Would Self Be Able to Recruit More Talent and Depth, If Self and KU Shifted from adidas to Nike?
-
UCLA played 3 players that will go in the first round of the NBA draft and possibly a 4th player in the second round…and the coaches son was the second leading scorer in the team and averaged 15.5 ppg and shot 0.430 from the 3 to lead the PAC 12; he took 270 3 point attempts which also led the conference.
-
You seem to be making my point. The UCLA talent on UCLA’s good year you describe seems sharply inferior to the talent on a good year of Duke, North Carolina, or Kentucky. Thanks.
Would Alford’s kid have started several seasons on Duke, UNC, or Kentucky? I kinda doubt it.
Would Duke, UNC, and Kentucky on their good years have as many players that wouldn’t pass the eye test Bill Self refers to, as UCLA on its good year. I kinda doubt it.
-
You are spinning my words to make your point. My point was and still is that UCLA had superior talent which is the opposite of what you concluded. Not too many programs have 3 first round picks and likely 4 overall in the draft. Alford would have started most anywhere he played, he is a superior outside shooter.
Talent wise, UCLA had more talent than just about any team not named UK or Duke.
-
No, you are spinning mine.
But I love it when you do it.
Its so fun to watch.
“@JayHawkFanToo You are spinning my words…”
This one appears a classic rhetoric I am adding to a dictionary of online discourse cracking rhetoric I am building.
Thanks.
You are who inspired me to build it.
Howling!
-
I personally think its a bunch of crap. If it was as simple as Nike on board we would have Nike (I’m sure if we could come to that conclusion so could Self and co) , hate to remind ya’ll but we didn’t get a title in the years we were with Nike. Yes I know Nike holds a bunch of camps but so does Under Armor and Adidas, others too. Wigs and Jojo both signed with Adidas and are happy. UCLA all of the sudden is getting media out the a** with the Ball brothers and they just left Adidas to got to Under Armor. They have the 3rd rated recruiting class so I’m saying it doesn’t matter.
-
Very well said and laid out. Nice post.
-
Okay, enjoy how you wish to see it.
-
@kjayhawks complete coincidence that Wigs and Jojo signed Adidas? Same with Tyshawn and Oubre? Just coincidence? Only guy under Self to sign Nike is TRob if I’m not mistaken.
But obviously that’s just pure coincidence.
-
Nick Collison, Paul Pierce, Brandon Rush are KU players that signed with Nike and I believe there are others. Pierce and Collison might have been at KU while it was Nike.
Both Wiggins and Jackson played for Nike teams. Adidas Contract with KU is the same size as Duke and UK contracts with Nike…combined…
In my opinion, top prospects will go to the school that offers the most “benefits” or provides the best path to the NBA and location comes after that, with the Coasts having a big advantage over the Mid West. I have yet to hear a prospect say he went to a school because of sponsorship. Much better chance of a player signing with the brand that sponsored the school since they get to know the brand reps and the product.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Recruited B-Rush while we were still Nike. Collison never played a game in an Adidas uniform and neither did Paul Pierce.
One of those “benefits” couldn’t be a potential (guaranteed) Shoe deal? It is also illegal to say you went to a school for a sponsorship deal… Is it not ironic that Wiggins had a well reported potential Adidas deal in line before he even stepped foot on KU’s campus? I wonder how he ended up here…
You also are missing the fact that Nike sells more gear at a higher price point, creating more profit for the school from selling licensed gear so they CAN offer less money. You don’t just sell the same regardless of who your brand is. Nike gear sells better. So just because KU has a better licensing deal, doesn’t mean we make as much profit. In fact, we made less of a profit than UK last year. So to say that our endorsement deal is SOOOOO much better than Duke or UK is 100% misleading.
-
KU’s contract with Adidas kicked in on July 2005 and Rush committed to KU on September of 2005, when KU was already an Adidas school and long after the contract had been negotiated.
I did not say or even imply that a prospect would say he went to a school for a future contract. I said that I have not heard a prospect say he went to a school because it (the school) was sponsored by a specific brand which is perfectly legal. Actually, saying that you went to a school for a guaranteed deal is not illegal…it will likely get the NCAA to find you ineligible to play college sports, but it is not illegal. In fact, I did read that one mid-level prospect, whose name escapes me, said he would be inclined to go to a Nike school only to quickly backtrack and say he would consider all of them equally. Unless he received compensation from Nike, there is nothing preventing a prospect from stating that he favors one brand over the other.
Also, if you remember the talk about the alleged Wiggins contract that would be worth $180M for 10 years? That proved to be bunk and the contract he signed was for $2M per year., a far cry from the original number, wouldn’t you agree?
-
Ok, you got me on Rush.
And you got me on a technicality on the word Illegal. Good job. I meant, he would be ineligible, not that he would get arrested. Which he would, if he had a sponsorship deal in place before hand and admitted that was the reason he chose a school. And just because the Wiggins deal was less than projected, doesn’t mean there wasn’t an arrangement beforehand. The amount is irrelevant.
