BGSU becomes Nike school

[BGSU33]

It's about damn time we went with Nike. Huge step up and I'm happy for our kids who get to benefit. I also agree with the point made about most other things looking generic before. It looked cluttered and gimmicky. The BG stuff by Nike will not look like that at all. Heck, I remember when we wore Reebok at BG. Talk about awful stuff.

[Schadenfreude]

It looked cluttered and gimmicky.

Hopefully this will mean an end to those wings. Hate them.

[MarkL]

The most important question ... will we see a return of the Angry Chicken?

[Flipper]

No...I think Dan Dakich is enjoying his radio gig.

[ChardonFalcon]

Maybe not the return of the angry chicken...but is it too much to hope Nike can slay the space ghost ????

[Falconfreak90]

This exponentially increases the chance that we see brown return to our uniforms in all sports.

For this reason alone, I am 110% happy. The more brown, the better. And if we're are getting a better deal, icing on the cake.

[townie]

BG's old adidas contract is public record, available from the database here:
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blo ... l?page=all" target="_blank

ouch. adidas did provide a modest amount of promotional merchandise, but only if we made minimum annual purchase of $200,000. If we didn't hit the $200,000, no promotional merch AND we had to PAY adidas cash equivalent to the shortfall.

meanwhile...
"The University of Michigan's contract with Adidas is the largest in the database. The university gets $4.4 million in equipment and apparel and another $3.8 million in cash annually from Adidas."

fu**ing bastards.

The comparison between BGSU and UM's deals is shocking when seen next to each other. I suspect UM doesn't take over 50% of the students' general fund payments for athletics, as a result. Hopefully the new Nike deal helps with some of those shortfalls at BGSU.

[hammb]

BG's old adidas contract is public record, available from the database here:
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blo ... l?page=all" target="_blank

ouch. adidas did provide a modest amount of promotional merchandise, but only if we made minimum annual purchase of $200,000. If we didn't hit the $200,000, no promotional merch AND we had to PAY adidas cash equivalent to the shortfall.

meanwhile...
"The University of Michigan's contract with Adidas is the largest in the database. The university gets $4.4 million in equipment and apparel and another $3.8 million in cash annually from Adidas."

fu**ing bastards.

The comparison between BGSU and UM's deals is shocking when seen next to each other. I suspect UM doesn't take over 50% of the students' general fund payments for athletics, as a result. Hopefully the new Nike deal helps with some of those shortfalls at BGSU.

UM doesn't take 50% of it's general fund for athletics because they have a 110,000 seat stadium where the average ticket price is probably north of $75...and their students are paying $40 or more for a seat to every game. Throw in their massive television contracts, revenue production from hoops and hockey, merchandise sales that are probably 50-100x more than BG sells, and it all adds up to not having to take from the general fund to pay for athletics. The merchandise contract above obviously dwarfs what BG will get, but it is a drop in the bucket when compared to the entirety of the UM (or other major football powerhouse) athletic budget.

[jg4242]

The real reason Adidas pays UM and gives them free stuff is because of how much they will make selling replica apparel. Adidas might make somewhere on the order of half a million in revenue a year on sales (including what the department buys for itself). They will make tens of millions selling Michigan gear to a national fan base. It's similar to the deals these manufacturers make with soccer teams. The money isn't in advertising, it's in replica jersey sales.

[townie]

BG's old adidas contract is public record, available from the database here:
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/blo ... l?page=all" target="_blank

ouch. adidas did provide a modest amount of promotional merchandise, but only if we made minimum annual purchase of $200,000. If we didn't hit the $200,000, no promotional merch AND we had to PAY adidas cash equivalent to the shortfall.

meanwhile...
"The University of Michigan's contract with Adidas is the largest in the database. The university gets $4.4 million in equipment and apparel and another $3.8 million in cash annually from Adidas."

fu**ing bastards.

The comparison between BGSU and UM's deals is shocking when seen next to each other. I suspect UM doesn't take over 50% of the students' general fund payments for athletics, as a result. Hopefully the new Nike deal helps with some of those shortfalls at BGSU.

UM doesn't take 50% of it's general fund for athletics because they have a 110,000 seat stadium where the average ticket price is probably north of $75...and their students are paying $40 or more for a seat to every game. Throw in their massive television contracts, revenue production from hoops and hockey, merchandise sales that are probably 50-100x more than BG sells, and it all adds up to not having to take from the general fund to pay for athletics. The merchandise contract above obviously dwarfs what BG will get, but it is a drop in the bucket when compared to the entirety of the UM (or other major football powerhouse) athletic budget.

Certainly. And a student body / alumni that truly cares for their team. Most schools, unfortunately, don't have that type of fan base and need general funds to support athletics. I wonder how NCAA autonomy will affect smaller schools like BGSU, if at all.

As much as I enjoy sports on a purely selfish level, the academic in me cringes at student general fees being used to keep a program afloat.