Duke-Nike re-up until 2027.

[jimsumner]

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=210424501&DB_OEM_ID=4200

[budwom]

Thank goodness we aren't aligned with those dopes at Under Armour. (Not that I have strong Nikological feelings either way). But sure, send
Duke some money. A lot of it.

[luburch]

Would like to know what the deal is worth and see how it compares to other schools that have recently re-signed/signed with manufacturers.

[Olympic Fan]

Sigh ... I guess I'm an old fogey. Next to walmart and the oil companies, I can't think of any companies I despise more than Nike (both for its labor practices and its marketing policy).

But I'm not a fan of Under Armor or any of the other companies that do athletic shoes/apparel.

And I hate the way Nike keeps monkeying with our uniforms ...

I understand that we can't turn down the money (and I'm sure that Duke got top dollar), but that doesn't mean I have to celebrate it.

HEY YOU KIDS ... GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

[Pghdukie]

Or the infamous "Spalding get your foot off the boat" quote from Caddyshack. Would seem appropriate for shoe company debate. I'd like to ask Sonny Vaccaro how much money he made in his days hustling Nike

[flyingdutchdevil]

...why the hate for Under Armour? Company is stealing market share from Nike, caters to women, is smarter with its marketing and endorsement strategy. I understand they are linked to Maryland, one of the worst schools in the history of schools, but as a company they are much more likable than Nike. Sure, they make mistakes, but Under Armour is the lovable underdog that is scaring the hell out of Nike and adidas.

[Indoor66]

...why the hate for Under Armour? Company is stealing market share from Nike, caters to women, is smarter with its marketing and endorsement strategy. I understand they are linked to Maryland, one of the worst schools in the history of schools, but as a company they are much more likable than Nike. Sure, they make mistakes, but Under Armour is the lovable underdog that is scaring the hell out of Nike and adidas.

My guess is the close ties to Maryland.

[budwom]

Some pretty funny stuff has been written about their apparel. Let's just say that I'm not among those who admire their skin tight wife beater shirts as fashion thing...for
some people I'm sure that's fine. I'll spend my midlife crisis money on something else.

[Edouble]

Some pretty funny stuff has been written about their apparel. Let's just say that I'm not among those who admire their skin tight wife beater shirts as fashion thing...for
some people I'm sure that's fine. I'll spend my midlife crisis money on something else.

Yeah, this is why I don't like UA. Their clothes are ugly. For me, the brand with three stripes and Nike just make better looking apparel. UA acts like because they put a clever name to compression shorts that they have invented a new lifestyle choice or something.

Which brings me to their presentation... I sort of don't care for all of the woofing that goes on in their commercials. Although I generally don't like advertising, Nike has had some really creative/funny/cool ads over the years. Overall the swoosh folks have just done a better job of selling themselves to me.

[cspan37421]

_________ acts like because they ___________________ that they have invented a new lifestyle choice or something.


Fixed that for you! :)

[Edouble]

Fixed that for you! :)

Ha ha ha!!! That was seriously funny. Actually looks like something I might say. Made me laugh.

I will say though that I made the remark that "overall the swoosh folks have just done a better job of selling themselves to me." I am not letting Nike completely off the hook either though, but they get more breathing room than UA.

[budwom]

Yeah, this is why I don't like UA. Their clothes are ugly. For me, the brand with three stripes and Nike just make better looking apparel. UA acts like because they put a clever name to compression shorts that they have invented a new lifestyle choice or something.

Which brings me to their presentation... I sort of don't care for all of the woofing that goes on in their commercials. Although I generally don't like advertising, Nike has had some really creative/funny/cool ads over the years. Overall the swoosh folks have just done a better job of selling themselves to me.

Agreed. There is some history on this UA stuff. It was first developed to provide athletes with tight fitting under garments (hence the name) which wick moisture from the body, prevent chafing, etc. It became very
popular and served a purpose. And while, of course, they've branched out into all kinds of clothing, a significantly high percentage of guys like to strut around in the tight stuff (not as under garments) in what several
writers have called a "look at me, I work out" fashion statement. My wife has commented it's more like "look at me, I'm a guy who's pregnant." At least Nike is more apt to spare us the exposed armpit look.
Sure, I may be petty about this, but why not, Maryland is involved. And by and large, their clothing is hideous.