Are you ignoring the profit that I pointed out or what? Because that was a major piece of my post. But, that doesn’t fit your narrative. So let’s ignore it… Fact is, Nike sells more gear. They don’t need to offer a huge contract to some schools. The increased gear sales head and shoulder’s make up for it. Kentucky made $4m more off of licensing last year than KU did. Thank goodness for our donor base or we wouldn’t even be in the Top 25 of college athletics revenue.
-
The humongous difference between the alleged and actual Wiggins contract clearly indicates someone was pulling number out of his you know where with not link to reality.
I would be interested in seeing the source of the figures you quoted. Of course Nike sells more gear because it sponsors a heck of a lot more teams and it is a much bigger firm and advertises a lot more than Adidas.
Sales are based on who is popular at the time more so on the apparel brand. Curry likely sells more than anyone else and he is with Under Armor. Traditionally UNC has always been one of the top sellers but in '08, after KU won the title, it became the #1 seller and ahead of UNC.
Market also determines sales; KU is in a relatively small market and will have trouble competing with the Coastal programs with the huge markets. The market share that KU brings to the table is very small and Nike already has Texas and Oklahoma, the two big dogs, and just about evey program sorrounding KU including KSU, ISU and even MU. Do you really believe that if KU goes with Nike it would sell $4M more in merchandise than it does now? I don’t, KU fans will continue to buy about the same $ volume.
-
Bryce Alford was a highly regarded player in NMex, very similar to Tyrel Reed in KS. His play at the D1 level, was very similar, although he played starter mpg, and his stats reflect it. This isnt to say he’s a shoe-in for a NBA roster, but he proved to be a much better player than Brady Morningstar…(it can be debated).
-
@JayHawkFanToo http://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-leaders-2015-9 Here is the link. It is actually from a reputable source.
First of all, your logic is lacking on multiple levels.
-
- KU doesn’t need to sell $4M. They would only need to increase about $1.5M in sales because that is what they would lose switching back to Nike. And I do think KU could sell close to $1.5M more if they switched to Nike. If you consider even a slight bias toward purchasing Nike gear, that would make up a considerable amount of revenue. Then, you have to consider the fact that Adidas doesn’t have the sourcing power that Nike does due to the fact that Nike is everywhere and Adidas is spotty. When I worked for the KUStore, we didn’t get new football gear until the 3rd game of the season and we didn’t get new basketball gear until November. That is a significant amount of lost revenue just from poor sourcing. I also subbed in to work at ISU to make extra cash a few times, they had Basketball gear for the new season in August. Nike ALREADY had stuff at ISU before the season even started. A huge difference.
-
- Your market size theory doesn’t do it for me either. Iowa outsells KU by $5M and they only have a 200k population advantage and haven’t even sniffed success lately. They had one decent football season and a 2nd half collapse of a basketball season in the time frame the link measures. Yet they sell a ton more because they are Nike. And they even have a larger in state competition than KU does for apparel with ISU right down the road…
-
- If KU sells less than UK in gear, why does KU get more money? You said it yourself, we are a small market in the Midwest. Yet we demand an almost identical Nike contract and a significantly better Adidas contract. Almost defies logic…
-
- It doesn’t matter how much Nike sells or Adidas overall. I’m breaking this down per school. So that is irrelevant for any fact other than that Nike is a better run company that people clearly have a bias towards.
Also, the Wiggins contract before school was quoted that amount because he was looked at as the best high school prospect since LeBron James. He did not perform like LeBron James in a KU uniform. It drove his value down. LeBron got $90M coming out of High School. Wiggins would have gotten a similar monster deal if he could have jumped straight to the pros. That type of money used to fly around when players could go straight to the pros. It doesn’t anymore. It will one day, when the next generational player emerges. But Wiggins wasn’t that. He got about what he deserved, and it was from Adidas still. Which is the fact that matters most.
-
-
The link you provided does not list any of the figure you mentioned, only licensing rights which include all the licensing, most of then not related to sports apparel and are independent of the “shoe” contract with the school
Now, the amount that shoe companies pay schools include the right to provide apparel and shoes to be worn by the school teams and the right to sell original/copies of the gear worn by the school and basically they are paying for exposure. Nike and many other brands make and sell KU gear and pay KU a licensing fee. I know this because I have a lot of KU gear that is not made by Adidas. I can provide you lots of links that sell KU gear made by Nike.
KU has one of the better “shoe” contracts around and pays considerably more than Nike would and its is larger than all but 4 or 5 schools.
I used to have a link that listed exactly how much each schools derived from licensing including apparel. I will have to find it.
-
@JayHawkFanToo yea let me know when you find it…
What other licensing do you think is going on? Most of the contracts with Nike or Adidas are actually structured so only a certain amount of licensed gear by other companies can be produced. At least as far as apparel goes. So, do you think that Iowa sells that many more branded lawn chairs? Coasters? Koozies? Golf Polo’s? Chair Backs? What is their huge boom in licensing income?
