passthebiscuits 6,846 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 The problem with UA is two-fold: First, the shoes stink. Really. I have first hand knowledge of this. Their shoes are inferior to the Nike products. Some (not all) of our athletes are wearing Nike shoes during the week. They have to tape over the Nike logo to step foot in the athletic facility. Second, the endorsers of most of the off-season basketball camps that the good players go to are NOT Under Armor. They lead the good players who think they can get rich in the NBA by playing one season at a top school to schools that use their products. Most of the recruiting in basketball is slimy, in my opinion, and the one-and-done rules have ruined college basketball for me. I'm afraid that no basketball coach could be very successful at Auburn. However, just being competitive would be good enough for me...I don't expect a top 10 basketball program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 5,924 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Most of the recruiting in basketball is slimy, in my opinion, and the one-and-done rules have ruined college basketball for me. I'm afraid that no basketball coach could be very successful at Auburn. However, just being competitive would be good enough for me...I don't expect a top 10 basketball program. Auburn can be successful and competitive in basketball, it's been done before with a coaching staff that had to get their hands dirty. AAU basketball poses a huge road block, and if a program isn't willing or able to break through that barricade they will find recruiting an up hill battle. The Atlanta talent is a gold mine that is only 2 hours from campus, there have been a few bluechips out of the Birmingham area. There are fertile recruiting fields in close proximity to Auburn, but somebody's gotta get the farmer to give us access to the studs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUmind 0 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I heard CBP is already firing up the BBQ at his new Lake Martin home waiting on the recruits to come over Lake Martin home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoALtiger 3,865 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I heard CBP is already firing up the BBQ at his new Lake Martin home waiting on the recruits to come over Lake Martin home? Yeah, he moved in last night bout 0800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburnfan91 1,407 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I'm all for switching to Nike but let's not exaggerate the problem and act like there's going to be a dramatic difference. Not trying to be a smart aleck but Auburn's going to struggle to get good talent even if we switch to Nike. Some people need to quit blowing it out of proportion. Yes it does hurt recruiting but it's not Auburn's biggest problem. Lack of tradition and not winning is Auburn's biggest problem. Georgia is a good example. They have Nike, they're the state school and like Auburn they lack basketball tradition. Georgia's only been to the NCAA Tournament 2 times in the last 10 years. Mark Fox was on the hot seat this year. Nike sure has paid off for Georgia. It's still going to be a tough sell to a recruit that's considering Auburn to choose us over Alabama, LSU, and Vanderbilt. They would all have Nike but Auburn would have the least basketball tradition to sell of those schools. Marquis Daniels is the only Auburn player(not counting Toney Douglas) that made it to the NBA and he was an undrafted free agent. The only selling point Auburn can offer is to start as a Freshman and playing in the nice new arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 AU needs a coach that can teach and develop players. Having Nike wouldn't hurt us, but it sure isn't a magic fix. And don't get me wrong, I love Nike. I just bought a new pair of Nikes, but they won't make me a better athlete. We need a coach that is a fundamental freak that can teach, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cole256 17,084 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 John wooden in his prime couldn't make a team with Rob Chubb as his starting center good. I don't care how much fundamentals you teach. This is real life not a feel good movie over 90% of the time the team with the best athletes win. You have to close the gap on talent for coaching to really make a difference. In football the reason I ALWAYS expect to beat Kentucky is because wehave better players. Yeah every now and again Kentucky may sneak out a win but more often than not they will lose no matter who coaches them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnphan 6,050 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I'm all for switching to Nike but let's not exaggerate the problem and act like there's going to be a dramatic difference. Not trying to be a smart aleck but Auburn's going to struggle to get good talent even if we switch to Nike. Some people need to quit blowing it out of proportion. Yes it does hurt recruiting but it's not Auburn's biggest problem. Lack of tradition and not winning is Auburn's biggest problem. Georgia is a good example. They have Nike, they're the state school and like Auburn they lack basketball tradition. Georgia's only been to the NCAA Tournament 2 times in the last 10 years. Mark Fox was on the hot seat this year. Nike sure has paid off for Georgia. It's still going to be a tough sell to a recruit that's considering Auburn to choose us over Alabama, LSU, and Vanderbilt. They would all have Nike but Auburn would have the least basketball tradition to sell of those schools. Marquis