+ Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 31
FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 23 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 303

Thread: Michigan signs 8 year deal with adidas

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Jethro34
    So their media exposure has gone up with their 117 different possible uniform combinations. Has their recruiting ranking gone through the roof? Have they won more games?
    How many times do I have to say it? School appeal will not win you more games! My arguement the entire time is that Nike effects school appeal and a school's appeal can get the attention of some recruits and be a small little factor when trying to draw kids in.

    You guys have argued that it has no influence whatsoever, but when you are proven wrong, then you go to the "will it win you more games?" topic. Never said it would.

  2. #122
    Super Cogent Jethro34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Leading the resurgance
    Posts
    4,662
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTre11
    Totally agree! But wait, if what a school wears doesn't matter to recruits at all, then why would Oregon try a uniform gimmick? GOTCHA
    Because they, like other misinformed people, think it does matter. Phil Knight has them wrapped around his junk. It's his prescence in that area that made it happen. Much like UM went for adidas when the dollars came calling, Phil Knight pours money into Oregon. That's why they're doing it. Notice anyone else jumping on board?
    We had subs. It was crazy.

  3. #123
    Glenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Buxtons are not thieves.
    Posts
    2,904
    Blog Entries
    2
    Tre, your circular logic is pathetic.

    They (Oregon) do it because they crave relevance and they saw a niche and are trying to fill it with a gimmick.

    You got me, alright.

    I'll await your standard formulaic repsonse.

    *insult* *self congratulation* *insult* *self congratulation*
    Find a new slant.

  4. #124
    Super Cogent Jethro34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Leading the resurgance
    Posts
    4,662
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTre11
    How many times do I have to say it? School appeal will not win you more games! My arguement the entire time is that Nike effects school appeal and a school's appeal can get the attention of some recruits and be a small little factor when trying to draw kids in.

    You guys have argued that it has no influence whatsoever, but when you are proven wrong, then you go to the "will it win you more games?" topic. Never said it would.
    I missed the point of being proven wrong. Must have skipped that line. Was it because they were front page on SI and USA Today? Did you read those articles? I admit I didn't read the SI one, but I was travelling across the country with my father last summer when the USA Today article came out (either that or it was a USA Today from a different trip he went on that he had sitting around his house) and I read the article because I was amazed that their ugly uniforms had gone so far. Yeah, they get attention, but the article wasn't exactly praising the move. Meanwhile, media outlets such as ESPN continue to rip the uniforms as being an embarrassment to the game of equal proportion to Boise State's blue field. I don't know, is the blue field sponsored by Nike? I bet guys go there just for the field. Of course, their alternative is going to Wyoming, but they have brown and yellow uni's and nobody wants to look like the inside of a toilet, right?
    We had subs. It was crazy.

  5. #125
    Glenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Buxtons are not thieves.
    Posts
    2,904
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTre11
    HORRIBLE DECISION.
    Okay, now that this discussion is several weeks old, can you (Tre) explain again why this was such a "horrible decision"? You've changed positions a few times so let's get it out on the table all nice and clear.

    Save the insults for one post, um-k?
    Find a new slant.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn
    Okay, now that this discussion is several weeks old, can you (Tre) explain again why this was such a "horrible decision"? You've changed positions a few times so let's get it out on the table all nice and clear.

    Save the insults for one post, um-k?
    I NEVER CHANGED MY POSITION ONCE. I'm sorry if this comes acrossed as an insult, but when you ask me to explain my stance when I've done so 4-5 times, I question intelligence.

    Lets explain it again. I believe Nike makes the best stuff out there. Nike is the best in regards to sports technology, apparel, unis, advertising, etc. etc. There is no questioning Nike being the king company in sports. When you go with Nike, they provide you with a great look that appeals to the under 30 age bracket.

    For the under 30 fans out there, this was a HORRIBLE DECISION. I'm 26. So to me, and moodini, and bball11, etc. this was a horrible decision. Why? You want your team looking great and you want to be able to buy great team apparel.

    Now I said that Nike can effect the appeal of your university because of the look they provide. Do looks matter to high schoolers? Do I have to answer that? So can a look make your university more appealing to recruits? yes. For those of you that jump to conclusions, let's answer the jumping to conclusions questions once more:

    >Will a recruit not come to Michigan now that they are with Addidas? No
    >Will Michigan now suck because they don't have a swoosh on their uni? No
    >Is this a "HUGE DEAL?" Let me carefully explain so you don't think I'm "changing my stance." No in regards to overall performace, grand scheme of things, etc. etc. Huge deal for younger guys like Moodini and I that want to rock the great gear and have our teams look tight? Yup.

    Do you understand my take after 15 paragraphs now?

  7. #127
    Glenn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Buxtons are not thieves.
    Posts
    2,904
    Blog Entries
    2
    Yes, that does clarify it.

    This is a HORRIBLE DECISION for guys like you.

    It sure sounded like you were saying that this was a HORRIBLE DECISION for Michigan (see the last few lines of post #6 in this thread), but I don't see that in your most recent post, so thanks for clarifying further.
    Find a new slant.

  8. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenn
    Yes, that does clarify it.

    This is a HORRIBLE DECISION for guys like you.

    It sure sounded like you were saying that this was a HORRIBLE DECISION for Michigan (see the last few lines of post #6 in this thread), but I don't see that in your most recent post, so thanks for clarifying further.
    That's all I was saying the entire time. From a younger guy perspective, it was a mistake and sucky for those that care about gear.

  9. #129
    Super Cogent Jethro34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Leading the resurgance
    Posts
    4,662
    I guess I still don't see why the gear is considered sucky. I've had both and I didn't experience an amazing difference in performance.

    So it seems like the difference in the gear is actually just about a logo. So what, is this the difference between the kid that was wearing a polo logo on the exact same shirt that didn't have the polo logo? btw, I know you feel polo and that wasn't a personal shot, just the most obvious.
    We had subs. It was crazy.

  10. #130
    Nike Uniforms and Team Gear looks better. Go to Nike.com and check out the authentic uniforms and then go to Addidas.com and check out the authentic uniforms.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts