Adidas Hooks Up Michigan and Notre Dame With Awesome Uniforms: What About UCLA Athletics?
by Bellerophon on Jun 16, 2011 12:31 PM PDT
in Football
Email
Print
As reported by the very-good folks at UniWatch, Adidas is supplying the Michigan Wolverines and Notre Dame Fighting Irish with some pretty sleek looking "legacy" uniforms for the first-ever game under the lights at the Big House in Ann Arbor. Adidas pulled out all the stops, with the end result being some pretty slick uniforms for both Michigan and Notre Dame. Naturally, since UCLA is also an Adidas school, it naturally made me wonder what cool stuff Adidas will roll out for our Bruins this season.
Then I remembered that we're just a second class citizen in the Adidas family, not worthy of the attention or quality that Michigan apparently is deserving of. Don't get be wrong, I like Michigan a lot; in fact, in many ways, I think of Michigan as the UCLA of the Midwest (or UCLA as the Michigan of Southern California). But, Michigan is not the kind of school that automatically deserves prime position over our beloved alma mater. Never mind that our basketball program has more history, both past and present. Never mind that we're destroying Michigan in the total number of NCAA titles. And don't mind that we're in the second largest media market in the nation.
Once again, Adidas has given the goods to someone else and simply left us wondering.
Let's break that down after the jump.
As we've noted before here on BN, UCLA is the sole Adidas school in the Pac-12. Despite being in a huge media market with multiple programs that get national exposure, Adidas continues to shaft the Bruins with a second-class contract, especially when compared to Michigan. Moreover, Adidas has a long history of giving UCLA nothing more than a passing glance when it comes to promoting our school and gear. As Nestor noted back in 2010:
First of all the company has done a terrible job of promoting UCLA's brand. They haven't promoted the UCLA brand the way we thought they would when UCLA entered into the relationship in 1999 (when our football team was riding high). Sure our football program has struggled since then, but our basketball program created plenty of marketing opportunities in recent years and we never saw Adidas play them up in an effective manner.
Second, UCLA football program specially has had equipment issues with Adidas. It was very noticeable during the Eagle Bank Bowl in DC, when our team got caught flatfooted early in the first half because of equipment issues on the frozen turf (while Temple players were doing just fine).
Unfortunately for us, Adidas still is doing a terrible job of promoting UCLA's brand. It's been discussed time and time again, but Adidas just doesn't seem interesting in promoting UCLA's brand, even in its stores in Southern California (whereas Nike is more than happy to pimp U$C, Stanford, and Cal all over the state).
So, you'll understand why I'm skeptical that Adidas will come out with anything at least half as cool as what they've rolled out for Irish and Wolverines. I know the majority of BN readers would rather switch to Nike. I mean, after all, this is the company that gives us second-rate practice jerseys, while Tennessee and Michigan get the good stuff. They've managed to tweak our classic basketball uniform, but worst of all, they provided our football program with cheap looking, totally ugly, pathetic looking uniforms that look like some high school drop-out at the strip mall screen-printer put them together. The total lack of respect for UCLA by Adidas is appalling. Perhaps our anger should be directed at the clueless chumps in Morgan Center, who don't seem to care that Adidas is giving us second-tier gear and not pushing for the best, like at Michigan.
So once again, Adidas rolls out some pretty slick looking uniforms that will surely get the fans to part with their hard-earned cash and make the recruits excited. But once again, UCLA is left out in the cold, wondering when Adidas is finally going to give us any respect.
Hey, maybe this year our football team will at least have their names on the back in a color that actually matches the number on their back.
But with Adidas, that might be asking too much for UCLA.
GO BRUINS
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
the AD must be getting kickbacks from the addidas contract...
and they pass off to the rest of us that the athletes are “happy” with the uniforms provided…yeah right!
here is an email i received on 11-08-10 from the UCLA
Richard –
The decision to move forward with the uniform change was based on the player’s profound endorsement of the new material and cut. Like all changes, however, this one will be reviewed in full when the season concludes and a determination made as to function vs form.
The shoulder stripes are one of the signature elements of our uniform. Don’t be surprised if there is an adjustment made in the future that takes both perspectives into consideration. The other issues you mention will also be evaluated.
Marc Dellins
by BRUINCLASSOF72 on Jun 16, 2011 7:04 AM PDT up reply actions
We've seen and heard Morgan's response to "polls" before
So forgive me if I take their response with a few million grains of salt.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
The players could very well have endorsed the adidas ClimaCool material and the new sleeker look, but I don’t think the kids were aware of the historical significance of the UCLA stripes. Obviously, adidas wasn’t aware of it either.
Those Michigan “legacy” jerseys are hideous.
