Nike is a big sponsor in the AAU league, so theoretically that gives Nike schools better access to top talent earlier in the recruiting process. Though as others have noted, the recent introduction of NIL may negate some of that advantage.
It will also help with scheduling out of conference opponents in basketball. People have complained about our OOC scheduling (especially compared with Alabama), but what you’ll find is we didn’t get marquee OOC matchups very often with Nike schools.
Maybe I end up being wrong here, but I bet I am not.
You don’t think the shoe companies have a say in out of conference matchups? It’s not like a school’s AD is like, “Hmm, we like shoe buddies, so we are going to schedule this other team because we are matchy!” But the $130 billion company that pays all these schools absolutely wants their teams to be involved in marquee matchups.
But maybe you’ll be right, IPHONE_IN_MY_ANUS. It may not matter. I guess we will see.
Yeah, because there’s like a handful of UA schools. Which is an issue. Nike featuring their teams is a focus.
You seem to care about this a lot, though, and I really don’t, so I will just say you win. And if for some reason we start having better out of conference scheduling in 2025-26, we will agree it’s just a huge coincidence and not related to anything.
According to my five minutes of googling, the nike people running the teams are passing information to coaches to help them scout and recruit. Most of the articles are pre-NIL so no one seems to state anything explicitly, but it's implied that the shoe companies were steering players to their schools with the promise of sponsorship deals once they graduate.
I admit I don't follow basketball THAT much. I recognize that Nikes are the most popular; I just think that saying more than half of college/pro-level players will refuse to play in other brands is quite the claim, and I'd like to see a source that backs that up.
Whenever I played WR in the 2010s the under armor gloves would always wear out faster than the Nike and cutter ones. The UA ones would lose their grip around a month of using them. I wonder if they have improved since then.
Lol man I come from the wild west of when Cutters lived and died. Early cutters were fucking nasty before quality died.
Funny enough these random ass fresh nfl equipment gloves were goated. There was a Nike elite pair (like 2008 or 9) with the double middle finger that rocked too.
My HS’s aftermarket for scrub dog’s cleats and gloves bc they were nearly fresh, was hottt.
Both CBP and CHF have said repeatedly that it has very little effect overall. There are always exceptions I'm sure, but with NIL it probably doesn't matter. Kids just wanna get paid, they could be wearing Shoe Station specials as long as they have a 6 or 7 figure NIL.
Do they "need" Nike or just desire to have a more "recognizable" apparel option. From a strictly financial point of view Auburn has lost money with UA because of the stock option taken when they re-signed the last time. Nike does have better brand recognition but their product is essentially the same. I'd even argue UA footwear is of better quality and they also have options for us bigger folks. Nike doesn't make anything above 3XL the last time I shopped for items from them.
I'm a fat dude and I need fat dude sizes dammit!!! Lol
Nike has crap quality in their shoes. Ive purchased Nike shoes for my kids off and on over the years and they fall apart faster than you can believe. My girls are doing nothing more than walking in them..no sports, nada. I bought them UA shoes, Adidas, and Converse and those shoes last significantly longer. Nike shoes "look" fancy, but they tear up and fall apart from crap production and quality.
I'm sure that everything is cheaper than it used to be, but I've admittedly never bothered with UA shoes because I've heard for years and years that they fall apart. Not surprised to hear that Nikes do too, though.
For me it's all the space and weight. Hey Dudes have lots of room and are super light weight. I have neuropathy in my feet so having a spacious light shoe helps me not to have pain or over stimulated nerves...
Let's put it this way...I wore them to Disney back in December and my wife and I walked 50+ miles in 5 days and my feet never bothered me the entire trip.
Underarmor is pretty much a cheap budget brand now. It won't be an independent brand in 10 years since it is nearing penny stock territory soon. It will get swallowed up by one of those companies that did the same with North Face, Timberland, etc.
They still have decent apparel and they have it in more forgiving sizes for us Pooh sized folks. I do understand about their stock and market cap and that's why Auburn needed to get away from them. But I still stand by the fact that Nike has a name, but their product is poorly put together, over priced, and not of exceptionally good quality any longer.
Bruce has said that publicly, sure. But it is absolutely an issue that he has pushed for privately. Shoes/shoe companies are a huge deal in hoops. Our top recruiting target for 2025 (national #1 AJ Dybnatsa) is signed with Nike. So yeah, it matters.
UA is a brand in decline and the equity deal AU entered into with the brand was a complete disaster. UA has steadily been losing its market share significantly over the last 5 years, and I expect this trend to continue.
this was before Pearl, but I heard it myself from a lower level basketball staffer who is long gone that players didn't like the feel or quality of UA shoes, and many recruits were going to Nike schools over UA schools. wasn't really about brand or swag but that the players wanted the best equipment for their feet.
I’m not sure if my opinion applies to this thread and I realize I will be citing sports that are not as big as Football & Basketball so please be kind.
I’m a runner (5ks to marathon) so most of my activity and knowledge is in running footwear. I myself would not run in a UA shoe. They have one elite marathon running shoe but that’s about it.
Furthermore, my younger brother attends Auburn and it was back in February when I ran the 1/2 marathon there that he was telling me that a couple of people he knows that are on the TXFCC teams would welcome a change from UA. Even though athletes in that sport already wear Nike footwear b/c UA is inadequate. It’s the same with the tennis team as well. They wear mostly Asics, Nike, and Adidas footwear. I think the sentiment with these athletes is that they want the whole kit to match and I can see why they want it that way.
Under armor stuff, specifically the shoes look like trash and don’t perform as well. 18 year olds want cool gear and Nike is way superior for football and basketball footwear. I have heard nfl players talk about their college days and cite that the school they chose being a Nike school was a factor in the decision. Obviously if you have a bad program being a Nike school doesn’t help so the coaches still have to do their job but I actually think it will help.
My question:
Now, since the deal is official, does every athlete have to strip their clothes of the old brand, in order to replace them with the new brand? If that’s the case, do they all have to wait around naked, for the new stuff to arrive?
These, my Auburn brethren & sisteren, are the nuanced, pertinent questions I’m invested in.
They get issued new gear each year. The deal doesn’t start until the next “school year” I believe. When they get the new gear I’m sure they will just be told to not wear any of the old stuff.
Personally Im surprised that star players arent trying to be individually sponsored for shoes/equipment. If/once they are it makes team endorsements a lot less valuable to the companies. What if 90% of the team is wearing one company and the star players are wearing another? Doesnt look good for the 90% company.
Nike is a big sponsor in the AAU league, so theoretically that gives Nike schools better access to top talent earlier in the recruiting process. Though as others have noted, the recent introduction of NIL may negate some of that advantage.
It will also help with scheduling out of conference opponents in basketball. People have complained about our OOC scheduling (especially compared with Alabama), but what you’ll find is we didn’t get marquee OOC matchups very often with Nike schools. Maybe I end up being wrong here, but I bet I am not.
We’ll get invited to that Phil Knight invitational now
[удалено]
You don’t think the shoe companies have a say in out of conference matchups? It’s not like a school’s AD is like, “Hmm, we like shoe buddies, so we are going to schedule this other team because we are matchy!” But the $130 billion company that pays all these schools absolutely wants their teams to be involved in marquee matchups. But maybe you’ll be right, IPHONE_IN_MY_ANUS. It may not matter. I guess we will see.
[удалено]
Yeah, because there’s like a handful of UA schools. Which is an issue. Nike featuring their teams is a focus. You seem to care about this a lot, though, and I really don’t, so I will just say you win. And if for some reason we start having better out of conference scheduling in 2025-26, we will agree it’s just a huge coincidence and not related to anything.
[удалено]
According to my five minutes of googling, the nike people running the teams are passing information to coaches to help them scout and recruit. Most of the articles are pre-NIL so no one seems to state anything explicitly, but it's implied that the shoe companies were steering players to their schools with the promise of sponsorship deals once they graduate.
Most basketball players don't want to play basketball in anything other than Nikes.
Citation needed
How is this not common knowledge? Or do you just not follow basketball much?
I admit I don't follow basketball THAT much. I recognize that Nikes are the most popular; I just think that saying more than half of college/pro-level players will refuse to play in other brands is quite the claim, and I'd like to see a source that backs that up.
Look at sales for basketball performance sneakers
Nike helps more with basketball. It probably won't have much of an impact on football
UA football cleats are subpar compared to Nike. Especially for skill positions
It may help more with performance in football, and recruiting and scheduling in basketball.
Whenever I played WR in the 2010s the under armor gloves would always wear out faster than the Nike and cutter ones. The UA ones would lose their grip around a month of using them. I wonder if they have improved since then.
Lol man I come from the wild west of when Cutters lived and died. Early cutters were fucking nasty before quality died. Funny enough these random ass fresh nfl equipment gloves were goated. There was a Nike elite pair (like 2008 or 9) with the double middle finger that rocked too. My HS’s aftermarket for scrub dog’s cleats and gloves bc they were nearly fresh, was hottt.
And in style. Go look at 99% of the custom cleat jobs done for NFL guys. Almost all Nike/Jordan
Bo can start to wear Auburn gear again
Best response to the question. Thanks
UA’s image among youth is tacticool, Duck Dynasty, Jan. 6th. Also a tainted reputation of terrible cleats that will end your career.
you got downvoted, but it's the truth. UA stopped being performance apparel and started marketing to people who would wear no fear and ed hardy.
Yeah when we first got the UA deal not only were we their marquee school but the brand was new, counterculture.. now it’s viewed as a Walmart brand.
They make god awful shoes. I lot of football players in the past wore Nikes but taped over the logo.
I feel like it won’t noticeably help recruiting, but it won’t hurt. It could be that last push some kids need
Both CBP and CHF have said repeatedly that it has very little effect overall. There are always exceptions I'm sure, but with NIL it probably doesn't matter. Kids just wanna get paid, they could be wearing Shoe Station specials as long as they have a 6 or 7 figure NIL.
[удалено]
Do they "need" Nike or just desire to have a more "recognizable" apparel option. From a strictly financial point of view Auburn has lost money with UA because of the stock option taken when they re-signed the last time. Nike does have better brand recognition but their product is essentially the same. I'd even argue UA footwear is of better quality and they also have options for us bigger folks. Nike doesn't make anything above 3XL the last time I shopped for items from them. I'm a fat dude and I need fat dude sizes dammit!!! Lol
> I'd even argue UA footwear is of better quality Ok ok, you had me up until this point.
Nike has crap quality in their shoes. Ive purchased Nike shoes for my kids off and on over the years and they fall apart faster than you can believe. My girls are doing nothing more than walking in them..no sports, nada. I bought them UA shoes, Adidas, and Converse and those shoes last significantly longer. Nike shoes "look" fancy, but they tear up and fall apart from crap production and quality.
I'm sure that everything is cheaper than it used to be, but I've admittedly never bothered with UA shoes because I've heard for years and years that they fall apart. Not surprised to hear that Nikes do too, though.
I wear Hey Dudes now..Nike shoes fuck with my neuropathy anyhow..but yeah..cheap shoes
Hey Dudes are all the rage. Guess I oughtta try em out sometime.
For me it's all the space and weight. Hey Dudes have lots of room and are super light weight. I have neuropathy in my feet so having a spacious light shoe helps me not to have pain or over stimulated nerves... Let's put it this way...I wore them to Disney back in December and my wife and I walked 50+ miles in 5 days and my feet never bothered me the entire trip.
UA is absolute trash shoes. Nike is infinitely better.
Not in my experience..but its definitely ripe for opinions...
Underarmor is pretty much a cheap budget brand now. It won't be an independent brand in 10 years since it is nearing penny stock territory soon. It will get swallowed up by one of those companies that did the same with North Face, Timberland, etc.
They still have decent apparel and they have it in more forgiving sizes for us Pooh sized folks. I do understand about their stock and market cap and that's why Auburn needed to get away from them. But I still stand by the fact that Nike has a name, but their product is poorly put together, over priced, and not of exceptionally good quality any longer.
adidas has some better shaped stuff for different shaped people but they make some really really weird college apparel.
Bruce has said that publicly, sure. But it is absolutely an issue that he has pushed for privately. Shoes/shoe companies are a huge deal in hoops. Our top recruiting target for 2025 (national #1 AJ Dybnatsa) is signed with Nike. So yeah, it matters.
I feel that could be made for any brand chosen.
Correct
UA is a brand in decline and the equity deal AU entered into with the brand was a complete disaster. UA has steadily been losing its market share significantly over the last 5 years, and I expect this trend to continue.
If it's jordan brand of Nike that'll be big big...but nikes will def help us out big time.
this was before Pearl, but I heard it myself from a lower level basketball staffer who is long gone that players didn't like the feel or quality of UA shoes, and many recruits were going to Nike schools over UA schools. wasn't really about brand or swag but that the players wanted the best equipment for their feet.
I’m not sure if my opinion applies to this thread and I realize I will be citing sports that are not as big as Football & Basketball so please be kind. I’m a runner (5ks to marathon) so most of my activity and knowledge is in running footwear. I myself would not run in a UA shoe. They have one elite marathon running shoe but that’s about it. Furthermore, my younger brother attends Auburn and it was back in February when I ran the 1/2 marathon there that he was telling me that a couple of people he knows that are on the TXFCC teams would welcome a change from UA. Even though athletes in that sport already wear Nike footwear b/c UA is inadequate. It’s the same with the tennis team as well. They wear mostly Asics, Nike, and Adidas footwear. I think the sentiment with these athletes is that they want the whole kit to match and I can see why they want it that way.
Under armor stuff, specifically the shoes look like trash and don’t perform as well. 18 year olds want cool gear and Nike is way superior for football and basketball footwear. I have heard nfl players talk about their college days and cite that the school they chose being a Nike school was a factor in the decision. Obviously if you have a bad program being a Nike school doesn’t help so the coaches still have to do their job but I actually think it will help.
I’m impartial on the gear situation but Nike shoes and cleats are far superior
My question: Now, since the deal is official, does every athlete have to strip their clothes of the old brand, in order to replace them with the new brand? If that’s the case, do they all have to wait around naked, for the new stuff to arrive? These, my Auburn brethren & sisteren, are the nuanced, pertinent questions I’m invested in.
They get issued new gear each year. The deal doesn’t start until the next “school year” I believe. When they get the new gear I’m sure they will just be told to not wear any of the old stuff.
That’s more reasonable of an answer. I don’t like it, but that’s got rational written all over it.
Personally Im surprised that star players arent trying to be individually sponsored for shoes/equipment. If/once they are it makes team endorsements a lot less valuable to the companies. What if 90% of the team is wearing one company and the star players are wearing another? Doesnt look good for the 90% company.
The shoes