Adidas Contract info

[engie]

Howland having long ties to Adidas doesn't mean he took a job at MSU because of those ties. That's dumb as hell to say. It could have played a part if he had formed good relationships with people at Adidas and those people also have some relationship with MSU, but its not like he came to MSU because we have a contract with a clothing company.

You love stats, and im sure you will destroy the following, but they don't support your claim that many elite prospects are tied to an apparel provider long before they sign with a school. Sure- a school's apparel will help if the recruits are in an AAU program sponsored by that company, but its by no means some signed sealed delivered setup.
Out of 40 top10 players, 24 were with Nike AAU clubs. 16 signed with Nike teams. That’s based on the data below. It should be clear that players are willing to sign with colleges that don’t have clothing contracts with the company that sponsored those players’ AAU programs.
A Courier-Journal database shows that 58 percent of the Rivals.com's top 10 seniors in the signing classes beginning in 2011, the first class from the Nike-backed Elite Youth Basketball League, came from Nike clubs, and of those, 69 percent, or 20 players, committed to college teams sponsored by that apparel company. Four committed to adidas-sponsored colleges.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story...uits/17458319/

How many recruits have declared they will only play for a school that is tied to apparel company that sponsors their AAU team? Lets just go with the past 3 years. Go find em. They exist, absolutely, but its not like a Nike school is cut off from signing a player who was with an adidas AAU. Duke has and will continue to recruit adidas AAU players.

Show me where you learned that Howland was hired because he worked for a school that fired him who had a contract with adidas.

I'm confused where I claimed that Adidas is "the only reason that we got Howland"? That was an awful lot of effort to disprove a point that I wasn't making. But Adidas was a big factor. If we weren't with Adidas -- would we have had a shot at him? Probably not. Not as good of fit on his end. If he was going to just go with the best offer, he could have stayed at Arizona St who most felt was a better initial fit for him recruiting and stylistically anyway.

The rest of your hypothetical doesn't matter -- we don't get the AAU ties for the hypothetical without the coach first. So, 29 of the last 5 top 10 player classes were on Nike teams(29-50) -- and 20 of these players went to Nike schools -- and you think this somehow proves your point that it doesn't matter? That's pushing 70% not even considering the guys that didn't make it into school or went overseas. Adidas got like 13% of those Nike league guys. That's a pretty incredible trend whether you want to admit it to yourself or not...

 

[messageboardsuperhero]

Dropping Adidas would be so dumb. The only people even suggesting we do that are a fringe of our fans who are overreacting to this, or UM fans who would love for us to drop them because they know it would hurt us.

 

[chuckster.sixpack]

I can assure you the entire nation is not discussing the T-shirt snafu, and the ones who are discussing are not speaking well of MSU. If you want to bring attention to the Athletics program, then any positive publicity would be great: Push more articles on the new Bully mascot taking over, sent out photos of our uniform combos for next Fall including the unis for the UMiss game, get Dak interviewed on ESPN, get Howland interviewed on ESPN......the list is endless.

Sometimes you see stuff in the Internet that makes you shake your head - like when someone posts that this tweet shirts deal is a national story. That's silly.

 

[121Josey]

I don't understand the point of your post. Was it an attempt to disagree with my quote?

You said what you haven't read. I was wondering if you read anything. If not, then you have no basis for your post.

 

[mstateglfr]

You said what you haven't read. I was wondering if you read anything. If not, then you have no basis for your post.

Yes, I have read a lot. None of what I have read stated he was hired because adidas has a clothing contract with MSU.

 

[mstateglfr]

I'm confused where I claimed that Adidas is "the only reason that we got Howland"? That was an awful lot of effort to disprove a point that I wasn't making. But Adidas was a big factor. If we weren't with Adidas -- would we have had a shot at him? Probably not. Not as good of fit on his end. If he was going to just go with the best offer, he could have stayed at Arizona St who most felt was a better initial fit for him recruiting and stylistically anyway.

