Auburn signs 10 year deal with Under Armour

[aujeff11 6,243]

I'm thrilled Under Armour is giving AU tons of $ and apparel but I'm tired of the gear they release to the public. The prices are exorbitant and it looks like it was designed by Ed Hardy or Affliction (no offense Loof).

People still wear Affliction?? Thought that went out with tribal tattoos and wallet chains. :)/>

I imagine UFC bros are keeping all of those things alive and well.

correction: wannabe UFC bros

UFC fanbros?

Indeed

[IronMan70 3,277]

from Ryan Black at 247:

— Contract term: Nine years (July 1, 2016-June 30, 2025)

— Total contract value: $78.1 million

— Annual average: $8.68 million

*Base compensation (cash): $22.5 million

*Product: $40.5 million

*Stock: $10 million

*Royalties: $4.5 million

*Marketing: $675,000

Auburn's previous contract with Under Armour was a 10-year deal which ran from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2016. The total contract value was $36.5 million, with an annual average payout of $3.65 million.

http://auburn.247sports.com/Board/42/Contents/Auburn-releases-term-of-Under-Armour-contract-39870956

[ausburn 159]

from Ryan Black at 247:

— Contract term: Nine years (July 1, 2016-June 30, 2025)

— Total contract value: $78.1 million

— Annual average: $8.68 million

*Base compensation (cash): $22.5 million

*Product: $40.5 million

*Stock: $10 million

*Royalties: $4.5 million

*Marketing: $675,000

Auburn's previous contract with Under Armour was a 10-year deal which ran from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2016. The total contract value was $36.5 million, with an annual average payout of $3.65 million.

http://auburn.247spo...ntract-39870956

There goes Jay giving the house away.......smh....

[aubearcat 2,136]

I'm not wearing any of the equipment, so take this with a grain of salt, but I personally wish we would've switched to Nike. It feels to me like they put so much more effort into making each of their schools uniforms unique, either through a custom font (eg Tennessee) or subtle detail that you have to know is there to get (eg Wake Forrest)

I too don't wear the equipment but as far as fan apparel, Nike is top notch.

[FoundationEagle 637]

from Ryan Black at 247:

— Contract term: Nine years (July 1, 2016-June 30, 2025)

— Total contract value: $78.1 million

— Annual average: $8.68 million

*Base compensation (cash): $22.5 million

*Product: $40.5 million

*Stock: $10 million

*Royalties: $4.5 million

*Marketing: $675,000

Auburn's previous contract with Under Armour was a 10-year deal which ran from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2016. The total contract value was $36.5 million, with an annual average payout of $3.65 million.

http://auburn.247spo...ntract-39870956

There goes Jay giving the house away.......smh.... ;)/>

Looks like he just more than paid for those buyouts everyone in the other thread was complaining about. Must have been feeling the pressure...

[Blizz5307 0]

If the deal is to burn those orange shoe then please proceed.

I love the orange shoes, lol. They look sharp, man.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

I'm not wearing any of the equipment, so take this with a grain of salt, but I personally wish we would've switched to Nike. It feels to me like they put so much more effort into making each of their schools uniforms unique, either through a custom font (eg Tennessee) or subtle detail that you have to know is there to get (eg Wake Forrest)

Did you miss the orange shoes? JMO but that's about as unique as we need.

And as someone noted last week about Oregon, those "alternative" uniforms ain't so cool when you are being beat by six touchdowns on your home field.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I don't care about the Nike "flash". I don't want us to have neon-everything (or anything for that matter), but that doesn't mean that we can't have some unique design elements in our uniforms, even if they're subtle. For example, when re-designing Wake Forest's uniforms, the font they used had a major angle (larger) and a minor angle (smaller). The major angle was 34 degrees, and the minor angle was 18 degrees. While these seem arbitrary, it was actually a subtle design cue, as Wake was founded in 1834.