I never thought I would say this
but Adidas has proven that it is a more clueless entity than Nike. I can see it now – they will give us a “new look” uniform in ketchup and mustard. Alas, Morgan Center probably wouldn’t notice. Or if they did, they would say it was the overwhelming choice of students.
(By the way – I’ll believe the students are back on the sidelines at Pauley when I see it. There is lots of time for new student polls between now and when it re-opens.)
Winning would cure all!
A nice 8 win season and a victory over the hated ones would go a long way in getting Adidas to show some love. The UCLA brand deserves more respect, but it comes down to wins and losses. I also put a lot of the blame on an athletic department.
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that counts" - John Wooden.
No, it wouldn't
To say that we can’t expect them to do their damn jobs until we start winning is asinine. How much winning have Michigan and Notre Dame done lately? Surely more than we have, but certainly not enough that explains this disparity. Whether we win or not has nothing to do with how minor league both Adidas and Morgan Center are running this partnership, and it has everything to do with incompetence and laziness. Those things are not solved by “wins and losses”. They’re solved by tossing out the bums.
by Tydides on Jun 16, 2011 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Devil's Advocate here
but their football gear is FAR more marketable than ours. While as a worldwide brand we’re more recognizabe than Michigan and probably Notre Dame, their football gear sells like hotcakes whether or not they win. Ours? Not so much.
Does that mean they don’t have to try? Certainly not. But from an investment standpoint, we’re not the best bet for new campaigns.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
That's not our problem
Or at the very least it shouldn’t be. But it is because we bumbled through negotations and took the first offer on the table from Adidas. We could have secured a stronger hand and a greater commitment to be marketed as a top tier brand, but we gave that up when we didn’t even open things up for bidding. What you said sounds more like a defeatest self-fulfilling prophecy than commentary on how Adidas should be treating us.
I'm just looking at it from Adidas' perspective
Whether or not it’s complete bullshit isn’t really what I was getting at. I think we were stupid to do a no-shop for such an important issue. I think we’d still be getting somewhat shafted by Nike, but at least they’d have some new apparel ideas and we’d be creating some buzz. Adidas is just status quo, aka our admins’ favorite two words.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Jun 16, 2011 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, it would
when we become a better program the brand demands more respect. As much as i love my bruins the rest of the country doesn’t see UCLA on the same level with Michigan or the domers. Yes Morgan center should do a better job negotiating the deal and applying pressure, but how much leverage do they really have? Asinine? Really?
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that counts" - John Wooden.
No, it wouldn't
It’s a chicken and the egg thing. If we’re perceived to be second rate, and our athletic supplier treats us as second rate, then our recruiting will be just that, and the product on the field will reflect that, and the vicious cycle begins anew. Since we can’t control what recruits are going to do, we have to pull the lever that we can control, and that’s ensuring that our interests are taken care of at the negotiating table, and that’s where Morgan Center has failed us by not even introducing a competitor to enhance their leverage.
Adidas will give UCLA respect when UCLA demands it
Adidas just doesn’t seem interesting in promoting UCLA’s brand
To me, that’s on the Morgan Center. They gave Adidas a cushy no-compete negotiation period. I can hardly imagine our marketing department hammering Adidas with stats and with demands and with data for improving their marketing of U.C.L.A. gear – ala the 107 titles, recent basketball success, recent Olympic sport success, name popularity in other countries, etc.
Imagine if Drew Rosenhaus or Scott Boras had represented U.C.L.A. in negotiations with Adidas. Do you think our contract and marketing would look more favorable than what we have now? Instead, we get the catatonic marketing dept making their typical half-assed effort, and taking the easy way. Sure, maybe Adidas makes a few more $ if they market U.C.L.A. more aggressively on their own, but who is pushing them to do this? Ultimately, the failure to promote our own brand begins, ends, and fails in the Morgan Center.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
What's Adidas' incentive to do anything extra for us?
Based on past results, we’re just going to sign up for the same bullshit every time and not talk to or negotiate with anyone else. That sounds like a fantastic deal for Adidas, and probably for someone in Morgan Center skimming off the top, and a raw deal for UCLA and Bruin fans.
I am one of the (admittedly) few that likes the new jerseys.
The shoulder stripe shrinkage is a problem, but fixable. The white name plates don’t bother me as much as others, but they are fixable as well.
IMO, the bigger problem is the lack of attention from Adidas, as pointed out in this article. I no longer live in Southern California, and it is extremely difficult to find any licensed UCLA apparel. We have really good looking gear, but we can’t even buy it anywhere. It’s very frustrating. Additionally, our logo and colors are being spread all over the map. There are umpteen different shades of blue, a script logo, a modern logo, logos with bears, etc. etc. etc.
