Auburn's Under Armour Apparel Deal

[Rednilla 5,391]

One more thing about a big money contract that has not been brought up. UA pays big money for exposure. The best way to get exposure is be seen and even better, TALKED ABOUT. I am sure before any ink was put to paper UA made sure they got to throw in some "eye candy" alternate uniforms during big marquee matchups like FSU. Is Auburn willing to let UA dress us out for a few games during a contract??????????????

Don't expect it, especially not for a big game (unless it's a regular season non-conference matchup at a neutral site type of deal)...but don't expect to see much of it at Notre Dame, either.

Notre Dame let Addidas have their day in the clovers in 2013... https://www.youtube....h?v=1W09j2RcBkQ They are letting UA have their day as well this year....

But who was it against?

[IronMan70 3,277]

I have the feeling that Bruce Pearl could recruit good players even if the team was sponsored by Ked's sneakers. He would make the kids think it's cool.

[NoALtiger 3,862]

Did Red actually just refer to AU as a major draw for basketball coaches? New arena or not, in no way are we a major draw IMO. Take away the unique situation and no way Bruce is here, shiny new building or not. JMO.

[aubfaninga 16]

One more thing about a big money contract that has not been brought up. UA pays big money for exposure. The best way to get exposure is be seen and even better, TALKED ABOUT. I am sure before any ink was put to paper UA made sure they got to throw in some "eye candy" alternate uniforms during big marquee matchups like FSU. Is Auburn willing to let UA dress us out for a few games during a contract??????????????

Don't expect it, especially not for a big game (unless it's a regular season non-conference matchup at a neutral site type of deal)...but don't expect to see much of it at Notre Dame, either.

Notre Dame let Addidas have their day in the clovers in 2013... https://www.youtube....h?v=1W09j2RcBkQ They are letting UA have their day as well this year....

But who was it against?

The first ever night game in Michigans "the big house". 2012 against Miami at Soldier Field (worst ones by the way). Last year was against ranked Arizona State in At&t stadium with a 7:30 kickoff. This year was against Purdue in Lucas Oil Stadium in a 7:30 kickoff. Don't discredit the Purdue match up because the Rivalry means something to the Irish.

[InfernoOrangeSS 321]

I like the UnderArmor gloves for Auburn. When they hold up their palms, it's the "UA" and an eagle.

[augolf1716 21,157]

_{If you look at that list, not only are Ohio State and Kentucky not on it, neither is USC. In the past couple of years, there have been several companies that are competing against the CLC to represent colleges. Even Jerry Jones has gotten into the business - I know that his group represents USC and that they were going after Ohio State. So not sure if there woudl be a way to compare all schools. As part of my job, I have had to get approvals from different schools for promotional materials with their logos, and I can tell you that the hardest schools to work with are Ohio State, Notre Dame, Duke and USC.}

Thanks for sharing. Nice first post with good info......

[keesler 5,924]

_{If you look at that list, not only are Ohio State and Kentucky not on it, neither is USC. In the past couple of years, there have been several companies that are competing against the CLC to represent colleges. Even Jerry Jones has gotten into the business - I know that his group represents USC and that they were going after Ohio State. So not sure if there woudl be a way to compare all schools. As part of my job, I have had to get approvals from different schools for promotional materials with their logos, and I can tell you that the hardest schools to work with are Ohio State, Notre Dame, Duke and USC.}

Thanks for sharing. I'd think the "old guard" teams have a lot of leverage when negotiating any promo deal.

[Rednilla 5,391]

Did Red actually just refer to AU as a major draw for basketball coaches? New arena or not, in no way are we a major draw IMO. Take away the unique situation and no way Bruce is here, shiny new building or not. JMO.

Not right now we aren't, and that's not what I was saying. I was saying that getting Pearl was, indeed, a HUGE deal, but with the new arena, the athletic facilities, and continued support from the powers that be (and I say 'continued' because I doubt we sink that much money into an arena without a great deal of support), then provided Pearl even comes close to building the program as we envision for just three or four years, I do believe we will have a great chance to bring in a really good coach. No, of course we won't be on the level of Kentucky or Duke in that regard, but the new coach would have booster support, top notch facilities, and a talented roster to work with; why wouldn't that make Auburn a major draw for coaches?