A second one was the design on the sleeves of the jersey, seen here:

While this appears to be simply a flashy design, it is actually a design integrated into the uniforms from an alternate Wake Forest logo:

These kinds of design cue's aren't flashy, they aren't about having a shock-and-awe effect, but they are signs that Nike didn't just take their base uniform and put different colors on it, they spent time researching the university and coming up with a uniform design that is unique to Wake and very good looking.

I'm not wearing any of the equipment, so take this with a grain of salt, but I personally wish we would've switched to Nike. It feels to me like they put so much more effort into making each of their schools uniforms unique, either through a custom font (eg Tennessee) or subtle detail that you have to know is there to get (eg Wake Forrest)

Eh. They put out some hideous "Pro Combat" unis for schools willing to ugly it up. We were never going to do that so there's not really anything Nike could do to make our uniforms "unique" in that regard.

Plus, there's no way on God's green earth Nike would give us this much money. We are way better off with Under Armour.

See my post above. There are TONS of things that Nike could do to make our uniforms unique. Could Under Armour do it too? Yes, of course they could. But I think that it is MUCH more likely that Nike does, simply because they've done it in the past. The closest that Under Armour has come to making our uniforms unique was the "tramp stamp" back in 2011, but even then, they used the same style of "uniqueness" for us, SCAR, Texas Tech, and a multitude of other schools.

I honestly don't want to see anything even in the same solar system as that Wake Forest stuff done to our uniforms.

[JDUBB4AU 5,110]

Wake forest logo reminds me of double tree hotel logo .lol

[doc4aday 1,887]

If "War Corgi" could be added to the Under Armour package, we could command upwards of $20 million per year. Why not?

[RunInRed 16,383]

Updated again ...

Auburn's deal now ranked as 5th w/ Under Armour ...

[AU-24 3,063]

Updated again ...

Auburn's deal now ranked as 5th w/ Under Armour ...

http://www.aufamily....h-under-armour/

As was posted in another thread: Behind Wis, Cal and UCLA? Thanks Jay.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Updated again ...

Auburn's deal now ranked as 5th w/ Under Armour ...

http://www.aufamily....h-under-armour/

As was posted in another thread: Behind Wis, Cal and UCLA? Thanks Jay.

Not exactly when it comes to Wisconsin. Our deal is for 9 years at $8.68 million per year while theirs is 10 years at $8.6M. That's about three-quarters of a million dollars more over the next 9 years than them and we'll get to rebid a year before they do.

The other factor to consider is that I believe re-outfitting all the teams is factored into the amount of the deal. Given that a school coming from another maker like Adidas has to get completely new stuff from head to toe for every single sport, that kicks their number up a good bit compared to someone like Auburn who was already an Under Armour school.

[BhamCAT 47]

Don't our guys hit the weight room so hard that they have to be re-fitted at least 3 times a year? Seems like a good deal.

[WarTiger 3,901]

Updated again ...

Auburn's deal now ranked as 5th w/ Under Armour ...

http://www.aufamily....h-under-armour/

As was posted in another thread: Behind Wis, Cal and UCLA? Thanks Jay.

Not exactly when it comes to Wisconsin. Our deal is for 9 years at $8.68 million per year while theirs is 10 years at $8.6M. That's about three-quarters of a million dollars more over the next 9 years than them and we'll get to rebid a year before they do.

The other factor to consider is that I believe re-outfitting all the teams is factored into the amount of the deal. Given that a school coming from another maker like Adidas has to get completely new stuff from head to toe for every single sport, that kicks their number up a good bit compared to someone like Auburn who was already an Under Armour school.

The anti Jacobs crowd doesn't like facts that don't fit their mantra.

[eibua12 81]

Updated again ...

Auburn's deal now ranked as 5th w/ Under Armour ...

http://www.aufamily....h-under-armour/

As was posted in another thread: Behind Wis, Cal and UCLA? Thanks Jay.

