Who Do You Want Outfitting the Bruins?

would be great if they also made shoes. It would be great to see our football teams in Under Armor uniforms. However, there are the other sports to consider.

Speaking from experience. I worked for NIKE briefly, they don’t make shoes or anything else for that matter any better than anybody else. I have noticed that out of the many athletic shoes I’ve owned, Adidas shoes seem to feel better, last longer, etc. My vote goes for Adidas.

As for the additional marketing and revenue, NIKE is king. But I do feel like that is a question of dealing with the devil. Not for me, thank you.

Interesting poll to see what UCLA fans would like more, however when the rubber meets the road it will be all about which apparel company will give UCLA Athletics the biggest contract in terms of hard dollars and trade (clothes/gear).

Everyone remember how small the JD Morgan center used to be before the big expansion? Well that expansion was paid for by the adidas “hard dollars” when they switched from Reebok.

If you really want to figure out who will be the next official outfitter you need to think like the apparel companies and understand who can benefit the most from sponsoring UCLA Athletics and then hope that same company can offer the most moo-la. You also have to figure that if UCLA were to switch then a lot of people who update their gear with a UCLA Nike hat or whatever but if they stay with adidas then are people really going to go out and buy more gear? Adidas may have a bit of a diminishing returns to scale here.

It all boils down to money, folks!

I have always worn Adidas because of UCLA. However, the Nike running shoes are better from my experience. The biggest factor here for me is the marketing. Hands down Nike will do a better job. Under Armour.. not so sure. I love their ads on tv.. we must protect this house!

Nike may be the devil, but I’m all about exposure at this point and marketing power. I know folks love Adidas because they are our current provider, but I have to believe Nike would do a better job.

I hit recommended on this topic because I think it has a lot of staying power (much like the post on “color coordination” at the RB).

That is the question. Instinct, as a Bruin, is to toss out Nike because $UC’s pretty entrenched with ‘em. However, Nike has a massive worldwide sales & distribution network. That would be huge for exposure & revenues for UCLA vs. Addidas or UA. Plus, every place where an $UC jersey or hat is for sale, would now be a UCLA product along side it.
As an athlete myself, I also think about the functionality and performance of the products. Across so many sports, I’m sure some of Nike’s stuff is better and others worse than Addidas…but Nike has as many or more choices.

UA is not at the point where they can service all of our teams.

I personally love Nike products but I’m not for it. Nike has the marketing/distribution power as well as an extensive product line but I don’t consider us to be a Nike type of school. If you look at the Adidas lineup, schools like ND Kansas and Nebraska are similar to us. Like the other schools, we all keep it Old School/Classic with minor modifications.

For some reason, I feel like Nike would get some chump in the AD to get us to change uniforms to something like those hideous VT or Oregon uniforms. We arguably have the best looking FB and BB uniforms in the country. Why change something that isn’t broke? Those track suit type things that Rahim and JetSki were wearing when they went back to Dorsey are pretty tight IMO.

I know our FB players have had issues with the shoes but this can be solved by contacting Adidas and letting them know they better fix it so that we don’t look elsewhere. Adidas just needs to get their act together a bit and everything will be fine.

Also, didn’t know Adidas money was used for the Morgan Center. We mention loyalty here at BN, I think we should stick with Adidas because we’re obviously important to them based on their contributions.

But…..if Nike builds us an on campus stadium and pays for the Pauley renovation then I’m gonna go with Nike. :D

Look what I got in the mail today!

OK, I know the ones the UCLA Story shipped out look different, and they don’t read Beban. But, you get the picture.

Adidas sucks. Their UCLA gear/apparel is awful, and any time I’ve been into an Adidas store I NEVER see UCLA stuff. The Santa Monica store once had a display of Reggie Bush signature gear and zero UCLA apparel.

Nike is it. Huge exposure, great gear. Adidas is the equivalent of being on FSN. Nike is like being on ESPN.

End of story.

have been reading everyone’s posts and thoughts for quite a while. I graduated from UCLA.in 2008.

Skip to the last paragraph if you don’t want to read through this.

Anyways, while I was a student at UCLA , I worked at Sports Authority (and still do to this day) I worked in the footwear department and have great knowledge of footwear and some apparel. I have 4 years experience and know the ins and outs of shoe technology. IMO, I feel that Adidas does is not in the big 3 when it comes to shoe quality. The biggest drawback is that they are too narrow and the cushioning goes bad in a rather short period of time. For me, I’d rate Asics, Nike, New Balance and then Adidas. BTW, Under Amour recently started to get into the shoe business and will be releasing some basketball shoes in the near future. Under Armour is another brand that is too narrow and the quality of materials in their shoes is sub par to Asics, Nike, and New Balance. Under armour shoes came to us with eyelets not completely cut off and threads poorly sewn together. As far as sales goes, Nike and Asics are number 1 and number 2 respectively in footwear sales. In Apparel Nike is number 1 and Under Armour number 2.