[Rednilla 5,391]

The first ever night game in Michigans "the big house". 2012 against Miami at Soldier Field (worst ones by the way). Last year was against ranked Arizona State in At&t stadium with a 7:30 kickoff. This year was against Purdue in Lucas Oil Stadium in a 7:30 kickoff. Don't discredit the Purdue match up because the Rivalry means something to the Irish.

Interesting, but note that all of those games were played away from Notre Dame, not at their home field. I suspect that makes a pretty big difference.

For the record, I've said on here (think it was the alternate unis thread) that I wouldn't have any problem with letting UA play with jersey designs if we do it for the away jerseys one game a year, and that was without knowing anything about Notre Dame having done the same thing.

[NoALtiger 3,862]

Did Red actually just refer to AU as a major draw for basketball coaches? New arena or not, in no way are we a major draw IMO. Take away the unique situation and no way Bruce is here, shiny new building or not. JMO.

Not right now we aren't, and that's not what I was saying. I was saying that getting Pearl was, indeed, a HUGE deal, but with the new arena, the athletic facilities, and continued support from the powers that be (and I say 'continued' because I doubt we sink that much money into an arena without a great deal of support), then provided Pearl even comes close to building the program as we envision for just three or four years, I do believe we will have a great chance to bring in a really good coach. No, of course we won't be on the level of Kentucky or Duke in that regard, but the new coach would have booster support, top notch facilities, and a talented roster to work with; why wouldn't that make Auburn a major draw for coaches?

Oh I agree that in the future, assuming Bruce even has a bit of the success we all think he will, we'll be a nice destination for coaches. No doubt about it.

[Rednilla 5,391]

Did Red actually just refer to AU as a major draw for basketball coaches? New arena or not, in no way are we a major draw IMO. Take away the unique situation and no way Bruce is here, shiny new building or not. JMO.

Not right now we aren't, and that's not what I was saying. I was saying that getting Pearl was, indeed, a HUGE deal, but with the new arena, the athletic facilities, and continued support from the powers that be (and I say 'continued' because I doubt we sink that much money into an arena without a great deal of support), then provided Pearl even comes close to building the program as we envision for just three or four years, I do believe we will have a great chance to bring in a really good coach. No, of course we won't be on the level of Kentucky or Duke in that regard, but the new coach would have booster support, top notch facilities, and a talented roster to work with; why wouldn't that make Auburn a major draw for coaches?

Oh I agree that in the future, assuming Bruce even has a bit of the success we all think he will, we'll be a nice destination for coaches. No doubt about it.

That was the only point I was trying to make, not that we were a particularly attractive destination for even moderately successful coaches before Pearl signed on.

[aucanucktiger 1,794]

As much as we like to think it is so, Auburn does not have the national following that ND has. They have a fan base that far exceeds any other school.

Except for this:

Auburn was #2 in total viewers, #2 in average viewers per game and #1 in live attendance for the 2013 season. I would say we are putting ourselves in a good negotiating position.

Total Viewers:

1. 80.1 mm- Alabama

2. 78.2 mm- Auburn

3. 77.1 mm- Ohio State

4. 72.3 mm- Florida State

5. 60.8 mm- Texas A&M

Average Viewers per game:

1. 7.4 mm- Alabama

2. 7.1 mm- Auburn

3. 6.4 mm- Ohio State

4. 6.1 mm- Michigan

5. 5.7 mm- Michigan State

http://mgoblog.com/d...ollege-football

http://www.sportsmed...l-tv-ratings/2/

Live Attendance:

1. 1,204,185- Auburn

2. 1,191,436- Ohio State

3. 1,174,360- Michigan

4. 1,156,256- Alabama

5. 1,096,097- Nebraska

http://blogs.ajc.com...l-team-in-2013/

These numbers below re apparel sales, rather than the above numbers re TV viewers, may be more relevant. Neutered Dame is #3. Auburn is, er, not. Granted these numbers pre date our national title run in football, but Notre Dame is always one of the top paraphernalia sellers coast to coast, decade after decade. I remember reading an article (looking for it) pointing out how they were near top of the list even during eras when they suck.

http://espn.go.com/c...dise-sales-list

[cooltigger21 0]

As much as we like to think it is so, Auburn does not have the national following that ND has. They have a fan base that far exceeds any other school.