The rest of your hypothetical doesn't matter -- we don't get the AAU ties for the hypothetical without the coach first. So, 29 of the last 5 top 10 player classes were on Nike teams(29-50) -- and 20 of these players went to Nike schools -- and you think this somehow proves your point that it doesn't matter? That's pushing 70% not even considering the guys that didn't make it into school or went overseas. Adidas got like 13% of those Nike league guys. That's a pretty incredible trend whether you want to admit it to yourself or not...

You didn’t claim that adidas is the only reason that we got Howland. You claimed the basketball program would blow up if we got rid of adidas. Your claim is absurd.

As for the numbers- you are usually great with numbers- but not here. You claimed guys will only go to a school with the same shoe company as their AAU. Yes, that is true, but its also isnt happening nearly as often as this thread and your posts make it seem.
If you have an actual study that shows different from what I provided- by all means post it.
So 58% of the top 10 players were with an Nike affiliated AAU program. Of those 58%, 69% signed with Nike college programs. That’s 40% of the total. That just doesn’t support the claim that players are signing with colleges because of the AAU show affiliation. Look at how many college programs Nike sponsors! Ill give you help- it’s a lot.
Apparently Nike outfits 44 of the 65 power conference schools for 68% http://louisvillesportslive.net/nike-vs-adidas-in-bcs-football/
That’s football, but lets please go ahead and realize that the stats for basketball are going to be quite similar.

So Nike has about 2/3 of the market for apparel, 58% of the top 10 players were with Nike AAU programs, and 40% of the top 10 players signed with Nike schools. How does 40% of the top 10 players signing with Nike schools when 58% of them could show recruits are brand loyal? Especially when you consider that about 66% of schools are clothed by Nike?
Apparently 52 of 68 tournament teams in ’13 wore Nike. That’s 76%. http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2013/03/18/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Shoe-Chart.aspx


Perhaps players are with a Nike AAU program and sign with a Nike college most often because Nike has the vast majority of sponsorships? Just tossing that out there as a possibility.

 

[missouridawg]

I guess my definition of national news story is different than yours...

http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/sto...vegas-hidden-message-ole-miss-scott-stricklin


http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/201...ate-baseball-warmups-school-north-upside-down


http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015...ippi-state-baseball-viva-stark-vegas-uniforms


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eys-contained-profane-message-about-ole-miss/


Those 4 were just on the first page of my google search.

The second page contains links from:
CBS Sports
ESPN
Sun Herald
Bar Stool Sports
Saturday Down South
OregonLive.com

The third page contains links from:
Deadspin
CollegeBaseballDaily.com

 

[missouridawg]

Everyone has complained about the experiments up to this point. I'm not sure why this scenario is any different.

I'm in the camp that doesn't get excited about 17 uni combos. Lots of flair at this point with little substance.

We got praised for one of the combo's earlier in the year from some media outlets.

I think people are having a hard time separating the experiments from wins/losses. If we were in the top 3 in the SEC, everyone would probably love it.

 

[engie]

You didn’t claim that adidas is the only reason that we got Howland. You claimed the basketball program would blow up if we got rid of adidas. Your claim is absurd.

Uhhh -- no I didn't. Not even close actually. Even after being told you are going full retard on a point not made by me -- you are still going full retard on a point not made by me while still attributing it to me. I dunno how many times I need to go thru it before I just call you and idiot and move on?

As for the numbers- you are usually great with numbers- but not here. You claimed guys will only go to a school with the same shoe company as their AAU.

Again -- no, the 17, I didn't. I showed how our association with Adidas helps us. I didn't even remotely speak in absolutes that you are attributing to me -- but then again, I basically didn't say anything you are attributing to me anyway.

Yes, that is true, but its also isnt happening nearly as often as this thread and your posts make it seem.

Only 70% of the time -- per your own data.

If you have an actual study that shows different from what I provided- by all means post it.
So 58% of the top 10 players were with an Nike affiliated AAU program. Of those 58%, 69% signed with Nike college programs. That’s 40% of the total. That just doesn’t support the claim that players are signing with colleges because of the AAU show affiliation.

