AAU recruiting?

[WarEagle84 0]

The current UA apparel contract runs through May 2016. At that point AU can renegotiate. If AU were to be Nike for basketball and UA for everything else it would cost us a lot of money with UA. One possible solution is AU becoming a Jordan Brand School for basketball in 2016. It's a subsidiary of Nike which would not interfere as much with UA and likely would cost AU less from UA's end.

Any contract can be renegotiated at any time. UA has little incentive to renegotiate now, so if we wanted out it would likely cost a lot--likely more than we are willing to pay.

[mustache eagle 2,412]

People keep referencing "lots of money" in relationship to the UA contract. Over and over I hear this.

The auburn athletic program has over $100 million budget per year and the UA is a little over $4 mil a year. We are talking about 4% of the budget ... That is NOTHING! And that is for all of the sports I assume. So what percent of that would be lost if auburn renegotiated out the bball program? Significantly less than 4% of the budget. For arguments sake less say its half ... So 2%. That is squat.

If we did negotiate out of UA and into someone else, we would get some money back so the effect would be even less ... Again let's say half ... So now it's 1% or less. Assuming the apparel contract affects possible recruit quality therefore wins/loses erefore attendance then the increased attendance would offset any potential small loss. This is a no brainer to renegotiate.

Considering where our football program appears to be heading, an apparel company would be nuts not to work with auburn if they wanted to continue with our football program.

The way I see it ... Our football program clout now and projected in the future outweighs the apparel companies in negotiating.

Keep getting interrupted and losing my thoughts ... Change the contract if it is a real difference maker.

[AUpocalypse 12]

The auburn athletic program has over $100 million budget per year and the UA is a little over $4 mil a year. We are talking about 4% of the budget ... That is NOTHING! And that is for all of the sports I assume. So what percent of that would be lost if auburn renegotiated out the bball program? Significantly less than 4% of the budget. For arguments sake less say its half ... So 2%. That is squat.

That sounds good, but you have to take this into consideration:

Revenues 2013= $105.9 million Expenses= $96.3 million

+/- Net of $9.6 million

Currently, AU gets half off of $2.5 million in apparel... Some of that discount would disappear in a re-neg

Auburn will still be paying Barbee, and likely more per year for the current coach

But I don't know if any of that really matters when there is sure to be additional revenue from the SEC Network coming this year.

Just pointing out how quickly $9 can disappear.

[mustache eagle 2,412]

I hear ya, but as a non profit, we will always have our expenses at or near our revenue.

[AUpocalypse 12]

I hear ya, but as a non profit, we will always have our expenses at or near our revenue.

This is true. I was also hoping to educate some people and avoid seeing someone say that AU had $100 million to burn in future threads

[ellitor 33,114]

The current UA apparel contract runs through May 2016. At that point AU can renegotiate. If AU were to be Nike for basketball and UA for everything else it would cost us a lot of money with UA. One possible solution is AU becoming a Jordan Brand School for basketball in 2016. It's a subsidiary of Nike which would not interfere as much with UA and likely would cost AU less from UA's end.

Any contract can be renegotiated at any time. UA has little incentive to renegotiate now, so if we wanted out it would likely cost a lot--likely more than we are willing to pay.

Not necesarily in 2016 which is the only time frame I was talking about and if it's Jordan Brand. Word around the AD is it would not codst as much to have them for B-Ball only as it would for Mama Nike.

[AUpocalypse 12]

Food for thought...

The makeup of the US Basketball Shoe Market:

Jordan 58%

Nike 34%

Adidas 5.5%

Reebok 1.6%

UnderA 0.6%

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Again, the issue of Nike vs Adidas vs Under Armour is not about what shoes the kids like to wear, market share or who makes the best stuff. It is about control over the AAU teams and the steering of players to colleges who are also signed on with the same apparel maker for uniforms, shoes and whatnot.

[AUpocalypse 12]

Again, the issue of Nike vs Adidas vs Under Armour is not about what shoes the kids like to wear, market share or who makes the best stuff. It is about control over the AAU teams and the steering of players to colleges who are also signed on with the same apparel maker for uniforms, shoes and whatnot.

While I agree with the issue (there's nothing to dispute there), those factors certainly play into it. Under Armour having a 0.6% Market Share shows how far behind they are, what role they play, how important a school like AUburn & the contract is to them, etc

[WarEagle84 0]

The current UA apparel contract runs through May 2016. At that point AU can renegotiate. If AU were to be Nike for basketball and UA for everything else it would cost us a lot of money with UA. One possible solution is AU becoming a Jordan Brand School for basketball in 2016. It's a subsidiary of Nike which would not interfere as much with UA and likely would cost AU less from UA's end.

Any contract can be renegotiated at any time. UA has little incentive to renegotiate now, so if we wanted out it would likely cost a lot--likely more than we are willing to pay.

Not necesarily in 2016 which is the only time frame I was talking about and if it's Jordan Brand. Word around the AD is it would not codst as much to have them for B-Ball only as it would for Mama Nike.

Agreed. Whatever it costs us in direct revenue could be quickly made up for in increased ticket sales and other revenue that would result from fielding a competitive team.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

I think youre confused by thinking that our exposure and nationwide recognition is average at best. We are already the most shown team on ESPN. AVERAGE AT BEST?? Average would indicate middle of the road....especially average at best....putting us in the middle of 120 teams (or 60th at best say you)....make it to the playoffs this year, as most expect us to, and we are EASILY a top 10 name in football. No way in hell are we average at best. Our brand name recognition should be at an all time high next year. Fortunately, Nike doesnt live in the 70s, which was the last time we were "average at best".

When I said "average at best", I wasn't implying a literal statement...I was implying that in many ways Auburn is a regional brand that doesn't have much selling power outside the confines of the South East, which is pretty much the reality. Look at Auburn's "market": Nike already has Bama in Alabama. They have UGA in Georgia. They have UF in Florida. They've got pretty much all the flagship programs in the SE, including LSU in Louisiana. They dont need Auburn to penetrate any of those markets because they already OWN those markets...so why would they pay us a ransom when it doesn't make financial sense for them to do so? The answer is that they wouldn't. The reason why UA pays us so much is because they are a growing company that is trying to PENETRATE these markets...by basis of simple supply/demand we are worth way more to UA than we are to Nike, which is why we get the big bucks from UA.

Go look at some merchandise sales rankings. 6 of the top 10 nationally are from the SEC...all of them are with Nike. Arkansas is one of those 6 and they actually rank ahead of us in merchandise sales....which is what these whole deals pretty much boil down to in the end. South Carolina actually beats us here as well, and they are only 16th.

There is a reason why we are with Under armour and it is because $$$$. Period. There is no better or equal deal out there for us.

^^ Does make sense.