Blueblood2991

March 6th, 2017 at 11:57 PM ^

Idk adidas and Rutgers seem like a match made in heaven for jokes.

IIRC, they don't get a full payout from the B1G until 2023. This new deal is double what their Nike contract was. They only got $12 million from the B1G last year, so it would be really irresponsible to turn down that much more money for them. 

LSAClassOf2000

March 7th, 2017 at 9:13 AM ^

Funnily enough, Nike's deal with Rutgers put it on the bottom of Forbes' 65 Most Valuable College Apparel Contracts based on an article last year, something in the neighborhood of $1.39 million or thereabouts, so this deal is a slight improvement on paper, it seems. 

As I recall, the only "not completely P5" school, if you will, was Notre Dame, which of course maintains its weird independence in football. No non-P5 schools were in the top 65.

MgoBlueprint

March 7th, 2017 at 12:11 AM ^

There was an article on r/cfb a few weeks ago with the breakdown. It's less than comparable schools iirc. There was something mentioned that Rutgers ranked last in the p5 in apparel sales or revenue. The cash in hand is less than their previous deal with nike, but they essentially get a larger apparel budget. Adidas valuates cost at the wholesale price while Nike uses the retail price.

Wolfman

March 7th, 2017 at 4:35 AM ^

and I think that is what you look for when you are putting together or expanding an athletic conference. You want schools as much alike as possible in terms of academic and cultural fits and Ideally it would be nice if a team isn't meeting the desired revenue, it's at least not costing the conference. There would be geographical and historical concerns as well. \

Considering the above are just some things that come to mind, I have no idea why Rutgers wanted to join the BIG. Yes, they get exposure and they also get exposed. I would like to say Rutgers should be playing Temple, Buffalo, Army, Conn, etc., teams that are D1 but have no football clout. I'm sure a conference a level below the ACC would be  a much better choice for them. Other than playing in the first collegiate football game, they have no tradition and the BIG has 4 of the 10 winningest programs in the country, same for attendance, etc. It looks like it might turn into thirds with M, OSU, PSU, NE at the top,the rest then taking turns in the middle and at the bottom. Basically, what we had before and Pat Finebaum can say what he wants about the BIG and Jim, but Durkin is another Harbaugh assist that seems to have a program on the move. It appears he has restored interest in the MD program, having 8 4 stars for 2017, a number higher than State avg before they had their run and we wont know more until later.

MD did not have the tradition either, but it has money. Rutgers is the poorest conference school with its endowment at less than a bllion. UM is no. 1 with over 8 billion in endowments. It UM were to freeze its endowments for 20 years and Rutgers averages the same for 20, theyd stil be behind.

They opened their doors, invited us in, fed us supper and asked if we woud like to play some cards. Two hours later, they kicked us out after losing all their money, asked if we would have their wives back within a week and promised the first payment of their best high school football players would arrive in 2014, with improved shipments each season and Michigan would receive the most because, well it was the fucking coolest.  

MgoBlueprint

March 7th, 2017 at 1:19 AM ^

I remember getting pony cleats one year for baseball because they were the only ones on sale and below my dad's $30 shoe limit. I don't think I've ever been so sad to get something that I didn't have to pay for myself. I remember spending the entire ride home squinting and holding them at different angles hoping that logo would like a swoosh, it didn't. I ended up wearing the cleats from the year before which were like two sizes too small. I know, cool story. 

4yearsofhoke

March 7th, 2017 at 1:11 AM ^

Sometimes it's funny to laugh at Rutgers....other times I remember 2014 and not making a bowl game. And oh yeah...losing to Rutgers. So I try to have good karma.

ESD

March 7th, 2017 at 4:53 AM ^

I rocked a Rutgers cap because I liked the Knight logo and it was on sale at Lids while a student at UM 20 years ago. I am glad they are coming up in the world LOL

I live in the Philly Area and travel in NJ often and almost never see people with Rutgers gear on. You might see a car magnet from time to time but that's about it.

Year of Revenge II

March 7th, 2017 at 6:52 AM ^

This is rather funny given the context of everything Adidas and Rutgers-connected at UM, and I am tempted to upvote this post based on my chuckle alone.

In actuality though, Adidas is a pretty solid manufacturer of sports gear, all appearances and history at Michigan to the contrary.

It is before your time, but in the 60's and early 70's, Converse owned the basketball shoe market in the US.  Just about every serious competitor at every level  wore Converse shoes.  I cannot even remember who the football, basketball, and baseball uniform manufacturers were, but you could not really dress like the athletes in those days.  They didn't make jerseys per se for the public; you had to be on the team.  We used cleats in football and baseball, steel ones to draw blood if you slid into second to break up a double play.  Lol.

The Converse shoes were plain white, not really any style to them by today's standards, but they were the best quality.  Then a few pros donned a shoe with three black stripes down the side.  It was the coolest thing we had ever seen.  Pretty soon, just about everyone was wearing them, or were begging their coach to get them.  The plain truth was, it was a much better shoe than the Converse for a number of reasons.

Adidas was all the rage back then.  Nike eventually overtook them as a manufacturer, but I think they are pretty close in what they make these day.  Nike is clearly the quality leader in just about everything.  Adidas, just a clearly though, still makes the best shoes in many sports. Soccer and tennis they are the clear #1.  I have not played real football and baseball in so long that I could not comment about that, but worldwide, Adidas still is a big, big name,

Their wearing apparel is pretty cool is soccer, tennis, perhaps golf, which are all world wide endeavors.  Nike clearly has them beat in quality to a small degree, but style overall you might give to Adidas.  It comes down to your preference.

Now I liked the Tennessee uniforms when they first came out, but Adidas's delving into College Football has been a miserable, laughable failure.  I do not know who is doing their styling for football, or college basketball, but whoever they are, Adidas needs to fire them.  Those bumblebee uniforms were just about the ugliest thing I have ever seen, worn by one of our most iconic players ever---Denard.

I am not a big fan of Nike's Mden stuff just yet, but I am willing to give it some time.  The Adidas stuff in comparison was just horrible, and I am grateful they are history. The high end UM stuff is really cool though. Pricey, but cool.

In sum, I do not really enjoy apparel threads, but here I am.  I gonna buy some more T-shirts, but my favorite game shirt will always be a simple Michigan blue with maize lettering across the front.  The maize-outs are really cool though, and I am becoming a fan of maize stuff.

My two favorite T's---a blue "Worst State Ever" shirt, and a maize shirt saying, "Maize-a bold and arrogant shade of yellow".

I hope Rutgers becomes competitive, but they are fun to laugh at given their New Jersey behavior.  I was at the Spectrum in 1976 when Ricky Green and Co. stomped Phil the thrill Sellers of Rutgers in the Final 4 semi.  They said they were going to kick our ass that day too.  We destroyed them, before succumbing to IU and Kent Benson in the second half of the final.