[hallcity]

We'll never know how much Duke will be getting from Nike but schools have been getting larger and larger contracts from Nike. In 2010 Alabama signed an eight year contract (http://www.examiner.com/article/alabama-has-most-profitable-nike-contract-college-sports) worth $3.75 million a year. In July of this year, Michigan signed a ten year contract (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25241853/michigan-nike-contract-worth-169-million-richest-in-college-sports) for over $10 million a year. How big a deal could Duke get? Duke's alumni base is only a fraction of Michigan's. However, shoes are the most important product being promoted, basketball is the most important showcase for shoes and Duke has the strongest college basketball brand. I'd really be curious to know how much Duke will get from Nike.

[budwom]

We'll never know how much Duke will be getting from Nike but schools have been getting larger and larger contracts from Nike. In 2010 Alabama signed an eight year contract (http://www.examiner.com/article/alabama-has-most-profitable-nike-contract-college-sports) worth $3.75 million a year. In July of this year, Michigan signed a ten year contract (http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25241853/michigan-nike-contract-worth-169-million-richest-in-college-sports) for over $10 million a year. How big a deal could Duke get? Duke's alumni base is only a fraction of Michigan's. However, shoes are the most important product being promoted, basketball is the most important showcase for shoes and Duke has the strongest college basketball brand. I'd really be curious to know how much Duke will get from Nike.

I wonder if the various schools know what all the other schools are getting. Do public universities have to disclose this? Duke probably doesn't, right?

[luburch]

I wonder if the various schools know what all the other schools are getting. Do public universities have to disclose this? Duke probably doesn't, right?


Indiana has extended its apparel contract with Adidas in a deal that will nearly double the company's annual payment to the Hoosiers from $3.7 million to $6.7 million, Director of Athletics Fred Glass confirmed to The Star on Monday.

According to IU, the deal worth $53.6 million over eight years is one of the five richest publicly known apparel deals in college athletics.

http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2015/08/17/iu-adidas-extend-apparel-agreement/31887747/

This makes me assume a public university must disclose the amount. I remember people being impressed Indiana could pull that deal with a mediocre football program.

Wisconsin has since signed with UA for 10 years and $96 million. Not bad. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13845985/under-armour-signs-10-year-96m-deal-wisconsin-badgers

[hallcity]

I may be prejudiced but I think Duke would be worth more to Nike than Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a big school but it has almost zero appeal outside of the middling size state of Wisconsin.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I may be prejudiced but I think Duke would be worth more to Nike than Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a big school but it has almost zero appeal outside of the middling size state of Wisconsin.

Disagree.

One word: football.

[BD80]

Agreed. There is some history on this UA stuff. It was first developed to provide athletes with tight fitting under garments (hence the name) which wick moisture from the body, prevent chafing, etc. It became very
popular and served a purpose. And while, of course, they've branched out into all kinds of clothing, a significantly high percentage of guys like to strut around in the tight stuff (not as under garments) in what several
writers have called a "look at me, I work out" fashion statement. My wife has commented it's more like "look at me, I'm a guy who's pregnant." At least Nike is more apt to spare us the exposed armpit look.
Sure, I may be petty about this, but why not, Maryland is involved. And by and large, their clothing is hideous.

It started the "base layer" approach, which allowed some of us who are not as well conditioned as we remember being to essentially wear spanks without shame.


I may be prejudiced but I think Duke would be worth more to Nike than Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a big school but it has almost zero appeal outside of the middling size state of Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is cheap to supply, they just turn the UM insignia upside-down, no new artwork required.

[bleudiable]

I hate that Nike has diluted our beloved Duke Blue. Heels got a concession to restore their shade. Did we?

[devildeac]

I hate that Nike has diluted our beloved Duke Blue. Heels got a concession to restore their shade. Did we?

I dunno. I think this might be a good color for them to wear to their (hopeful) athletic program (near) death penalty when the NCAA proclaims their punishments next year:

(warning-contains offensive language and images:rolleyes:)


http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/10/09/unc-basketball-black-jordan-uniforms-new-vs-ucla