Saunders Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Nike does way to much neon and crazy stuff with their uniforms. Yes, the duct tape numbers were bad, but Nike did the gold numbers on a white uniform for FSU. Plus Oregon. Their uniforms are just... awful. Only ones that look good are the yellow and green throwbacks. Quote Link to comment
ColoradoHusk Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Personally I like Adidas. I bought a brand new pair of Stan Smith tennis shoes last year off of their web site. White with green strips just like I had in 1983. Yet with that being said I understand the lure of UA or the swoosh. I would go with UA personally. Oh, and just because Adidas isn't number one in American football doesn't mean futbal is not a money maker for them. Man you guys sound like Americans I love Adidas shoes!For casual shoes, I love my Adidas too. Classic looking and comfy. 2 Quote Link to comment
jmfb Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The ONLY opinion that matters are the 18-22 year old kids playing football and the 17-18 year old impressionable kids making the decision to play 1 Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The fact is, uniforms/apparel companies doesn't mean jack squat for making a team better other than attracting 17-18 year old kids. It's no different than spending 50,000,000 on fancy locker rooms, player lounges and TVs in the toilet. These things don't do anything to make a team better. In fact, I have always thought it has potential to make players softer. BUT, they do attract kids and that is really the only reason the program spends that money. The fans don't get anything out of them other than hopefully a better athlete on the field. Quote Link to comment
icedavis Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Adidas also didn’t have even one of the top 10 best selling sports shoes last August, as their current selection of footwear is extremely uninspiring. I agree with this entirely. Just pouring salt in the wound, Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank called adidas “our dumbest competitor” this past February — and he wasn’t wrong. He said that?! Wow, that's fantastically ballsy. I tend to not pay attention to the mud slinging mostly because it's benign and uninspired but there is something to me about an exec who just comes out and says it like he feels. Now this is without having seen full context of the statement too. I actually like Adidas' golf apparel as well as most of their shoes. I'd be interested to know the opinions of people if the labels on the designs from Nike and Adidas were switched if they'd be singing the same song. In my opinion, outside of soccer, golf is really the only area they have any clout left and even then I find myself drifting towards Nike and UA more often and it appears that is the direction those sports are heavily moving as well. I used to be an avid Adidas person too. i just had a thought. I am still into numerous sports (playing most) but soccer is not one of them (watch infrequently) so I am sorta out of the loop on that but I wonder what, if any, involvement brands (including adidas) have in the FIFA scandal? At this point you'd be hard pressed to say they would involve themselves with it but considering the kind of payoffs and the deep level it went you never know. I am not implying there was involvement but isn't it interesting to see that adidas still has such a firm grasp (am I over-reaching here?) over the international soccer world, especially with Nike being as prevalent as they are elsewhere and getting deeper market share. What is the adidas draw in soccer? Quality (that Nike maybe hasn't matched), style, tradition of being "the soccer brand"? Just gets my mind spinning with ideas, obviously some make more sense than others. Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The ONLY opinion that matters are the 18-22 year old kids playing football and the 17-18 year old impressionable kids making the decision to play No, just no. You don't change up your design aesthetic to please a bunch of kids. Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The ONLY opinion that matters are the 18-22 year old kids playing football and the 17-18 year old impressionable kids making the decision to play No, just no. You don't change up your design aesthetic to please a bunch of kids. Yes you do. Our normal football uniforms will/would not change design-wise whatsoever. The only things that would change would be other sport uniforms, which don't have the same traditional attachment, fan merchandise, which is literally designed to be appealing to the people that buy it, and marketing/branding materials, same thing. All of those things would benefit tremendously from someone other than Adidas. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Maybe if Nike hired designers that weren't 12 years old, it would be ok. Until then, stick with Adidas. Because Adidas has hit some homeruns with our alternate uniform designs so far...... Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The ONLY opinion that matters are the 18-22 year old kids playing football and the 17-18 year old impressionable kids making the decision to play No, just no. You don't change up your design aesthetic to please a bunch of kids. Yes you do. Our normal football uniforms will/would not change design-wise whatsoever. The only things that would change would be other sport uniforms, which don't have the same traditional attachment, fan merchandise, which is literally designed to be appealing to the people that buy it, and marketing/branding materials, same thing. All of those things would benefit tremendously from someone other than Adidas. I agree with LOMS to a point. Once Oregon started making changes to appeal to kids, it changed the game. Quote Link to comment
ColoradoHusk Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I am going to expand this Nike, UA, Adidas conversation and bring up the whole idea that people constantly bring up, adding black to NU's color scheme for football (and other sports). I for one am totally against adding black to the "base" uniform. NU's colors are SCARLET and CREAM (don't get me started on how mad I was when they made the helmets bright white a few years ago). Now, I don't mind adding some black in an "alternate" uniform, but the whole idea of "let's just make a black uniform or add black to our color scheme for the heck of it" is old and played out. Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Fan apparel sales aren't going to change over the longterm by switching. You might get a nice one year bump, but fans are going to buy stuff no matter who makes it. Non fans aren't going to suddenly buy Nebraska stuff because it's Nike. They'll do it because we start winning. And if we're talking about switching just because of the alternate uniforms... just no. Nike has made plenty of garbage uniforms in all sports too. Regardless, I don't see us switching anyway. Adidas is taking care of NU in both product and money, with neither UA or Nike coming close to matching the compensation. Quote Link to comment
Landlord Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I agree with LOMS to a point. Once Oregon started making changes to appeal to kids, it changed the game. It's not like the entirety of Nike's catalog is only attractive to young kids, either. They run the gamut and dominate across the board with good product that is appealing to just about everyone. I probably know more 30-40 year old dudes that ONLY buy Nike Shox than I know teens and 20's. To Saunders' last post, here's a list of a few reasons why a switch to EITHER Nike or UA would be good. - Better quality and better fit regular uniforms across the board - Better alternate uniforms, which become more fun for players and fans, and provide better exposure and draw more attention. - Better uniforms in mens basketball, womens basketball, volleyball, baseball, softball, and every other sport. - Better fan gear. I don't care if it doesn't sell more - the stuff they put out is better. It looks better, it feels better, it fits better. - Better branding. Tennessee just got an absolutely massive surge in publicity with their Nike reveal this week. 1 Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Maybe if Nike hired designers that weren't 12 years old, it would be ok. Until then, stick with Adidas. Because Adidas has hit some homeruns with our alternate uniform designs so far...... How much of that was due to the Nebraska admin? Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 The ONLY opinion that matters are the 18-22 year old kids playing football and the 17-18 year old impressionable kids making the decision to play No, just no. You don't change up your design aesthetic to please a bunch of kids. Yes you do. Our normal football uniforms will/would not change design-wise whatsoever. The only things that would change would be other sport uniforms, which don't have the same traditional attachment, fan merchandise, which is literally designed to be appealing to the people that buy it, and marketing/branding materials, same thing. All of those things would benefit tremendously from someone other than Adidas. I agree with LOMS to a point. Once Oregon started making changes to appeal to kids, it changed the game. Their appeal was due to Nike (Phil Knight) dumping millions and millions of dollars into the school to upgrade everything, not just uniforms. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Maybe if Nike hired designers that weren't 12 years old, it would be ok. Until then, stick with Adidas. Because Adidas has hit some homeruns with our alternate uniform designs so far...... How much of that was due to the Nebraska admin? Are we really going to blame Perlman for those? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.