My figures are accurate. You just don’t want to accept defeat. Adidas pays a premium because they have to. I know this, because I know about the contract negotiations with the school. I know about it because I worked for a company that is involved with every major college in the country. I was directly told, Adidas has to pay a premium. And clearly, that premium is close to $1.5M. But believe what you want. Somehow KU negotiated the greatest shoe deal in history, despite their crappy market and lower sales than other Nike schools… Whoever negotiated that contract should get the bonus themselves.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Yep, I’ve bought a lot of KU gear over the years (of adidas), that was non-adidas. Any trip into a Rally House sports store, you can see all the other licensed brands selling KU gear.
-
@JayHawkFanToo http://www.kuathletics.com/documents/2016/11/17//KAI_Audit_Report_2016.pdf?id=6190
http://dib.uky.edu/ufs/sites/www.uky.edu.ufs/files/Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (PDF).pdf
Look at the financial statements yourself. KU sells less in licensing than UK. The only way we make up the lost revenue, you guessed it, our Apparel Sponsorship… I’d call that paying a premium.
-
Yes, I have no doubt that Kentucky derives more income from licensing than KU ($3,514,891 to $1,111,033), after all Kentucky’s population is 1.5 times that of Kansas and it is closer to the East Coast big markets. However, the KU contract with Adidas is $4.2M and Kentucky contract with Nike is $3.4. Considering that UK is the programs with the greatest visibility and located in a much larger market than KU, I would say the KU’s deal is pretty good and it is supposed to be renewed in 2019 at (hopefully) a substantial raise, based on how payoff have increased, where I believe the UK contract with Nike goes through 2025. Various sources have different contract values depending on the date and it is hard to get an exact figure since some contract count the cost of merchandise given to the school at retail value and others do it at wholesale value and it obviously makes a huge difference (millions of $) over the life of the contract.
KU last renegotiated the 6 year deal with Adidas in 2013 and I would like to think they talked to all the shoe manufactures and chose the best deal, although with Zenger you never know; in any case, in a couple of years we might have a different supplier. Frankly, to me it does not make a difference and as long as the programs are happy with the deal I am happy as well.
-
Yes, Kentucky’s whole program gets $3.4 million and KU’s whole program gets$4.2 million. Durant gets $30 million per season. I personally have never bought something of Durant’s, but I’ve shilled out a ton from KU gear over the years. I can tell you where the better endorsement is in my household, but nationally it must be different or Nike wouldn’t pay so handsomely. Apparently the whole of KU basketball is worth 1/8th of an NBA star nationally. Personally I’d trade the whole NBA for a good ham sandwich if it wouldn’t have the negative effect on college ball that the NBA money going away would have.
I’ve only been to a handful of NBA games (saw 'Keif and Arthur in Denver two years ago) but what I’ve seen doesn’t hold a candle to Allen Fieldhouse. We are very spoiled and lucky to have such an environment every game night! It really adds life to the game that the NBA just doesn’t have. I love watching kids do something they love far more than watching the passionless money grab that is the NBA.
-
@Kcmatt7 @JayHawkFanToo You both make some really good points, but I just cant wrap my mind around not going to Nike over 1.5 million, which is nothing to how much the BB program makes, if it meant we could get better players and have better chances of a NC. I personally think like both Nike and Adidas products, but Nike is just a bigger deal.
-
@dylans agreed but seeing a Celts game at MSG is on my bucket list.
-
Adidas shoes are too narrow, imo. But Nike shoes start to stink quickly, imo.
-
@approxinfinity maybe you work harder in nikes cause adidas hurt your wide feet
-
I like adidas!
-
I have yet to see any evidence that KU lost recruits because it is sponsored by Adidas. Kentucky and a Duke can sign with the Dollar General house brand of shoes and they would still get the same players…and so would KU.
-
Evidence previously unseen may be evidence unrecognized, because of conflicts with preferred positions.
–Lao Tzubate 1.0, “Zen and the Art of Consensus Cracking”
-
ASICS makes the best shoes in terms of fit for my feet.
Maybe Self and KUAD could contract jointly to endorse jointly adidas, ASICS, Under Armor for basketball shoes to cover all foot morphologies on KU rosters, and thus sign a aggregate deal for, say, $640 Million over ten years. Surely those three brands between them could find Self an OAD 1 and an OAD 5 every season, and keep roster slots 8 through 10 with 5-stars same as happens at Duke, UNC,and UK.
Next, Self and KUAD could jointly contract to endorse Allen Edmonds dress shoes, Russell moccasin boots for hunting, and Lucchese cowboy boots for riding, for another $150 million over ten years and that money could be used to keep refurnishing the furniture in the athletic dorms.
Then I believe KU basketball would have achieved long term sustainability.
-
I have yet to see any evidence that Nike neutrally, or positively impacts KU’s recruiting and recruiting deficits, because KU is sponsored by Adidas. Kentucky and Duke and UNC can sign with the Dollar General house brand of shoes and there is no empirically verified evidence they would still get the same players…nor is there that KU would.
But I could be wrong, or right, or inconclusive.
-
@jaybate-1.0 maybe in light of the fact that dribbling is optional in the NBA these days anyway, KU could lean on TPTB to experimentally try out sand courts for a season, thereby rendering foot attire unnecessary.
-
Lol