Not exactly when it comes to Wisconsin. Our deal is for 9 years at $8.68 million per year while theirs is 10 years at $8.6M. That's about three-quarters of a million dollars more over the next 9 years than them and we'll get to rebid a year before they do.

The other factor to consider is that I believe re-outfitting all the teams is factored into the amount of the deal. Given that a school coming from another maker like Adidas has to get completely new stuff from head to toe for every single sport, that kicks their number up a good bit compared to someone like Auburn who was already an Under Armour school.

The anti Jacobs crowd doesn't like facts that don't fit their mantra.

Yea, those pesky facts like Wisky's deal is 9.6 million a year and Auburn actually only moves up above Cal on the list, so we are 4th and I expect ready to fall more as more deals are made. I wonder if we have the don't change our Unis fee in the contract which lowered our price point. Some of these schools also have more sports than Auburn therefore.... more money.

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm not wearing any of the equipment, so take this with a grain of salt, but I personally wish we would've switched to Nike. It feels to me like they put so much more effort into making each of their schools uniforms unique, either through a custom font (eg Tennessee) or subtle detail that you have to know is there to get (eg Wake Forrest)

Did you miss the orange shoes? JMO but that's about as unique as we need.

And as someone noted last week about Oregon, those "alternative" uniforms ain't so cool when you are being beat by six touchdowns on your home field.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I don't care about the Nike "flash". I don't want us to have neon-everything (or anything for that matter), but that doesn't mean that we can't have some unique design elements in our uniforms, even if they're subtle. For example, when re-designing Wake Forest's uniforms, the font they used had a major angle (larger) and a minor angle (smaller). The major angle was 34 degrees, and the minor angle was 18 degrees. While these seem arbitrary, it was actually a subtle design cue, as Wake was founded in 1834.

A second one was the design on the sleeves of the jersey, seen here:

While this appears to be simply a flashy design, it is actually a design integrated into the uniforms from an alternate Wake Forest logo:

These kinds of design cue's aren't flashy, they aren't about having a shock-and-awe effect, but they are signs that Nike didn't just take their base uniform and put different colors on it, they spent time researching the university and coming up with a uniform design that is unique to Wake and very good looking.

I'm not wearing any of the equipment, so take this with a grain of salt, but I personally wish we would've switched to Nike. It feels to me like they put so much more effort into making each of their schools uniforms unique, either through a custom font (eg Tennessee) or subtle detail that you have to know is there to get (eg Wake Forrest)

Eh. They put out some hideous "Pro Combat" unis for schools willing to ugly it up. We were never going to do that so there's not really anything Nike could do to make our uniforms "unique" in that regard.

Plus, there's no way on God's green earth Nike would give us this much money. We are way better off with Under Armour.

See my post above. There are TONS of things that Nike could do to make our uniforms unique. Could Under Armour do it too? Yes, of course they could. But I think that it is MUCH more likely that Nike does, simply because they've done it in the past. The closest that Under Armour has come to making our uniforms unique was the "tramp stamp" back in 2011, but even then, they used the same style of "uniqueness" for us, SCAR, Texas Tech, and a multitude of other schools.

Any apparel maker can make something unique for a school. Auburn doesn't want any of that flashy stuff. Auburn doesn't need any of the flashy stuff. If Auburn wanted it, UA would make it.

[AU-24 3,063]

Updated again ...

Auburn's deal now ranked as 5th w/ Under Armour ...

http://www.aufamily....h-under-armour/

As was posted in another thread: Behind Wis, Cal and UCLA? Thanks Jay.

Not exactly when it comes to Wisconsin. Our deal is for 9 years at $8.68 million per year while theirs is 10 years at $8.6M. That's about three-quarters of a million dollars more over the next 9 years than them and we'll get to rebid a year before they do.

The other factor to consider is that I believe re-outfitting all the teams is factored into the amount of the deal. Given that a school coming from another maker like Adidas has to get completely new stuff from head to toe for every single sport, that kicks their number up a good bit compared to someone like Auburn who was already an Under Armour school.