Daniels is the only Auburn player(not counting Toney Douglas) that made it to the NBA and he was an undrafted free agent. The only selling point Auburn can offer is to start as a Freshman and playing in the nice new arena. While I agree with a lot of your points, in the AAU world this is a huge difference and look at a school like Maryland since changing to UA as an example...I anticipated better improvement but it just has not happened and if it hasn't happened in a multi-million dollar business you cut ship and move on to re-create what was lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metafour 4,969 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 John wooden in his prime couldn't make a team with Rob Chubb as his starting center good. I don't care how much fundamentals you teach. This is real life not a feel good movie over 90% of the time the team with the best athletes win. You have to close the gap on talent for coaching to really make a difference. Have you watched a single March Madness in your life? Every year you see a half dozen teams you've never heard of come in with a bunch of undersized white kids who not only challenge but routinely BEAT significantly more talented opponents. These aren't "AAU Starz"...its a bunch of no-names who have zero Pro future unless you're talking smaller leagues overseas. I feel that Basketball is by far the biggest "coaching" dominated sport among the big three in College. By your argument Kentucky should be steam-rolling everyone...yet they were only 12-6 in conference and 22-9 overall despite 90% of their team being 5-star uber recruits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cole256 17,084 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Man please quit trying. Yes there is always an upset. That happens when you just have one game to play and it's not a series so what? And what team are you referring to with all the undersized white kids that routinely BEAT these guys? Buy your argument then a team like Davidson should be a 22 win team every year right? Same coach. But it took a player like curry to come around for them to really make noise. Creighton is a small school that's pretty good so when McDermott or whatever his name is graduate they will be just as good next year right? Who's the team full of nobodies that you are referring to? I'm sure you can pull out two or three teams....when you do that then look at the majority......this is a dumb argument to even be having Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metafour 4,969 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Also, right now Baylor has Nike for football and Adidas for basketball. Until Maryland's last basketball coach retired, they had Nike for basketball and Under Armour for everything else. It's not like this is unprecedented. It is highly unlikely because Under Armour pays us like a flagship program...and that is because until they just recently landed Notre Dame, we WERE the flagship program. They pay us Top 5-8 type money which is pretty freaking huge for a school that is the large minority in the state of Alabama and has marginal reach nationally. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but the "Auburn Brand" isn't exactly a power-player nationwide. Under Armour pays us like we are. In 2010 Alabama's re-up with Nike was for $30 million over 8 years...at the time that was a record for a Nike school (in per-year terms). The following year we re-upped with UA on a deal that pays us $27.45 million over 7 years...a deal that actually beats Alabama's in per-year totals. I cant remember fully off the top of my head, but I believe we also landed some cushy side-bonuses as well as part of the new deal. The point is, when we're banking that kind of money, I really doubt that UA is just going to say "Gee, go right ahead!" when proposed with a move in which we stop rocking their apparel in Basketball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU64 10,122 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Man please quit trying. Yes there is always an upset. That happens when you just have one game to play and it's not a series so what? And what team are you referring to with all the undersized white kids that routinely BEAT these guys? Buy your argument then a team like Davidson should be a 22 win team every year right? Same coach. But it took a player like curry to come around for them to really make noise. Creighton is a small school that's pretty good so when McDermott or whatever his name is graduate they will be just as good next year right? Who's the team full of nobodies that you are referring to? I'm sure you can pull out two or three teams....when you do that then look at the majority......this is a dumb argument to even be having Man you need to do some research before you start talking about Davidson. Curry was the best player they've had in quite a while but that little academically oriented school has been to the NCAA or NIT about every year the late 1990s....and the majority of those trips were without Curry....and with, as Metafour noted, mostly playing a bunch of middle sized unrated white guys who could shoot and play defense.....and who would never make a reverse slam during a game and will never even see the bench in the NBA. See pic http://davidsonwildc...x?path=mbball And they have 6 seniors on the team. It's not about race though...it's about guys that can shoot and play hard and are realistic about their expectations and go to Davidson (or Butler or ???) to play college basketball...not because they see the school as a quick step to the NBA. Those teams reflect that....because they