:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/35762890/fb-uniforms-2-1900.0.jpg)
I'm guessing most of you have had a chance to see this by now:
#Gophers new Nike deal goes Aug. 1-July 2020. Worth about $2.2M/yr. Current deal worth $1.3M/yr. Says a lot about what Nike thinks of MN.
— Darren Wolfson (@DarrenWolfson) July 14, 2014
@LarryL3g3nd @DarrenWolfson Here's some good info from last year: http://t.co/sIKvEx1aug
— Seth Kaplan (@Seth_Kaplan) July 14, 2014
Let's take a look at the link Seth shared.
Eight of the 12 teams in the Big Ten provided the Business Journal with copies of their contracts.
The University of Michigan — which has a contract with Adidas worth a reported $80 million — likely has the juiciest deal in the conference.
Arch-rival Ohio State isn't far behind with a contract that will dump $40 million into university coffers over a 10-year period.
Click through the gallery above for details about each university's shoe deal.
Northwestern University, which is private, is not required to disclose its contracts. The University of Michigan, Pennsylvania State University and the University of Minnesota have not responded to public records requests.
Those numbers make Minnesota's look weak right? Well, let's see how they really stack up. Biz Journals has us covered there too (the numbers are a little over a year old, but they give a good baseline and I think they are still up to date for the other schools.
Indiana
Supplier: Adidas
Equipment (2013-14): $1.375 million
Cash (2013-14): $850,000*
The deal: Indiana University signed an eight-year deal with Adidas in 2007 that runs through 2016. Adidas will provide the university nearly $11 million in merchandise and equipment during the life of the contract. Cash payments to the university will top $8 million.
How does it compare to Minnesota? Ummmmm...who did Indiana have dirt on at Adidas? Because this is a Nebraska/Wisconsin level payout per season from back in 2007. It makes no sense. Oh, and it means Minnesota's new deal is about the same as IU's.
Illinois
Supplier: Nike
Equipment (2013-14): $1.2 million
Cash (2013-14): $325,000
The deal: The University of Illinois signed a 10-year deal with Nike in 2006. The contract will net the university nearly $15 million in cash and equipment.
Thoughts: I guess Illinois can have moderately ok things.
Iowa
Supplier: Nike
Equipment (2013-14): $1.15 million
Cash (2013-14): $300,000
The deal: Iowa signed a four-year all-sport deal with Nike on Sept. 8, 2004. It signed a five-year extension in 2010 that runs through 2016.
How does it compare to Minnesota? Who hates Iowa? I guess Nike hates Iowa. Ok, not really. This deal was signed 4 years ago. In 2 years I'm sure they will also get a nice bump. After all, this guy needs new duds.
TROLOLOLOLOL.
Michigan
Dodged the FOIA request. Only including them because their contract is reported at $80 million.
Thoughts: Well Michigan, I hope this...
...was worth this...
Michigan State
Supplier: Nike
Equipment (2013-14): $1.5 million
Cash (2013-14): $100,000
The deal: Michigan State signed an all-sport deal with Nike in 2009 that extends through 2016. The deal will net the university $11.5 million in equipment and $775,000 in cash.
Thoughts: I guess you didn't want any cash Spartans? This deal is ripe for improvement in 2016 given the current strength of the MSU athletic department. In the meantime, enjoy being leapfrogged by MN.
Nebraska
Supplier: Adidas
Equipment (2013-14): $1.5 million
Cash (2013-14): $1 million
The deal: The University of Nebraska signed a five-year deal with Adidas in 2013. When the deal expires in 2018, the university will have netted $12.5 million in cash and equipment.