The anti Jacobs crowd doesn't like facts that don't fit their mantra.

Facts like how our three major men's teams did last season? Facts like lessor schools are getting better financial deals with Under Armor and Nike than we are? Facts like the End Zone renovation mismanaged debacle? Those facts?

[AU64 10,122]

Updated again ...

Auburn's deal now ranked as 5th w/ Under Armour ...

http://www.aufamily....h-under-armour/

As was posted in another thread: Behind Wis, Cal and UCLA? Thanks Jay.

Not exactly when it comes to Wisconsin. Our deal is for 9 years at $8.68 million per year while theirs is 10 years at $8.6M. That's about three-quarters of a million dollars more over the next 9 years than them and we'll get to rebid a year before they do.

The other factor to consider is that I believe re-outfitting all the teams is factored into the amount of the deal. Given that a school coming from another maker like Adidas has to get completely new stuff from head to toe for every single sport, that kicks their number up a good bit compared to someone like Auburn who was already an Under Armour school.

The anti Jacobs crowd doesn't like facts that don't fit their mantra.

Facts like how our three major men's teams did last season? Facts like lessor schools are getting better financial deals with Under Armor and Nike than we are? Facts like the End Zone renovation mismanaged debacle? Those facts?

No.....those are not facts....they are opinions... One fact is that Auburn is not in the top 5 most popular sports merchandising, not in the top ten and in one list was right beside Wisconsin at 15-16.

Just a reminder (though it's hard for some of us to forget) but we are not even first in our home state and with three mediocre football teams in the past 5 years it seems we were lucky to get the size deal that we got. Not a fact.....JMO....

[keesler 5,924]

I think the the current UA deal that Jacobs negotiated was a good one for Auburn. We are not a national brand, we are not an old "blue blood" and we are not in a market like LA.

[War Knight 514]

I think to dismiss any Jacobs ditractors would be foolish.

Men's basketball: (11-20) 13th in the SEC.

Men's baseball: (8-22 in SEC play) (23-33 overall) 13th in the SEC.

Men's football: (7-6) 10th in the SEC and dead last in the West.

Men's Tennis: (2-11) in SEC play (12-14) overall. 13th in the SEC.

No Men's soccer team even exists

Not ranked in Track and Field considering six SEC teams are in the top 25.

All pretty terrible. We should not be a bottom feeder team in every Men's sport.

[NoALtiger 3,849]

I think the the current UA deal that Jacobs negotiated was a good one for Auburn. We are not a national brand, we are not an old "blue blood" and we are not in a market like LA.

Exactly

[AU64 10,122]

I think to dismiss any Jacobs ditractors would be foolish.

Men's basketball: (11-20) 13th in the SEC.

Men's baseball: (8-22 in SEC play) (23-33 overall) 13th in the SEC.

Men's football: (7-6) 10th in the SEC and dead last in the West.

Men's Tennis: (2-11) in SEC play (12-14) overall. 13th in the SEC.

No Men's soccer team even exists

Not ranked in Track and Field considering six SEC teams are in the top 25.

All pretty terrible. We should not be a bottom feeder team in every Men's sport.

p

Seems to me that Jacobs hired the coaches that had great support from Auburn fans . He can't do the coaching on the field . I guess the issue is how much longer Auburn people will put up with the records that Gus and Bruce have rung up. Thus far people seem happy with Butch , despite the record this year .

No doubt men's program is in disarray . I'm just wondering what changes (other than JJ) folks want to see.?

[jtauburntiger 119]

I think to dismiss any Jacobs ditractors would be foolish.

Men's basketball: (11-20) 13th in the SEC.

Men's baseball: (8-22 in SEC play) (23-33 overall) 13th in the SEC.

Men's football: (7-6) 10th in the SEC and dead last in the West.

Men's Tennis: (2-11) in SEC play (12-14) overall. 13th in the SEC.

No Men's soccer team even exists

Not ranked in Track and Field considering six SEC teams are in the top 25.

All pretty terrible. We should not be a bottom feeder team in every Men's sport.

p

Seems to me that Jacobs hired the coaches that had great support from Auburn fans . He can't do the coaching on the field . I guess the issue is how much longer Auburn people will put up with the records that Gus and Bruce have rung up. Thus far people seem happy with Butch , despite the record this year .

No doubt men's program is in disarray . I'm just wondering what changes (other than JJ) folks want to see.?

Agreed - baseball is going through transition but people have supported the last 2 hires greatly. so how is that JJs fault? Football - Gus was the right hire at the time. He may never get us to where we want to be, and if he does not - he will be gone, that is clear. But no one was questioning JJ when we were playing FSU 12 months after the hire. He took a chance on Gus but I think it was the right call at the time regardless of this upcoming season. (understand that coaching across the state from the most powerful personality in college football since Bear Bryant is the roughest job in the country - so I do not expect there to be a ton of established coaches to come running to AU if we pull the trigger again for the 3rd time in 8 years). and Basketball - we have the best coach possible at this time. If you think we will get an upgrade from Bruce - you need to do more passing and less puffing. And if Bruce Pearl is the best coach out there and he has built a solid staff.... how is the record JJs fault?

Firing JJ tomorrow does not fix ANY of these failures. stability, good coaching, and solid recruiting does. - Firing a coach every 3 years because you didn't get what you wanted does not help any of those things.

Is JJ the best athletic director around? No Can you blame him for the failures above? I don't see it putting money behind making good hires... check. putting money into strong facilities (basketball, baseball, football practice facilities.... Check JH Stadium.... to be seen)

some of these rants get old.

[keesler 5,924]

I think to dismiss any Jacobs ditractors would be foolish.

Men's basketball: (11-20) 13th in the SEC.

Men's baseball: (8-22 in SEC play) (23-33 overall) 13th in the SEC.

Men's football: (7-6) 10th in the SEC and dead last in the West.

Men's Tennis: (2-11) in SEC play (12-14) overall. 13th in the SEC.

No Men's soccer team even exists

Not ranked in Track and Field considering six SEC teams are in the top 25.

All pretty terrible. We should not be a bottom feeder team in every Men's sport.

AU Men's sports suck right now, no one can argue differently as facts are facts and the W-L records don't lie. But firing Jay Jacobs at sundown TODAY won't fix any of that. The man covers the top 3 priorities of his job - he has AU Athletics making money, out of the NCAA cross-hairs, and the most importantly....student-athletes are graduating.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Updated again ...

Auburn's deal now ranked as 5th w/ Under Armour ...

http://www.aufamily....h-under-armour/

As was posted in another thread: Behind Wis, Cal and UCLA? Thanks Jay.

Not exactly when it comes to Wisconsin. Our deal is for 9 years at $8.68 million per year while theirs is 10 years at $8.6M. That's about three-quarters of a million dollars more over the next 9 years than them and we'll get to rebid a year before they do.

The other factor to consider is that I believe re-outfitting all the teams is factored into the amount of the deal. Given that a school coming from another maker like Adidas has to get completely new stuff from head to toe for every single sport, that kicks their number up a good bit compared to someone like Auburn who was already an Under Armour school.

The anti Jacobs crowd doesn't like facts that don't fit their mantra.

Yea, those pesky facts like Wisky's deal is 9.6 million a year and Auburn actually only moves up above Cal on the list, so we are 4th and I expect ready to fall more as more deals are made. I wonder if we have the don't change our Unis fee in the contract which lowered our price point. Some of these schools also have more sports than Auburn therefore.... more money.

Wisky's deal isn't $9.6M per year, it's $8.6M per...which is lower than Auburn's on a per year basis.