You aren't very good at data analysis. Once you choose to look at the 58% with Nike -- they are 100% of your sample size unless you go thru the same date for the other 42%, which you have not done. So, in reality, 70% are signing with their AAU sponsors when that sponsor is Nike. Versus what ?14%? Signing with Adidas. So those guys are 5x as likely to go with Nike compared to Adidas -- and here you are thinking this proves your point that it doesn't matter? I can't understand this for you.

Look at how many college programs Nike sponsors! Ill give you help- it’s a lot.
Apparently Nike outfits 44 of the 65 power conference schools for 68% http://louisvillesportslive.net/nike-vs-adidas-in-bcs-football/
That’s football, but lets please go ahead and realize that the stats for basketball are going to be quite similar.

Football and basketball are two COMPLETELY different animals on this. You might as well have used Rugby to try to accommodate whatever point you are attempting to make.

So Nike has about 2/3 of the market for apparel, 58% of the top 10 players were with Nike AAU programs, and 40% of the top 10 players signed with Nike schools. How does 40% of the top 10 players signing with Nike schools when 58% of them could show recruits are brand loyal? Especially when you consider that about 66% of schools are clothed by Nike?
Apparently 52 of 68 tournament teams in ’13 wore Nike. That’s 76%. http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2013/03/18/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Shoe-Chart.aspx

Meaningless cross sport inferences used to try to produce meaningful data? Pls.

Perhaps players are with a Nike AAU program and sign with a Nike college most often because Nike has the vast majority of sponsorships? Just tossing that out there as a possibility.

Yet we are not talking about Nike. Their numbers are virtually meaningless to Adidas' numbers. Of course the big dog is going to play the game differently than the smaller dogs playing catch-up. Nike doesn't have to overpay like the smaller guys do. Go ahead and look up the most lucrative uniform contracts in college sports and get back to me. You won't be seeing much Nike at the top. Overpayment + earlier "recruitment" = greater loyalty out of Adidas and UA guys IMO.

 

[engie]

As of this year, in spite of only having 12 of 65 overall power 5 contracts, Adidas has a clean sweep on the five most lucrative deals. In spite of providing 44 of 65 overall contracts, Nike only has 1 in the top 8 most lucrative. Under Armour has two of the top 8 most lucrative in spite of only having 8 overall contracts, double the number that Nike has.

Just to pre-empt your rebuttal of my final statements in the previous post.

 

[mstateglfr]

Great goodness.


1- do schools wear a different clothing company for football than basketball? If not, then the provider for football would be the same for basketball. In Jordan Brand's case, itd be Nike for football. Let me know if schools wear different clothing brands for each sport.

2- If players sign go to a school because of clothing/shoe affiliation, then 100% of the 58% would go, not 69%. This shows others go to Nike schools that weren't part of Nike AAU and Nike AAU players go to schools that aren't Nike.

3- Again, Nike dominates the landscape. If I am a top 10 recruit from Iowa, played for the All Iowa Attack AAU team which is Nike sponsored, and signed with U ofIowa- then I fit the parameters of being one of those who signs with a program sponsored by the same as my AAU. But that ignores the hypothetical that I am from Iowa, grew up watching Iowa play, and wanted to stay in state.

4- I mention the number of basketball teams in the '13 NCAAT wearing Nike and you claim it to be a 'meaningless cross sport inference'? What cross sport?

 

[engie]

You do a pretty poor job of straw manning my position to argue against. Again attributing absolutes to me that I never stated nor claimed(while also failing to own the fact that you've already done that multiethnic times in this very thread. Again missing the forest for the trees. But hey, if you can't argue the actual position, just make one up and argue against that one. Maybe people won't notice the difference. Not sure how you want me to argue a position I never took...

The bottom line is -- yes -- it friggin matters. And 1 in 6 defying the trend does nothing but destroy your own point. Hey -- playing for the home state obviously doesn't matter to football players because 1 in 6 leaves the state**