As far as this thread is concerned, I put my vote for Nike. A lot of people think Nike makes low quality shoes and apparel. People have come into our store looking for a uality running shoe that they can walk or run comfortably in. I give them their options and they always seem to choose Nike. not because of its looks and funky colors because of the way it feels. It’s all about finding the right shoe. Nike makes good shoes so you have to be very careful when choosing a shoe. Anything in the Bowerman series is good. There’s no shox or lunarlite in this series of shoes so you don’t have to worry about something gimmicky. Shox and lunarlite last only a week so don’t even bother. I’ve been told by a Nike rep that those too shoe technologies are sold by the fact that athletes are marketed with them and the casual consumer will buy it because their favorite athlete wears it. Back to the topic, Nike Air which has three types(Max, Zoom, and standard Nike Air) never goes flat unless it is punctured or won’t fluctuate in terms of feeling soft or hard when it is hot or cold. As far as basketball shoes, I feel Nike makes the best with any of the air technologies in it and no lunarlite or shox. Adidas basketball shoes are made with Adiprene foam or Bounce, which is made of TPU, a plastic material which is supposed to have constant elasticity. Adidas shoes are too narrow and don’t feel as good because the cushioning goes bad after about 2 or 3 weeks of use. Based on customers I’ve helped, Nike seems to be working. Those who chose Adidas, Asics, or Under Armour were very dissatisfied with their product and within a month looking for new shows or now willing to try on what i recommended. I hardly have any of my Nike products return, I assume, because customers are satisfied with it and have gone bad.
 
There have been problems with Adidas footwear for UCLA athletes, specifically football, in recent years. If i remember reading an article from 2 or 3 years ago, Chris Markey had foot problems and a stress fracture because his cleats were too narrow. He had to switch to Nike and cover the logo. Nike cleats run wider and haven’t given me any problems when i played football in high school I chose them because they felt the best not because it is Nike. Well that was the 2nd reason.

The point of the matter is that I would prefer Nike because I like their dri-fit clothes and Bowerman series running shoes. They also make some of the best cleats and offer a wider selection than Adidas. Dri-fit clothing feels better on the skin and does not have any weird smell like Under Armour after washing a couple times. Nike has so many options and is a bigger company. This is not to say I hate Adidas. I have a lot of Adidas clothes and like them but as far as designs go Adidas has been getting too stale for me. I feel Nike can give us more variety in our clothing and shoe selection and the potential to attract athletes solely based on Nike. Kids love Nike and that alone is what keep them on the top. I also remember a couple years a go that a Louisville recruit refused to wear Adidas and preferred to wear Nike because they felt better. I forgot what happened in that situation but I think the team made him wear it in the end. In the end I see a greater boost in income for the school for the athletic program. If i’m not mistaken the UCLA name is huge around the world especially in Asia. Why not have the biggest company in Sports Apparel team up with the most well known college name?

Unfortunately, I know way too much about the shoe companies — having spent quite a bit of time last year working on litigation between two of the companies.

Neither Addidas nor Nike is a good match for UCLA — neither has the “character” that we should demand in a “partner”.

For an interesting read, check out Sneaker Wars: The Enemy Brothers Who Founded Adidas and Puma and the Family Feud That Forever Changed the Business of Sport by Barbara Smit which tells the story of the feuding brothers who started each company. The history is ugly — from charges of Nazi complicity to shoes stuffed with money and given to “amateur athletes”.

The tactics may have changed but not the goals. I really hate being a part of any of the major shoe companies.

I have a very close friend who coaches an AAU basketball team. He is a really great guy, in it for all of the right reasons. His mantra — Get Nike and Addidas away from those kids, the runners, cappers, and pimps/predators who go after kids like OJ Mayo.

Yes, I know, we have to wear shoes and we want that income. It’s a shame that New Balance in not in the equation. Amongst people who know shoes, as carsonbruin points out, New Balance has the best technology and the least BS. Marketing studies show that NB shoes are marketed to athletes for athletic use. Nike and Addidas are marketed as fashion accessories.

I wonder what would happen if the NCAA were to set standards that the shoe companies would have to meet to form an official relationship with a school — things like cleaning up their acts with young athletes and not funding the pimps AND cleaning up their acts around the world so that their shoes are made under conditions that respect the basic standards of human rights and dignity.

But, wonder as I may, I know that the NCAA will never do anything about the shoe companies. They never bite the hands of the companies, schools and institutions that put the food in the trough from which the NCAA stuffs its ugly face.

Can we play bare foot?

Only the best for the best, so Nike!

Even if I’ve to say that I like UA too, and they’re coming up very fast.

Anyway…Nike or UA but please, please, please…no more Adidas!

The Chinese brand, Li Ning, is a huge up-and-comer. They have tons of money and are willing to pay many times more than Nike or Adidas to get big names. They already have Shaq and the Pole Vault World Record holder, Isinbayeva. They have reportedly offered sprinter Usain Bolt US$100 million for 5 years, that is TEN TIMES more than anyone else is offering.

What they lack in name recognition in the USA can be offset by the huge $$$$ contract. It would be a massive coup for them to secure UCLA and hopefully pay us five or ten times what the others are offering. They, unlike Under Armour, offer the entire range of sports, from head to toe.

It’s a quite a way “outside the box,” but in terms of $$$ should be a no-brainer. Some might say, ‘oh but recruits won’t like them.’ I disagree, the novelty factor combined with the fact that the extra $$$ will be paying for world-class facilities across the board would be enough to sway many.

It is something to consider strongly, if, for no other reason, than to use as negotiating leverage to get a sweeter deal from Adidas or whomever. Personally, I hate everything about Nike, its products, its business model, etc..

Then I vote Nike all the way

To me, the most important criteria for this decision are merchandising power and brand enhancement. Social responsibility is also important.

Merchandising power means getting UCLA’s name out on a national and global scale. UCLA’s current retail exposure is abysmal relative to the school’s athletic and academic achievements. Living in the Midwest and East Coast for the past thirteen years, I have been consistently disappointed by the dearth of Bruins gear in stores, especially in comparison to the prevalence of merchandise for other “top” public universities (Michigan, UNC, and even UCB) and unsavory competitors (Florida and U$C* in particular). Any new uniform production agreement must be tied to a more aggressive and proactive merchandising plan. The prospect of working with an overseas company such as Li Ning is intriguing, especially for the growth of UCLA’s global brand.

A uniform agreement should also lead to an upgrade to some of our gear. Most notably, our home men’s basketball uniform, traditional though it is, needs a modern design. It’s just too bland, plus it uses a darker blue than True Blue. The women’s basketball uniform is more appealing, and a men’s version of it would sell better than our current design.

Brand enhancement means not only consistent color use, but also a commitment to weave UCLA’s academic stature into retail displays and merchandise design. Pink UCLA Snoopy t-shirts many be cute, but they erode our brand and must be banished. Merchandising displays should be upbeat and flashy, but also pay homage to the university’s reputation for scholarship through more consistent and serious typefaces and colors.

Given some manufacturers’ reputation for labor abuses (I don’t know the validity of the claims, but Nike seems to keep getting attention in this area), we should only agree to a contract with a producer with a solid record for ethic behavior. That principle would be consistent with our school’s emphasis on good character.

I don’t know how the suggested companies compare on the above criteria, but it seems Adidas isn’t getting the job done. Nike needs to agree to brand preservation standards so we won’t get cookie-cutter designs (i.e. the same designs as 80% of the other Nike schools’ designs) or funky junk like Oregon wears. Up-and-coming companies with decent retail connections should get serious consideration. They may be more dedicated to UCLA than companies with more schools in the stable.

Please go with Nike!! Adidas makes butt ugly products. Nike apparel is way nicer than Adidas. The only reason I have Adidas gear is because it’s Bruin stuff.

i’ve always loved the 3 strips in classic soccer kits by adidas, so I was disappointed they didn’t design our soccer uniforms incorporating the 3 strips the same way they do for big clubs and national teams. another disappointing thing about adidas is their distribution. CRN’s vest rocks, but good luck finding it for yourself.

I was a Nike guy from when you could only mail-order them until the mid-80s. My all-time favorite shoe was the Nike Elite. But then Nike went to a combination last that just doesn’t fit my foot. Haven’t been able to fit into a pair of Nike shoes since.

Before Nike, Adidas was the gold-standard. I can still remember my first pair of spikes, blue suede Adidas Tokyos. They cost me all of my saved up allowance, but boy were they nice … soft, feather light, and fit like a glove!

But ASICS has been around every bit as long as Adidas/Puma/Reebok and they’ve always turned out a quality product. The problem is I don’t think shoes for team sports are their specialty, so that probably rules them out. Still, if they managed to land our contract, I bet we’d be their primary focus. With Adidas, we will always be second fiddle.

It’s time for a change, Adidas is just not cutting it. Nike has much more selection and better quality products. It seems like every year our players are complaining about the shoes or having foot injuries. I’ve also noticed many are worried that Nike will change our Uni’s, I doubt that, just look at Georgia, PennSt, Texas, LSU, Okla, Bama, the list goes on. Not all Nike Uni’s take the Ducks route.

Kinda shocked that the poll is close – adidas has consistently provided pretty average options in regards to fan apparel, and the comfort of the athletic shoes isn’t on par with what Nike offers, imo.

I wonder if there will any backlash against Nike?