and are disappointed they might have to wear Adidas.
I bet you really like to hear yourself talk and people avoid you like the plague at parties.
"Traditional" to you because that's what they looked like when you were in school? We had stripes on the pants in the 70s through the early 80s, and only added the name on the front of the jersey during the middle of the Slocum years. That's why they look like high school/Big 12 uniforms.
I liked the Manziel era unis and thought they were much more distinctive than the 90s/ current ones.
It's all just opinions, man.
I liked the Manziel era unis and thought they were much more distinctive than the 90s/ current ones.
It's all just opinions, man.