always have a bunch of seniors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cole256 17,084 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 No actually you need to try again. Who is in Davidson's conference? They play against other small schools so yes they can go to nit or occasionally with their conference and go to the ncaa.... that's not hard to do but when they actually beat some teams in the tournament they had a future nba franchise player on that team. Butler had a guy on their team that has been starting in the nba since he's been drafted and he was a lottery pick. And I don't do the race stereotypes because that's stupid but please give me 2 teams filled with players that's not athletic across the board that was a good defensive team....I'll wait on the answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfernoOrangeSS 321 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 *******Please remember to keep discussions in a civil tone. There is no problem with stating your facts, but the use of name calling or implying that another poster is dumb will not be tolerated. State your points and counter argue others in a civil and respectful manner. Thank you.******* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 5,924 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Also, right now Baylor has Nike for football and Adidas for basketball. Until Maryland's last basketball coach retired, they had Nike for basketball and Under Armour for everything else. It's not like this is unprecedented. It is highly unlikely because Under Armour pays us like a flagship program...and that is because until they just recently landed Notre Dame, we WERE the flagship program. They pay us Top 5-8 type money which is pretty freaking huge for a school that is the large minority in the state of Alabama and has marginal reach nationally. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but the "Auburn Brand" isn't exactly a power-player nationwide. Under Armour pays us like we are. In 2010 Alabama's re-up with Nike was for $30 million over 8 years...at the time that was a record for a Nike school (in per-year terms). The following year we re-upped with UA on a deal that pays us $27.45 million over 7 years...a deal that actually beats Alabama's in per-year totals. I cant remember fully off the top of my head, but I believe we also landed some cushy side-bonuses as well as part of the new deal. The point is, when we're banking that kind of money, I really doubt that UA is just going to say "Gee, go right ahead!" when proposed with a move in which we stop rocking their apparel in Basketball. Why couldn't Auburn cut a big deal with Nike like UAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowerOfDixieland 3,226 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Why couldn't Auburn cut a big deal with Nike like UAT? A legally binding contract through 2016? And this.... Apparel Contract Total Values (first figure is the equipment and apparel value per yer, second figure is cash per year) LSU Nike $3,100,000 $1,000,000 Alabama Nike $2,690,000 $780,000 Auburn Under Armour $2,500,000 $1,750,000 Texas A&M Adidas $2,300,000 $1,417,249 Missouri Nike $2,200,000 $150,000 Florida Nike $2,085,600 Ole Miss Nike $2,050,000 South Carolina Under Armour $2,050,000 $1,050,000 Georgia Nike $1,770,000 $600,000 Kentucky Nike $1,600,000 $1,800,000 View Details Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keesler 5,924 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Why couldn't Auburn cut a big deal with Nike like UAT? A legally binding contract through 2016? And this.... Apparel Contract Total Values (first figure is the equipment and apparel value per yer, second figure is cash per year) LSU Nike $3,100,000 $1,000,000 Alabama Nike $2,690,000 $780,000 Auburn Under Armour $2,500,000 $1,750,000 Texas A&M Adidas $2,300,000 $1,417,249 Missouri Nike $2,200,000 $150,000 Florida Nike $2,085,600 Ole Miss Nike $2,050,000 South Carolina Under Armour $2,050,000 $1,050,000 Georgia Nike $1,770,000 $600,000 Kentucky Nike $1,600,000 $1,800,000 View Details Would Auburn be in breach of the existing contract if they back out of basketball and go with Nike? AND more importantly, would Nike be willing to pay AU for the basketball and nothing else? Some folks made it sound like it was a real easy transaction to just call up UA and cancel the basketball but keep the rest of their brand in other sports. In reality "if there is even a possibility" to drop the UA basketball, it will take some negotiating and legal folks to transact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgufcm 4,101 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Auburn would definitely be in breach. That's not really a question. The interesting question is, what happens post-breach? Would Under Armor actually sue Auburn? I tend to doubt it because we're the closest thing they have to a flagship. It certainly isn't Maryland because no one cares about Maryland (especially in football but also, recently, in basketball). With the possibility that Auburn could play in the college football playoff again next year, I'd say Auburn is in the driver's seat in that relationship. Nike would be more than happy to waltz in and offer us a comparable contract to take us out from under UA. BUT, there is a chance, and legal battles are expensive. Given the clear nature of the breach, Auburn wouldn't really have a great legal position so that has to be part of the equation. Bottom line, spliting away from UA in basketball can be done. You need a solid negotiator, and you need at least the threat of walking away at the end of the deal. If the