Except for this:

Auburn was #2 in total viewers, #2 in average viewers per game and #1 in live attendance for the 2013 season. I would say we are putting ourselves in a good negotiating position.

Total Viewers:

1. 80.1 mm- Alabama

2. 78.2 mm- Auburn

3. 77.1 mm- Ohio State

4. 72.3 mm- Florida State

5. 60.8 mm- Texas A&M

Average Viewers per game:

1. 7.4 mm- Alabama

2. 7.1 mm- Auburn

3. 6.4 mm- Ohio State

4. 6.1 mm- Michigan

5. 5.7 mm- Michigan State

http://mgoblog.com/d...ollege-football

http://www.sportsmed...l-tv-ratings/2/

Live Attendance:

1. 1,204,185- Auburn

2. 1,191,436- Ohio State

3. 1,174,360- Michigan

4. 1,156,256- Alabama

5. 1,096,097- Nebraska

http://blogs.ajc.com...l-team-in-2013/

These numbers below re apparel sales, rather than the above numbers re TV viewers, may be more relevant. Neutered Dame is #3. Auburn is, er, not. Granted these numbers pre date our national title run in football, but Notre Dame is always one of the top paraphernalia sellers coast to coast, decade after decade. I remember reading an article (looking for it) pointing out how they were near top of the list even during eras when they suck.

http://espn.go.com/c...dise-sales-list

That is true and they will always have a large fanbase. Auburn did jump up several spots just last year and we are poised to move up even further with continued success. While it is not the time to redo the contract now, I'd say that by the time the contract comes up again, Auburn will be in a very good position during the negotiations.

[aucanucktiger 1,794]

Encouraging numbers below, albeit during our post glory Cam period.

http://www.bloomberg...ball-title.html

[chimesAU 89]

UA IS NOT BEHIND NIKE SORRY NIKE IS FALLING BEHIND UA and plus UA is all American unlike Nike that's why it cost more but I'm willing to pay it plus UA is a big sponser for Wounded warrior project for the US military I hope we never go for nike and stick with UA for good! They are getting better in a lot of areas and it's worth it!

I've got plenty of UA merchandise that was produced overseas. Try again.

[boisnumber1 2,819]

It would be nice if the fan apparel didn't cost an a and a leg per each piece of garb. A $30+ t shirt is absolutely unreasonable.

You are paying the sports tax. Its a monopoly design by pretty much the whole of sporting apparel.

So Nike, Adidas, etc. all cost the same for a simple shirt with a logo on it?

Pretty much paying for a company logo on your team t-shirt. A UK Nike cotton t- shirt cost about 25 dollars

http://www.fanatics....rt_-_Royal_Blue

An auburn under armour t-shirt costs 29, but it is not cotton.

http://www.fanatics....uro;"_Navy_Blue

It's pretty much the same across all brands, regardless of the school. For example, I was at Belmont University this past weekend in Nashville. A regular non-specific brand Belmont Tshirt in the campus bookstore was $15. A Nike Tshirt(nothing special - just said Belmont with the Nike swoosh under it) was $28. You are right though - that's a ridiculous price to pay for just a Tshirt. We bought a nice Belmont hoodie (not Nike) for only $5 more than what the Nike Tshirt cost.

[IronMan70 3,277]

As much as we like to think it is so, Auburn does not have the national following that ND has. They have a fan base that far exceeds any other school.

Except for this:

Auburn was #2 in total viewers, #2 in average viewers per game and #1 in live attendance for the 2013 season. I would say we are putting ourselves in a good negotiating position.

Total Viewers:

1. 80.1 mm- Alabama

2. 78.2 mm- Auburn

3. 77.1 mm- Ohio State

4. 72.3 mm- Florida State

5. 60.8 mm- Texas A&M

Average Viewers per game:

1. 7.4 mm- Alabama

2. 7.1 mm- Auburn

3. 6.4 mm- Ohio State

4. 6.1 mm- Michigan

5. 5.7 mm- Michigan State

http://mgoblog.com/d...ollege-football

http://www.sportsmed...l-tv-ratings/2/

Live Attendance:

1. 1,204,185- Auburn

2. 1,191,436- Ohio State

3. 1,174,360- Michigan

4. 1,156,256- Alabama

5. 1,096,097- Nebraska

http://blogs.ajc.com...l-team-in-2013/

These numbers below re apparel sales, rather than the above numbers re TV viewers, may be more relevant. Neutered Dame is #3. Auburn is, er, not. Granted these numbers pre date our national title run in football, but Notre Dame is always one of the top paraphernalia sellers coast to coast, decade after decade. I remember reading an article (looking for it) pointing out how they were near top of the list even during eras when they suck.

http://espn.go.com/c...dise-sales-list

Individual apparel sales to a sponsored school are only one part of the equation. UA doesn't pay schools just to get more jersey sales from them. They pay large sums for the exposure the team brings to UA from the association with the Auburn brand and that Auburn exposure. The main component of that exposure is viewership, just as it is when they advertise in the media.

So when eyeballs are watching Auburn, then Under Armour is being watched. They want fans not just from Auburn, what UA is after is the multiplier effect. As one example, they want the fans from 10,000 high schools seeing the Auburn/UA association, then buying UA merchandise representing their own schools.

Another example is, they don't pay Cam millions just to try and sell more Cam jerseys. They pay Cam for the association and exposure so UA can sell every NFL fan their own personal athletic gear. That's where they get their big return on investment .

[chimesAU 89]

As much as we like to think it is so, Auburn does not have the national following that ND has. They have a fan base that far exceeds any other school.

Except for this:

Auburn was #2 in total viewers, #2 in average viewers per game and #1 in live attendance for the 2013 season. I would say we are putting ourselves in a good negotiating position.

Total Viewers:

1. 80.1 mm- Alabama

2. 78.2 mm- Auburn

3. 77.1 mm- Ohio State

4. 72.3 mm- Florida State

5. 60.8 mm- Texas A&M

Average Viewers per game:

1. 7.4 mm- Alabama

2. 7.1 mm- Auburn

3. 6.4 mm- Ohio State

4. 6.1 mm- Michigan

5. 5.7 mm- Michigan State

http://mgoblog.com/d...ollege-football

http://www.sportsmed...l-tv-ratings/2/

Live Attendance:

1. 1,204,185- Auburn

2. 1,191,436- Ohio State

3. 1,174,360- Michigan

4. 1,156,256- Alabama

5. 1,096,097- Nebraska

http://blogs.ajc.com...l-team-in-2013/

These numbers below re apparel sales, rather than the above numbers re TV viewers, may be more relevant. Neutered Dame is #3. Auburn is, er, not. Granted these numbers pre date our national title run in football, but Notre Dame is always one of the top paraphernalia sellers coast to coast, decade after decade. I remember reading an article (looking for it) pointing out how they were near top of the list even during eras when they suck.

http://espn.go.com/c...dise-sales-list

Individual apparel sales to a sponsored school are only one part of the equation. UA doesn't pay schools just to get more jersey sales from them. They pay them large sums for the exposure the team brings to them from their association with the Auburn brand and the Auburn exposure. The main component of that exposure is viewership just as it is when they advertise in the media.

When eyeballs are watching Auburn, then Under Armour is getting exposure. They want fans not just from Auburn, UA is after the multiplier effect. As one example, they want the fans from 10,000 high schools seeing the Auburn/UA association then buying UA merchandise representing their own schools. Another example is, they don't pay Cam millions just to try and sell more Cam jerseys. They pay Cam for the association and exposure so that UA can sell every NFL fan their own personal athletic gear. That's where they get their return on investment.

Smart man.