PDA

View Full Version : Tom Izzo's $400,000/year salary from Nike and other interesting tidbits



DavidBenAkiva
09-05-2013, 07:12 PM
As a Duke basketball fan for life, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tom Izzo and the Michigan State Spartans. I have nothing but respect for him and the program. That being said, I cam across this article (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/09/nike-adidas-college-campus-business.html?page=all) from Matthew Kish of the Portland Business Journal. He did the audacious (and probably obvious) thing and submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to see the contracts 125 FBS schools have with Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour.

In exchange for shoes, cleats, and jerseys, the schools have some very interesting stipulations in the contracts inserted by the shoe companies. If Izzo is getting a large annual salary from Nike, I can only assume Coach K has a similar salary from them as well. I wonder what Kish will turn up about Duke and the other ACC schools. Maryland's contract with Under Armour might be worth taking a look at...

Duvall
09-05-2013, 07:20 PM
As a Duke basketball fan for life, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tom Izzo and the Michigan State Spartans. I have nothing but respect for him and the program. That being said, I cam across this article (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/09/nike-adidas-college-campus-business.html?page=all) from Matthew Kish of the Portland Business Journal. He did the audacious (and probably obvious) thing and submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to see the contracts 125 FBS schools have with Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour.

In exchange for shoes, cleats, and jerseys, the schools have some very interesting stipulations in the contracts inserted by the shoe companies. If Izzo is getting a large annual salary from Nike, I can only assume Coach K has a similar salary from them as well. I wonder what Kish will turn up about Duke and the other ACC schools.

It's hard to know where Nike's contracts have ended up, but there's no Freedom of Information Act that would apply to Nike or Duke athletics.

cato
09-05-2013, 08:34 PM
As a Duke basketball fan for life, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tom Izzo and the Michigan State Spartans. I have nothing but respect for him and the program. That being said, I cam across this article (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/09/nike-adidas-college-campus-business.html?page=all) from Matthew Kish of the Portland Business Journal. He did the audacious (and probably obvious) thing and submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to see the contracts 125 FBS schools have with Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour.

In exchange for shoes, cleats, and jerseys, the schools have some very interesting stipulations in the contracts inserted by the shoe companies. If Izzo is getting a large annual salary from Nike, I can only assume Coach K has a similar salary from them as well. I wonder what Kish will turn up about Duke and the other ACC schools. Maryland's contract with Under Armour might be worth taking a look at...

Duvall beat me to it, but two things: (1) Duke is private, so FOIA etc. ain't going to get contracts released, and (2) shouldn't K be getting more than Izzo?

allenmurray
09-05-2013, 10:42 PM
Duvall beat me to it, but two things: (1) Duke is private, so FOIA etc. ain't going to get contracts released, and (2) shouldn't K be getting more than Izzo?

Given the incredibly ugly jerseys Nike has foisted on Duke from time to time I imagine Coach K is very well paid by Nike. Selling your university's history and tradition shouldn't come cheap.

greybeard
09-06-2013, 02:34 PM
Coaches should not be able to have any voice in choosing which company will supply the gear his players wear and schools should not be able to accept any payment for choosing the suppliers. (By the way, K is on the Board of Nike, and I believe earns several million for doing so.) This serving as a marketing tool for product sullies higher education, and makes college sport into the biggest marketing game the world has ever known. These practices should stop, but they obviously won't.

If you want to see how far this can go, check out a half hour ESPN piece comprising a tour of a new practice facility Nike's founder built for the University of Oregon, his alma mater. Obscene. High end Italian leather lounge furniture looking out through huge glass walls on two practice fields, an outdoor veranda with chairs that could pass for pieces of museum quality sculpture, player lounge, recreation, and video rooms for chilling out, a video room to watch film, all of which are state of the art and wreak of the indulgences of a billionaire, offices that are similarly over the top, glass walls that move, a meeting room that is space age and beautiful (the walls, above incredible wood paneling are a high gloss black material that serves the double function of looking terrific and serving as "blackboards" that erase magically on the push of a button, the finest quality of woods and stone used throughout (this is best exemplified by the floor in the weight room--a gorgeous floor made of a Brazilian wood floor, the wood just happens to be the hardest in the world, so much for global warming). There is much more only I began to become ill watching so cannot remember.

The captain of the football team, an extremely well spoken young man, said with a straight face that the opulence of the facility gave the players an added incentive to win, to play all out. He said the same thing about the fact that Nike surprises them each game with a different "outfit," helmets through shoes, to give the players that feel of specialness we all need to do our best.

So, who pays for all this? The workers in South East Asia who work for pennies an hour, and the schnucks who can't afford it spending hundreds of dollars on Nike product each year.

And, "you tell me, over and over and over again, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction."

Duvall
09-06-2013, 02:50 PM
(By the way, K is on the Board of Nike, and I believe earns several million for doing so.).

Where did you see this?

Billy Dat
09-06-2013, 02:59 PM
Where did you see this?

I don't see K, but I do see Big John Thompson
http://nike.q4web.com/Investors/Corporate-Governance/Board-of-Directors/default.aspx

77devil
09-06-2013, 04:04 PM
Originally Posted by greybeard
(By the way, K is on the Board of Nike, and I believe earns several million for doing so.).


I don't see K, but I do see Big John Thompson
http://nike.q4web.com/Investors/Corporate-Governance/Board-of-Directors/default.aspx

Not only is K not on the board as Billy Dat notes, but the several million dollars figure for board service is, not surprisingly, grossly exaggerated, and if true would represent the largest U.S. public company board fee for an outside director by a large margin.

Now I do recall reading back in 2004 when the Lakers came calling that Coach K's contract with Nike was worth about one million annually, but my memory has been mistaken before.

hurleyfor3
09-07-2013, 11:43 AM
An active coach on Nike's BoD would be a huge conflict of interest (for Nike, less so the college).

DavidBenAkiva
09-07-2013, 01:22 PM
I don't see K, but I do see Big John Thompson
http://nike.q4web.com/Investors/Corporate-Governance/Board-of-Directors/default.aspx

It looks like Tim Cook, who graduated from Fuqua School of Business at Duke, is on the board of Nike. I'm mollified that a Dukie is on the board. I just wish Cook could exert some pressure to bring back those glorious blue road jerseys! When was the last time we wore those, against North Carolina in 2004? That ended well (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctpBdfl2yP0).

cf-62
09-07-2013, 08:54 PM
It looks like Tim Cook, who graduated from Fuqua School of Business at Duke, is on the board of Nike. I'm mollified that a Dukie is on the board. I just wish Cook could exert some pressure to bring back those glorious blue road jerseys! When was the last time we wore those, against North Carolina in 2004? That ended well (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctpBdfl2yP0).

A) Black is beautiful. I wish we never wore blue again

B) The choice of color each game is CAPTAIN'S choice, not Nikes.

I bet you wish we had short shorts again, too.

75Crazie
09-07-2013, 09:58 PM
A) Black is beautiful. I wish we never wore blue again
Duke blue is "blue", not black. Duke wearing black with royal blue trim is just about as ridiculous as Carolina wearing navy blue with baby blue trim.

Jarhead
09-07-2013, 10:33 PM
A) Black is beautiful. I wish we never wore blue again

B) The choice of color each game is CAPTAIN'S choice, not Nikes.

I bet you wish we had short shorts again, too.

If we were not to wear blue again then what happens to our historic name, the Blue Devils. Nike seems to be pushing black on everybody. Basketball shorts resemble skirts at any distance, or at any angle (except up).

sagegrouse
09-07-2013, 10:37 PM
If we were not to wear blue again then what happens to our historic name, the Blue Devils. Nike seems to be pushing black on everybody. Basketball shorts resemble skirts at any distance, or at any angle (except up).

An interesting tidbit of the past week was the statement of underhand free-throw shooter Canyon Barry that the long shorts interfered with the underhanded shot. Canyon is Rick Barry's grandson.

sagegrouse

cf-62
09-08-2013, 09:23 AM
If we were not to wear blue again then what happens to our historic name, the Blue Devils. Nike seems to be pushing black on everybody. Basketball shorts resemble skirts at any distance, or at any angle (except up).

Jarhead, our name comes from paying homage to a fighter squadron in WWI. I doubt they were blue.

Understand that fashions change - and that the players are college kids : and college kids care about fashion.

Black isn't "pushed" by Nike. It's requested by the players. If Black gets us bonus points for the recruits, then we should wear them. The fact is they look good. If your only reason to rail against them is that "Blue" is in our name, then it's time for you to drop the crusade and embrace them, because you'd have to be color-blind or seriously fashion-challenged to think they DON'T look good.

I, for one, am so happy that baggy shorts became mainstream, because I would hate to think what my 40+ pick-up games would look like if everyone wore short shorts - blech!

cf-62
09-08-2013, 09:32 AM
Duke blue is "blue", not black. Duke wearing black with royal blue trim is just about as ridiculous as Carolina wearing navy blue with baby blue trim.

I didn't say Duke Blue was Black. I said the Black uniforms are awesome - and they are. And in case you haven't noticed, there is an AWFUL LOT of navy blue Carolina gear floating around - and it looks good. In fact, their football team wears that color quite a bit at home. Nobody complains, because it doesn't weaken their school color. It's just a different look.

Our football team has a set of silver pants (though we haven't worn them in a long time). Nobody complained that silver wasn't a school color. It's about creating a good look.

Another thing - I find it hard to listen to Dukies complain about black uniforms when the students (for decades) show up for games wearing anything BUT blue.
In the 80s and 90s, it was fashionable to NOT wear blue. Pink, green, aqua, orange, whatever you had, you wore. The bookstore sold the T-shirts. We bought them and wore them to the games. They all said DUKE, but the color wasn't important.

Now, of course, they wear costumes. I haven't quite understood that, but it's what they like to do. They have fun with it, and it's their thing. Honestly, it's better than everyone in the student section wearing a duke blue shirt saying "K's Krazies" or sometihing stupid like that.

Well, our players, from basketball to fencing, also like to express themselves with cool uniforms, not just the same old blue/blue and white/white. I will continue to wear my Scheyer and Williams jerseys (BLACK, of course) with pride - BECAUSE THEY SAY DUKE! along with my navy blue (not Duke Blue, either) Johnny D 24 that somehow made it into Fan Attic 2 years ago.

ChrisP
09-08-2013, 09:44 AM
Jarhead, our name comes from paying homage to a fighter squadron in WWI. I doubt they were blue.

Understand that fashions change - and that the players are college kids : and college kids care about fashion.

Black isn't "pushed" by Nike. It's requested by the players. If Black gets us bonus points for the recruits, then we should wear them. The fact is they look good. If your only reason to rail against them is that "Blue" is in our name, then it's time for you to drop the crusade and embrace them, because you'd have to be color-blind or seriously fashion-challenged to think they DON'T look good.

I, for one, am so happy that baggy shorts became mainstream, because I would hate to think what my 40+ pick-up games would look like if everyone wore short shorts - blech!

Actually, cf-62, the French soldiers from whom Duke adopted the nickname "Blue Devils" were blue. Or, at least their uniforms were a "distinctive blue", according to Duke University's own archives. They also wore a "flowing cape and jaunty beret". Look, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but to assert that the black uniforms look good as if it's a fact is just wrong. I, for one, hate the black uni's and happen to think that true "Duke blue" is a really beautiful color that I wish our teams would wear more often. But hey, that's just my opinion.

cspan37421
09-08-2013, 09:56 AM
Jarhead, our name comes from paying homage to a fighter squadron in WWI. I doubt they were blue.


You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/history/histnotes/why_blue_devil.html

cf-62
09-08-2013, 10:20 AM
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/history/histnotes/why_blue_devil.html

No, I stand by my statement - THEY weren't blue. They wore blue :;)

SilkyJ
09-08-2013, 04:14 PM
(By the way, K is on the Board of Nike, and I believe earns several million for doing so.)

What an outlandish, completely false statement. Where did you come up with this? A quick google search for "nike board" (top result (http://nike.q4web.com/Investors/Corporate-Governance/Board-of-Directors/default.aspx)) would have been helpful here

Henderson
09-08-2013, 04:23 PM
Ah, the internets. No, Coach K is NOT on the Nike board of directors, and no, the "Blue Devils" were not named after a French WWI unit. There may have been some small influence on the latter point, but it doesn't hold up as a direct "named after" thing.

greybeard
09-08-2013, 04:38 PM
My bad about the conflict-of-interest business. The rest stands.

However, K's income from Nike is not chump change. While the exact numbers do not seem to be clear (http://dukecheck.com/?p=3037), the annual payment seems to be $375,000; one source reported that there was also one million as a signing bonus when Duke basketball switched from Adidas to Nike. This to market multiple uniforms, shoes, practice and lots of other gear;, which also provide the Duke faithful lots of product to purchase. This is not counting indirect income in the form of a $2,000,000 plus contribution to a very worth-while charitable institution bearing K's name which K feels passionately about. There are scores and scores of other very worthwhile charitable and other public-interest institutions that could use such support. http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2001/08/29/report-raises-questions-duke;http://www.thenation.com/blog/164975/saluting-sick-system-sports-illustrated-honors-duke-coach-mike-krzyzewski#; http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/mike-krzyzewski-2011-income-compares-highest-paid-coaches-172431222.html.

Also, does anybody know how much Duke assistant coaches, past and present, receive income from Nike and how many former Duke players with name recognition do as well.

Listen, I know that everybody does it and have for a very long time. It was one thing when even big time coaches made very little, and companies gave players a couple pairs of shoes and uniforms. But current times are different and the monied interests we are talking about are huge and exploitive. They have helped to significant degree to make a mega industry of college sports, with the Nike's of the world giving free gear to the littles of the sports world, from the teen level on up through the beginning of college to create affinity groups for Nike gear, and to get the Nike name out there on a grass roots level. There have even been suggestions that kids chose where to play based upon which shoe company schools are affiliated with. And, a kid or college player who wears Nike stuff at Duke and who makes it in the pros; will they more likely to sign with Nike or a company to promote, and in some instances, advertise gear.

I'm not liking any of this. I hate when college sporting events, or entire tournaments, present on the air the names of their "corporate partners," I detest the exploitation of obscenely cheap labor in SE Asia that makes the marketing and sale of so much useless and overpriced stuff possible, and I do not think that sport would be any less popular with literally none of it.

K is no villain for taking part in all this for fairly big bucks, but I'm not absolving him either for failing to take a stand against it, by refusing to participate. But, then again, his University would not be getting its taste, and, what, that would be wrong. "What a revolting development this is." William Benedix, The Life of Riley.

Henderson
09-08-2013, 04:58 PM
There have even been suggestions that kids chose where to play based upon which shoe company schools are affiliated with. And, a kid or college player who wears Nike stuff at Duke and who makes it in the pros; will they more likely to sign with Nike or a company to promote, and in some instances, advertise gear.


I sort of agree with your statements (not captured in the quote above but in you comments above) regarding the financing of "Big School" intercollegiate athletics. There are nearly intractable issues on that front. But I don't think it's a cesspool for the kids. As a result of all the money flowing into the schools from sponsorship dollars, the kids have better equipment and better facilities for their physical development, and (UNC notwithstanding) have better access to tutoring to help them in their academics. The money flowing in pays for that stuff. At the very least, on the academic side, a major school can't say, "We'd like to do a better job with tutors and academic advisors, but we don't have the budget." That was the old days. Now they have the budget. Some schools use it, some don't. Some SAs use it; some dont.

But I strongly disagree that a sneaker contract creates any sort of conflict of interest. All the major shoe manufacturers make excellent shoes, and no major brand shoe will injure a player as a result of a bad design. So what's the downside to Coach K or Duke University getting money from Nike? Every campus is a Coke or Pepsi campus. Every campus is a Budweiser or Miller campus. It's not like the university is taking inferior goods for personal profit.

I also disagree that a kid is "more likely to sign with Nike" [or whomever] just because he wore those shoes in college. Do you have any support for that? If a kid makes it to the NBA, he makes his own sneaker deal, and you can bet that his agent isn't thinking about college sneaker loyalty.

Blue in the Face
09-08-2013, 07:21 PM
This is not counting indirect income in the form of a $2,000,000 plus contribution to a very worth-while charitable institution bearing K's name which K feels passionately about.
I'm sure K appreciates donations to charities he supports, but how is it indirect income?

77devil
09-08-2013, 10:52 PM
My bad about the conflict-of-interest business. The rest stands.

This is not counting indirect income in the form of a $2,000,000 plus contribution to a very worth-while charitable institution bearing K's name which K feels passionately about. There are scores and scores of other very worthwhile charitable and other public-interest institutions that could use such support. http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2001/08/29/report-raises-questions-duke;http://www.thenation.com/blog/164975/saluting-sick-system-sports-illustrated-honors-duke-coach-mike-krzyzewski#; http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/mike-krzyzewski-2011-income-compares-highest-paid-coaches-172431222.html.

I found no reference to a $2,000,000 contribution by Nike or anyone else in the links you provided, one of which doesn't work and another is a highly inflammatory blog. Hardly authoritative. More likely your number is a gross exaggeration or an outright falsehood. Care to substantiate?

Blue in the Face
09-08-2013, 11:19 PM
I found no reference to a $2,000,000 contribution by Nike or anyone else in the links you provided, one of which doesn't work and another is a highly inflammatory blog. Hardly authoritative. More likely your number is a gross exaggeration or an outright falsehood. Care to substantiate?

It was in the chronicle article he linked (the links don't really work in greybeard's post, but it's here (http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2001/08/29/report-raises-questions-duke)).


Perhaps one of Nike's most generous overtures toward Duke came two years ago when it donated $2.2 million to equip and staff the Michael W. Krzyzewski Human Performance Research Laboratory.

Olympic Fan
09-09-2013, 01:42 AM
Ah, the internets. No, Coach K is NOT on the Nike board of directors, and no, the "Blue Devils" were not named after a French WWI unit. There may have been some small influence on the latter point, but it doesn't hold up as a direct "named after" thing.

And where do you get this? According to Duke University itself, the nickname derives from the French Army Alpine unit from World War I, know as the Blue devils:

http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/history/histnotes/why_blue_devil.html

The article is written by former University Archivist William King, who is the go-to authority on Duke history. As he notes in the article, the origin of the Duke mascot is one of the most frequent questions that h had to answer -- and he notes that it WAS based on the French army unit.

Dev11
09-09-2013, 08:14 AM
The fact is [the black uniforms] look good.

That sounds like an opinion to me.

cf-62
09-09-2013, 10:12 AM
That sounds like an opinion to me.

a three game final four losing streak in blue is not.

Jarhead
09-09-2013, 10:26 AM
a three game final four losing streak in blue is not.
So now superstition is why black is important to you, eh? Well, that explains a lot. http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/6.gif

Dev11
09-09-2013, 11:07 AM
So now superstition is why black is important to you, eh? Well, that explains a lot. http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/6.gif

It's important to note, also, that we wear blue when we're the lower seeded team, so all we've done is fail to pull the upset the last three tournament games we weren't favored in. Good logic

Henderson
09-09-2013, 11:10 AM
And where do you get this? According to Duke University itself, the nickname derives from the French Army Alpine unit from World War I, know as the Blue devils:

http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/history/histnotes/why_blue_devil.html

The article is written by former University Archivist William King, who is the go-to authority on Duke history. As he notes in the article, the origin of the Duke mascot is one of the most frequent questions that h had to answer -- and he notes that it WAS based on the French army unit.


I've been reading that same article for years, and every time I read it I note that it does NOT say that the nickname came from the WWI French army unit. Read it again.

cf-62
09-09-2013, 11:34 AM
It's important to note, also, that we wear blue when we're the lower seeded team, so all we've done is fail to pull the upset the last three tournament games we weren't favored in. Good logic

Wrong!!!!!!!

NOT tournament games. Final Four games. Not that we weren't favored in. Either favored or "pick 'em." Just because we were picked as the visitor doesn't mean we weren't favored.

Look old people! Black is here to stay. I look forward to getting my black football jerseys, too. WHY I like it is really REALLY inconsequential. What you should know is that

OUR KIDS

like them. That's our players, our recruiting prospects, our students.

There are so many worse traditions being thrown away that you should be concerned with over the team wearing black road uniforms 2 or 3 times a year.

sagegrouse
09-09-2013, 11:38 AM
And where do you get this? According to Duke University itself, the nickname derives from the French Army Alpine unit from World War I, know as the Blue devils:

http://library.duke.edu/uarchives/history/histnotes/why_blue_devil.html

The article is written by former University Archivist William King, who is the go-to authority on Duke history. As he notes in the article, the origin of the Duke mascot is one of the most frequent questions that h had to answer -- and he notes that it WAS based on the French army unit.


I've been reading that same article for years, and every time I read it I note that it does NOT say that the nickname came from the WWI French army unit. Read it again.

In 1980 I attended the 75th anniversary celebration for the Duke Chronicle. There were a number of former editors on the dais at the Saturday banquet in the Gothic Dining Room, each representing a decade. The oldest speaker, representing the 1920's, was a small man with a white beard (think Edmund Gwenn as Santa in the "Miracle on 34th Street"). He claimed to be the editor of the Chronicle when the name Blue Devil was chosen, and he made reference to the French military unit that had received a ticker tape parade on Broadway. It may have been the William Lander named in the Duke Archives article, or it may have been someone else (or it may have been a complete imposter, who knows?). Anyway, I'll go with the French alpine unit as the source of the nickname.

Aside number one: I wanted to be in the room when long-time Duke and Trinity President William Preston Few told the two presiding bishops of the Methodist church in North Carolina that the Trinity athletic teams were no longer the "Methodists," but the "Blue Devils." I suppose, channeling Prez Few, I would have said, "The students picked the name. It's just a fad. In a few years they'll pick another one. Pretty soon it will be the 'Methodists' again."

Aside number two (student dress in 1980): I had not been on the campus since shortly after graduation in 1964 (except for one football game). As I went back to my car at about 11PM, I walked through the Clock Tower Quadrangle (the "Animal Quad," in my day). There was a party going on with very loud music. The women were attractively dressed but the men were in a sort of uniform: all were wearing gold-colored shirts and brown sport coats, usually striped. Each was holding a bottle of Jack Daniels by the neck. Wow! Talk about conformity!

sagegrouse

Dev11
09-09-2013, 12:18 PM
Wrong!!!!!!!

NOT tournament games. Final Four games. Not that we weren't favored in. Either favored or "pick 'em." Just because we were picked as the visitor doesn't mean we weren't favored.

Look old people! Black is here to stay. I look forward to getting my black football jerseys, too. WHY I like it is really REALLY inconsequential. What you should know is that

OUR KIDS

like them. That's our players, our recruiting prospects, our students.

There are so many worse traditions being thrown away that you should be concerned with over the team wearing black road uniforms 2 or 3 times a year.

We don't have a 3 game losing streak in the Final Four while wearing blue. We wore blue (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/1999/ncaa_tourney/men/news/1999/03/27/michstate_duke/) against Michigan State in 1999. Since that win, we've lost two games in the Final Four, both to UConn. You have to go back to 1990 to find the last three games we lost in the Final Four in blue.

Speaking of the 1990 Final Four, I was less than a year old when we lost to UNLV. I'm not old, at least by this board's standards. I just don't think our black jerseys look good with dark or royal blue trim.

I may be mistaken about the white vs. colored jersey selection in the NCAA tournament, so I concede that I may have been incorrect about being favored in those games.

There's no need to feel like you have to shout at me here. If you prefer the black jerseys, fine, but shouting your opinions as fact (or fiction, as it may be) does us no good for the sake of discussion.

sagegrouse
09-09-2013, 02:54 PM
We don't have a 3 game losing streak in the Final Four while wearing blue. We wore blue (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/1999/ncaa_tourney/men/news/1999/03/27/michstate_duke/) against Michigan State in 1999. Since that win, we've lost two games in the Final Four, both to UConn. You have to go back to 1990 to find the last three games we lost in the Final Four in blue.

Speaking of the 1990 Final Four, I was less than a year old when we lost to UNLV. I'm not old, at least by this board's standards. I just don't think our black jerseys look good with dark or royal blue trim.

I may be mistaken about the white vs. colored jersey selection in the NCAA tournament, so I concede that I may have been incorrect about being favored in those games.

There's no need to feel like you have to shout at me here. If you prefer the black jerseys, fine, but shouting your opinions as fact (or fiction, as it may be) does us no good for the sake of discussion.


Well,.... Our losing streak wearing BLUE uniforms in the Final Four includes only the loss to UConn in 1999 and the finals loss to Arkansas in 1994. The previous time we wore BLUE was against UNLV in 1991, and we all remember how that one came out. Anyway, it's been 14 years since we wore BLUE in a Final Four game.

Anyway, the errors in the two posts above are (a) that we wore BLUE against UConn in 2004 -- we wore WHITE, according to the pictures. And (b) we wore BLUE against Mich. State in 1999. We wore WHTIE, again according to pictures.

Here is the detail:

We wore WHITE against Butler and West Virginia in 2010 Final Four.

Against UConn in the 2004 FF we wore WHITE (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.courant.com/media/photo/2010-03/52583650.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-huskies/hrt-hc-winningshot20100305092757,0,6983612.photo&h=373&w=600&sz=131&tbnid=Q2IBm_0wwsR8DM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=140&zoom=1&usg=__E3_DZCxFnHqJgo4xh9hcneZtZT0=&docid=zVyuvBgqL_1VNM&sa=X&ei=ywsuUuyFBKXiyAGynoGQDQ&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAQ&dur=7910).

We wore WHITE against both Maryland and Arizona in the 2001 Final Four.

We wore BLUE against UConn in the 1999 Final Four.

Aginst Michigan State in the 1999 FF, this picture (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/features/1999/finalfour/michigan_state/large.html)says that Duke wore WHITE.

In the 1994 FF against Arkansas, Duke wore BLUE.

In the 1994 semis, #2 seed Duke played #3 seed Florida. Duke should have worn WHITE.

In 1992 I believe #1 overall Duke wore WHITE against both Michigan and Indiana.

In 1991 Duke wore WHITE against Kansas in the finals.

In 1991 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV. AND DUKE WON.

In 1990 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV and lost.

sagegrouse

rasputin
09-09-2013, 03:24 PM
Well,.... Our losing streak wearing BLUE uniforms in the Final Four includes only the loss to UConn in 1999 and the finals loss to Arkansas in 1994. The previous time we wore BLUE was against UNLV in 1991, and we all remember how that one came out. Anyway, it's been 14 years since we wore BLUE in a Final Four game.

Anyway, the errors in the two posts above are (a) that we wore BLUE against UConn in 2004 -- we wore WHITE, according to the pictures. And (b) we wore BLUE against Mich. State in 1999. We wore WHTIE, again according to pictures.

Here is the detail:

We wore WHITE against Butler and West Virginia in 2010 Final Four.

Against UConn in the 2004 FF we wore WHITE (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.courant.com/media/photo/2010-03/52583650.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-huskies/hrt-hc-winningshot20100305092757,0,6983612.photo&h=373&w=600&sz=131&tbnid=Q2IBm_0wwsR8DM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=140&zoom=1&usg=__E3_DZCxFnHqJgo4xh9hcneZtZT0=&docid=zVyuvBgqL_1VNM&sa=X&ei=ywsuUuyFBKXiyAGynoGQDQ&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAQ&dur=7910).

We wore WHITE against both Maryland and Arizona in the 2001 Final Four.

We wore BLUE against UConn in the 1999 Final Four.

Aginst Michigan State in the 1999 FF, this picture (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/features/1999/finalfour/michigan_state/large.html)says that Duke wore WHITE.

In the 1994 FF against Arkansas, Duke wore BLUE.

In the 1994 semis, #2 seed Duke played #3 seed Florida. Duke should have worn WHITE.

In 1992 I believe #1 overall Duke wore WHITE against both Michigan and Indiana.

In 1991 Duke wore WHITE against Kansas in the finals.

In 1991 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV. AND DUKE WON.

In 1990 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV and lost.

sagegrouse

"I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue."

Dev11
09-09-2013, 03:51 PM
Well,.... Our losing streak wearing BLUE uniforms in the Final Four includes only the loss to UConn in 1999 and the finals loss to Arkansas in 1994. The previous time we wore BLUE was against UNLV in 1991, and we all remember how that one came out. Anyway, it's been 14 years since we wore BLUE in a Final Four game.

Anyway, the errors in the two posts above are (a) that we wore BLUE against UConn in 2004 -- we wore WHITE, according to the pictures. And (b) we wore BLUE against Mich. State in 1999. We wore WHTIE, again according to pictures.

Here is the detail:

We wore WHITE against Butler and West Virginia in 2010 Final Four.

Against UConn in the 2004 FF we wore WHITE (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.courant.com/media/photo/2010-03/52583650.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-huskies/hrt-hc-winningshot20100305092757,0,6983612.photo&h=373&w=600&sz=131&tbnid=Q2IBm_0wwsR8DM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=140&zoom=1&usg=__E3_DZCxFnHqJgo4xh9hcneZtZT0=&docid=zVyuvBgqL_1VNM&sa=X&ei=ywsuUuyFBKXiyAGynoGQDQ&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAQ&dur=7910).

We wore WHITE against both Maryland and Arizona in the 2001 Final Four.

We wore BLUE against UConn in the 1999 Final Four.

Aginst Michigan State in the 1999 FF, this picture (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/features/1999/finalfour/michigan_state/large.html)says that Duke wore WHITE.

In the 1994 FF against Arkansas, Duke wore BLUE.

In the 1994 semis, #2 seed Duke played #3 seed Florida. Duke should have worn WHITE.

In 1992 I believe #1 overall Duke wore WHITE against both Michigan and Indiana.

In 1991 Duke wore WHITE against Kansas in the finals.

In 1991 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV. AND DUKE WON.

In 1990 Duke wore BLUE against UNLV and lost.

sagegrouse

Thanks, Sage. I got myself all tangled up in blue trying to find pictures from these old games.

The point is, the blue jerseys aren't a curse, nor are black, nor white, nor gray (but don't get me started on the gray, blech).

cf-62
09-09-2013, 06:07 PM
Thanks, Sage. I got myself all tangled up in blue trying to find pictures from these old games.

The point is, the blue jerseys aren't a curse, nor are black, nor white, nor gray (but don't get me started on the gray, blech).

I was a little off, too. I thought we wore Blue in 2004.

Another thing is while I love the black uniforms (obviously), I'm not sure I could stomach seeing Hurley Hill or Laettner in a Black uniform. Doesn't seem right.

DukieInKansas
09-09-2013, 06:47 PM
Wrong!!!!!!!

NOT tournament games. Final Four games. Not that we weren't favored in. Either favored or "pick 'em." Just because we were picked as the visitor doesn't mean we weren't favored.

Look old people! Black is here to stay. I look forward to getting my black football jerseys, too. WHY I like it is really REALLY inconsequential. What you should know is that

OUR KIDS

like them. That's our players, our recruiting prospects, our students.

There are so many worse traditions being thrown away that you should be concerned with over the team wearing black road uniforms 2 or 3 times a year.

Do you really think uniform colors play that much of a role in a prospect picking a school? I would think coach, facilities, academics, and tradition would play a much bigger role in picking a school and that uniform color would not have much bearing.

Of course, I must confess to preferring white or Pantone 287 blue to black uniforms.

cf-62
09-10-2013, 12:30 AM
Of course, I must confess to preferring white or Pantone 287 blue to black uniforms.

Here's a funny nugget:

Pantone Colors:

Duke Blue = 287
Carolina Blue: 278

Of course the numbers are reversed!

gep
09-10-2013, 02:13 AM
Here's a funny nugget:

Pantone Colors:

Duke Blue = 287
Carolina Blue: 278

Of course the numbers are reversed!

I recall seeing that a few years ago. And... 287 > 278 :cool:

hurleyfor3
09-10-2013, 01:14 PM
In 1992 I believe #1 overall Duke wore WHITE against both Michigan and Indiana.

Wait, this turned into a thread about uniform colors? Anyway, here's (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/9324/index.htm) your proof for the championship game. The article inside, which I can't link to, shows several other pics of the championship game, and I vividly recall us wearing white against Indiana. The "lower seed wears white" convention goes back at least far as I've been paying attention to college basketball.

greybeard
09-10-2013, 01:22 PM
I found no reference to a $2,000,000 contribution by Nike or anyone else in the links you provided, one of which doesn't work and another is a highly inflammatory blog. Hardly authoritative. More likely your number is a gross exaggeration or an outright falsehood. Care to substantiate?

If you Google K and "income from Nike," you will find on the first page a publication in which it was reported that the donation was precisely 2,2 million. When they paid me, I was excellent with supporting citations. My apologies.

Chicago 1995
09-10-2013, 01:33 PM
Wait, this turned into a thread about uniform colors? Anyway, here's (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/9324/index.htm) your proof for the championship game. The article inside, which I can't link to, shows several other pics of the championship game, and I vividly recall us wearing white against Indiana. The "lower seed wears white" convention goes back at least far as I've been paying attention to college basketball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCSlojP8weI

We also wore white as a higher seed vs. UF in 1994 in the Final Four.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaNmsDXwFpY

greybeard
09-10-2013, 01:45 PM
Henderson,, I have a few comments to make about the following assertion in your post:

"As a result of all the money flowing into the schools from sponsorship dollars, the kids have better equipment and better facilities for their physical development, and (UNC notwithstanding) have better access to tutoring to help them in their academics."

There is no doubt that "kids have better equipment and facilities for their physical development" but do have serious doubts about whether either is a good thing. There is no reason that kids need these elaborate facilities to practice and prepare for games (Duke did pretty well before its were built). What these facilities do is serve to put them apart from other students, and present that they, the players, are involved in something more akin to a professional than college sport.

The better equipment that you speak of is of a piece with the specialized and very highly educated trainers that help these players develop astounding physical abilities. That I doubt is a good thing, although everybody is doing it and so to compete "you" must. The game cannot possibly have been made safer as a consequence of all this high end, off-the-charts training. To the contrary, it seems to me (I do not have numbers) that college athletes as a class are going down more frequently and that the incidence of significant injury (significant means anything that causes a player to miss a meaningful number of games, or, if he plays "through it," to pay the price afterwards, surgery, for example). By the way, I think that the training football players receive is much, much more problematic and would be happy to explain that in detail but I doubt it is necessary.

I have no reason to question your assertion that players now get better tutoring, but the program's media contacts bring in sufficient income to make better tutoring a nonissue.

sagegrouse
09-10-2013, 02:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCSlojP8weI

We also wore white as a higher seed vs. UF in 1994 in the Final Four.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaNmsDXwFpY

To create a record in case the question ever arises again, here's the year, uniform color, Final Four opponent, and result since 1986.



2010 White Butler Win
2010 White WVa Win
2004 White UConn Loss
2001 White Arizona Win
2001 White UMd Win
1999 Blue UConn Loss
1999 White Mich St Win
1994 Blue Arkan. Loss
1994 White Florida Win
1992 White Mich. Win
1992 White Indiana Win
1991 White Kansas Win
1991 Blue UNLV Win
1990 Blue UNLV Loss
1990 White Arkan. Win
1989 White S. Hall Loss
1988 White Kansas Loss
1986 White L'ville Loss
1986 White Kansas Won


For the record, Duke is 1-3 wearing blue, but that includes IMHO (where the H is silent) the most important win in Duke history. Duke is 11-4 wearing white, but lost three in-a-row back in the 1980's. The only loss wearing white in the last 24 years was the UConn game in San Antonio in 2004.

Also, for the record, I am a lousy proofreader, and there may be errors in the above table.

sagegrouse

pfrduke
09-10-2013, 02:59 PM
I have no reason to question your assertion that players now get better tutoring, but the program's media contacts bring in sufficient income to make better tutoring a nonissue.

Apologies if I'm just being slow, but what does this mean? Why is the sufficiency of income from media contacts relevant to the tutoring players receive? If the point you're trying to make is that the players (on a large scale, not just one or two), through the program's contacts, can get jobs in the media after they graduate (or leave the program, if they don't graduate), regardless of their merit for the job or academic record, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. But I can't tell if that's the point you're trying to make.

allenmurray
09-11-2013, 10:57 AM
Apologies if I'm just being slow, but what does this mean? Why is the sufficiency of income from media contacts relevant to the tutoring players receive? If the point you're trying to make is that the players (on a large scale, not just one or two), through the program's contacts, can get jobs in the media after they graduate (or leave the program, if they don't graduate), regardless of their merit for the job or academic record, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. But I can't tell if that's the point you're trying to make.

If contacts was a misspelling of contracts, the sentence makes perfect senes. Duke's media contracts bring in sufficient income for a tutoring program.

devildeac
09-11-2013, 02:46 PM
I recall seeing that a few years ago. And... 287 > 278 :cool:

And far more appealing, too;).

dball
09-11-2013, 03:05 PM
Wait, this turned into a thread about uniform colors? Anyway, here's (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/9324/index.htm) your proof for the championship game. The article inside, which I can't link to, shows several other pics of the championship game, and I vividly recall us wearing white against Indiana. The "lower seed wears white" convention goes back at least far as I've been paying attention to college basketball.

Pretty sure the 'home' team wears white and in the tournament, that is the higher (not lower) ranked team. Certainly, the higher ranked team may choose to wear some other color but typically it's white. I may be misinterpreting your statement but I mean higher in position not number (so 1 is higher than 4, etc.).


BTW: link shows Psycho T of uncch when I clicked though it references Bobby Hurley.

hurleyfor3
09-11-2013, 03:32 PM
I may be misinterpreting your statement

You are. I meant lower numerically, and suspect you're just looking for an argument.



BTW: link shows Psycho T of uncch when I clicked though it references Bobby Hurley.

Someone at SI is trolling us. The page mentions Hurley in several places and the date is the week after the 1992 championship game. It was definitely the Hurley cover when I checked and rechecked it before posting. Even the cover index for 1992 has the Hurley cover replaced by the 2009 cover. Is that Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth?

I guess we can be proud that some unc fan at SI cares about DBR so much.

hurleyfor3
09-11-2013, 03:44 PM
Looks like SI replaced all the 1992 covers with 2009 covers. Kobe Bryant, Tim Tebow, Tom Brady and the like weren't around in 1992.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f19/frequentfreak/si_screenshot.jpg

dball
09-11-2013, 03:54 PM
You are. I meant lower numerically, and suspect you're just looking for an argument.



????????

What on earth are you talking about? I was not disrespectful. I've never heard of the one seed being called the lower seeded team and put the possibility out there just in case.

hurleyfor3
09-11-2013, 03:58 PM
Looks like SI is just derping. Here is the cover the week after the 1993 championship game (note date on page of April 12, 1993), celebrating the triumph of the Tar Heels and the tragedy of Chris Webber's excess timeout:

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f19/frequentfreak/si_1993_unc.jpg

JetpackJesus
09-11-2013, 10:27 PM
Another thing - I find it hard to listen to Dukies complain about black uniforms when the students (for decades) show up for games wearing anything BUT blue.
In the 80s and 90s, it was fashionable to NOT wear blue. Pink, green, aqua, orange, whatever you had, you wore. The bookstore sold the T-shirts. We bought them and wore them to the games. They all said DUKE, but the color wasn't important.

Now, of course, they wear costumes. I haven't quite understood that, but it's what they like to do. They have fun with it, and it's their thing. Honestly, it's better than everyone in the student section wearing a duke blue shirt saying "K's Krazies" or sometihing stupid like that.

This is only incidental to the debate going on in this thread, but it does relate to your comment. While I was there ('02-'06), Coach K specifically told us not to wear all the same color, shirt, etc... He said he doesn't like the idea at all, and he would much prefer the students be individuals and dress however they want to dress (within reason, of course). I'm pretty sure this issue came up because a student asked about the hideous tie-dye shirts all Wake Forest students had begun wearing at their games.

And for what it's worth, I wore my black Trajan Langdon jersey to every game. Now I have a White and Blue in addition to the Black so I just try to match whatever color the team is wearing for a particular game. And I just weep when Duke has to wear Nike's annual abomination.

Edouble
09-12-2013, 01:28 AM
Looks like SI is just derping.

Is that like twerking?

Dev11
09-12-2013, 09:05 AM
Is that like twerking?

To derp is to do as a knucklehead does. To twerk is to do as this board would designate me a 'wanker.'

flyingdutchdevil
09-12-2013, 09:40 AM
To derp is to do as a knucklehead does. To twerk is to do as this board would designate me a 'wanker.'

Pretty sure Edouble was just joking around and making a hilarious cultural reference. But thanks for the clarification!

Dev11
09-12-2013, 10:28 AM
Pretty sure Edouble was just joking around and making a hilarious cultural reference. But thanks for the clarification!

Oh I'm sure. Just clarifying for those who may not haha

kmspeaks
09-12-2013, 11:13 AM
Looks like SI is just derping.


Is that like twerking?

Or is it more similar to twerping?

Dev11
09-12-2013, 11:36 AM
Or is it more similar to twerping?

twerp: (v) to applaud the efforts of one college basketball player who seeks to injure another basketball player, generally the offender being less skilled than the victim

hurleyfor3
09-12-2013, 12:02 PM
twerp: (v) to applaud the efforts of one college basketball player who seeks to injure another basketball player, generally the offender being less skilled than the victim

How are you managing to be on DBR right now? Isn't the Front Range turning into America's newest Great Lake?

Dev11
09-12-2013, 12:29 PM
How are you managing to be on DBR right now? Isn't the Front Range turning into America's newest Great Lake?

If we had any DBR posters in Boulder, I guarantee they would not be participating right now.

hurleyfor3
09-12-2013, 12:34 PM
If we had any DBR posters in Boulder, I guarantee they would not be participating right now.

I've met at least one. If you're reading this, hope you and your property are OK.