administration isn't actually willing to leave UA (in all sports), Auburn's position severely weakens. As for the debate on UA/Nike, I don't think our shoe contract is THE reason we suck, but it is A reason we suck. Auburn basketball is almost always fighting an uphill battle. Why make it harder on yourself by handicapping your recruiting? That doesn't make sense to me. It's like the school's position on giving full scholarships to baseball players (by providing partial academic aid to fill the remaining unpaid expenses from a partial athletic scholarship), which cost us players year after year. Why make it harder on yourself? I'd love to see us move to Nike in basketball (even if it woud cause some stress on our UA relationship). I don't think it would be a fix-all, but it would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,488 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 From what I have read, there are some provisions on the contract that allow things like this to be renegotiated at this point. It's not an "iron-clad" deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgufcm 4,101 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 That absolutely may be true, which would make some sense. I should've been clearer that I was working under the assumption that our UA contract was an all-sports deal without in-term renegotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUcivE09 582 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I swear - every topic in basketball is a Nike vs UA discussion! Lets just get rid of basketball and turn the arena into a brewery. It would bring a larger attendance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,488 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I swear - every topic in basketball is a Nike vs UA discussion! Lets just get rid of basketball and turn the arena into a brewery. It would bring a larger attendance. It's unavoidable because of the nature of recruiting with basketball. It's an entirely different animal than football recruiting. For the top players, it really is all about the contracts with apparel makers and who funds the AAU teams. And Nike and Adidas does steer kids (through coaches) to college teams that they have contracts with. They want the best players to be wearing their stuff at one of their schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metafour 4,969 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 Why couldn't Auburn cut a big deal with Nike like UAT? Nike wouldn't pay us anywhere near as much as UA does. There is no reason for them to. The point is that we are a major player for a brand like Under Armour. At Nike, we are just another fish in the pond...and more importantly, we aren't even that big of a fish considering who they already have locked up. Think of it from a market share perspective as well. Nike already has the flagship program in this state (Bama)...they also have the flagship program in AU's biggest secondary market (UGA in Georgia), ergo, signing Auburn isn't really going to significantly increase their market share anywhere, thus there is no reason for them to cut us a big deal. Then you look at the SEC as a whole: they have Alabama, they have LSU, they have Florida, they have Georgia. Nike would gladly take us, but they aren't going to pay anywhere near as much as Under Armour does. Thats the point. The people we have negotiating these deals aren't stupid...they realize that UA is a negative for basketball. If we could have gotten a similar deal from Nike they would have taken it. There is no similar offer however, and there is absolutely no reason for Nike to open up the checkbook to pull us away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrytgr 0 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I swear - every topic in basketball is a Nike vs UA discussion! Lets just get rid of basketball and turn the arena into a brewery. It would bring a larger attendance. Keep in mind there is a lot more money to be made from these companies selling basketball shoes than any other shoe. People don't wear football or baseball cleats everyday while walking around. Basketball shoes is where the big money is made in their business and those companies fight hard for their market share starting with young kids. As meta just pointed out, we are going to get more money from UA. I don't think switching to Nike is going to reap huge recruiting rewards. We are a long ways from being able to reel in the big recruits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,488 Posted March 14, 2014 Share Posted March 14, 2014 I swear - every topic in basketball is a Nike vs UA discussion! Lets just get rid of basketball and turn the arena into a brewery. It would bring a larger attendance. Keep in mind there is a lot more money to be made from these companies selling basketball shoes than any other shoe. People don't wear football or baseball cleats everyday while walking around. Basketball shoes is where the big money is made in their business and those companies fight hard for their market share starting with young kids. As meta just pointed out, we are going to get more money from UA. I don't think switching to Nike is going to reap huge recruiting rewards. We are a long ways from being able to reel in the big recruits. I wouldn't bank on that. I believe we will eventually switch from UA to Nike or Adidas. It's not that switching means we suddenly compete with Kansas, Kentucky and UNC for big recruits. It's that there are a ton of next tier talents in that realm we aren't even getting a sniff at over this deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.