Thoughts: This looks good for Minnesota. Nebraska is clearly a bigger draw for apparel makers than Minnesota, and yet the Gophers were able to sign a deal that is almost as lucrative only one year after Nebraska re-upped with Adidas. The "tie" goes to Minnesota because:
via i.usatoday.net
Ohio State
Supplier: Nike
Equipment (2013-14): $2.5 million
Cash (2013-14): $1.18 million
The deal: Ohio State signed a seven-year deal with Nike in 2007. Nike has an option to extend the deal through 2018. If Nike picks up the option, the deal will net Ohio State nearly $40 million.
Thoughts: Why yes Nike, OSU will take your money. Minnesota will never see this much unless overall spending inflation in college sports brings the Gophers to this level and OSU much higher.
Purdue
Supplier: Nike
Equipment (2013-14): $1.1 million
Cash (2013-14): $300,000
The deal: The university signed an eight-year deal with Nike in 2007. The university extended the contract in 2009 for an additional four years. It now expires in 2014. The contract will net the university nearly $10.5 million in cash and equipment.
Thoughts: Well, if you needed a reminder that IU is more important than you Purdue, signing this deal at the same time as IU's should be that reminder. Also that $1.1 million dollar number is the max equipment payout. Purdue got less at the front end of the deal. This is the level of deal Minnesota used to get. #HAILTEAGUE
WIsconsin
Supplier: Adidas
Equipment (2013-14): $1.325 million
Cash (2013-14): $800,000
The deal: The University of Wisconsin signed a five-year deal with Adidas in 2011 that expires in 2016. The deal will net the university $10.5 million in cash and equipment.
Thoughts: The Gophers deal is work a touch more per year. However, Wisconsin signed their deal 3 years ago. I'd expect their deal in 2016 will leapfrog the U's without issue. In the meantime...
via inkstarzz.com
When you've said Adidas, you've said it all.
That's nice. Why do we care again?
Were you not paying attention? To the pictures? From before? Well, let's try this...
UCLA, @adidasFballUS unveil new alternate uniform for @UCLAFootball: #LASteel http://t.co/b0RNF3Aj2x pic.twitter.com/hdjwvPOjRg
— UCLA Athletics (@UCLAAthletics) July 16, 2014
City of Angels. City of Bruins. UCLA pays tribute to L.A. with new #LASteel alternate TECHFIT uniforms. #teamadidas pic.twitter.com/WobZVhu8XI
— adidas Football US (@adidasFballUS) July 16, 2014
More money is good, but not being an Adidas school is better. I stand by my tweet:
Dear @GoldenGopherAD, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for sticking with Nike. pic.twitter.com/CEjPmIwKib
— Chris H. (@GoAUpher) July 16, 2014
Now if everyone who likes these uniforms would kindly get off my digital lawn before I have to shake my fist at you.
A Share Note Of Annoyance
Quick thing I noticed when checking out Bruins Nation's reaction to the uniforms:
Let's move on to the Ugly.
There's really only one thing I find completely and utterly repulsive about the "LA Steel" uniforms and that's the availability of the so-called "LA Steel" jerseys available for pre-order online at the UCLA Store.
When I first looked at the "LA Steel" uniforms, I actually thought they were black. It's because the color is such a dark gray that it looked that way. It wasn't until I looked closely at the UCLA Stripe photo above that I realized that it's a really dark shade of gray that some might call graphite and not black after all.
Let's contrast that with the jerseys shown in the image above that are available for pre-order.
The color isn't even close. The actual uni is dark gray while the one available for purchase for $65 is a much lighter color. They don't look anything alike and that falls on Adidas who is making both items.
Last year, I really wanted to purchase the LA Midnight jersey. However, because they sold out (I'm not sure why they weren't re-ordered), I settled for the shirtsey. At least they were both black.
This year, the shirtsy looks even worse than the jersey. Rather than being a solid medium gray like the jersey, the shirtsey takes your standard athletic gray (dark in some places and lighter in others) t-shirt and throws numbers on it.
Well, at least we know we aren't the only set of fans being effed over by Nike's HORRIBLE NO GOOD VERY BAD KNOCK OFF APPAREL. So that's something I guess.