This, IMO, is a Morgan Center problem. Michigan gear is standard. If you buy a shirt, it will be white, navy blue, or neonized maize. It will have a block “M” or say MICHIGAN in all caps. We should have the same thing with a script UCLA. There is really no excuse why we can’t have a uniform brand. We should also have more outlets. I can buy Michigan gear all over the place. I can buy Notre Dame gear anywhere. I can buy apparel of any school sponsored by Nike. Why is UCLA gear sold in LA only?
by AllHailMightyBruins on Jun 16, 2011 8:49 AM PDT reply actions
Brand, outlets
unified colors, and unified look.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
Not even in LA
Two days ago I was at a Target store in the SF valley. They had approximately 15-20 linear feet of display space dedicated to gear for local teams. Two thirds of this space was dedicated to $uc, the remaining third to the carpetbagger dodgers. There were exactly two pieces of UCLA gear both were fleece sweatshirts in UCLA blue.
As I said before Target is a retailer, they will offer what they know will sell. As successful as they are, I believe that it speaks volumes to a lack of support by the broad UCLA fan base. What are those reasons?
Are we being penalized by not having a defined brand and/or identity? As mentioned by AllHailmightyBruins “there are umpteen different shades of blue.” If you were a buyer for a retailer and didn’t know anything about UCLA, which blue do you choose? Do you choose our script or block logo? (on a personal level I like block lettering, I think the script gives a subliminal suggeston of being soft which combined UCLA blue does not make for a good marketing or recruiting combination). Look at the iconic NCAA football programs, schools that historically have had success (this is not a discussion on how they got there) on the field their school colors are basic and generally limited to 2-3 colors. The Ohio State- scarlet and grey, Texas-Burnt orange and white, Notre Dame-Navy Blue and gold, $uc-ketchup and mustard, Penn State- dark blue and white, Alabama-red and white, Nebraska-red and white, Florida State-garnet and gold.
Go to an athletic event at their stadiums generally their fans are clad in the school’s primary color. With the exception of Alabama all these universities use a form of block lettering in their logo.
Now, talk about not having an identity or brand. This is what I just took off the UCLA website.
“UCLA’s colors have always been blue and gold, but the exact shades have varied. The colors approved by the Chancellor in March 2004 are a deep sky blue and a matching sun gold. Please note that color specifications were adjusted Wednesday, September 8, 2004 in response to user concerns.”
A few things bother me about this statement. Up to 2004 it is apparent we’ve not had a defined brand. In addition since that time the admin doesn’t care what our brand looks like. We’re still licensing colors that are not "approved.’ Finally the lack of the word “official” before colors. Are licensees to infer that they can use any color as they deem fit?
IMO the problem lies with both the administration and its marketing dept.
All research and no play equals University of boring in LA.
I rarely see people wearing UCLA gear anymore.
I'm going to disagree with the most basic premise of your post, B.
I quote:
Adidas is supplying the Michigan Wolverines and Notre Dame Fighting Irish with some pretty sleek looking “legacy” uniforms for the first-ever game under the lights at the Big House in Ann Arbor.
These are some of the ugliest jerseys I’ve ever seen. I’m not sure Adidas is doing anyone any favors with these things.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
LOL
I’m sorry, are we playing rugby?
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Jun 16, 2011 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Ugghhh...
THOSE I could do without, thank you.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Jun 16, 2011 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think both of the designs are pretty poor.
Michigan’s stripes and “M” on the front are atrocious, and the shamrock invasion on ND’s iconic gold helmet is ridiculous.
This photo looks much worse than the modeled jerseys, but whoever approved those stripes needs to be fired.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Jun 16, 2011 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Ugly uniforms to compliment an Loooosing FB team...
I’d rather lose with the current uni’s!!! Or better yet…the powder keg blue!
Hoke will make those uniforms look better…but sheesh those are terrible.
by GogetemBruins on Jun 16, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Is that a joke?
That can’t be real right? LOL
Nope. my first pic shows the Legacy jerseys being sold to fans
As for the gameday jerseys it looks like they gave the legacy jerseys the trimfit treatment we got last year. They also reduced the rugby stripes a great deal.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
It's like Ronald McDonald had sex with the St. Louis Rams
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Jun 16, 2011 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA
OMG, I love you, can’t get off the floor laughing. Addidas blows, they need to revamp to compete properly.
agreed+1...
maybe the real problem here is with Adidas and their complete lack of style knowledge…not so much UCLA AD…just wondering…
by BRUINCLASSOF72 on Jun 16, 2011 10:10 AM PDT reply actions
Had to resort to extreme measures....
Last year before the KSU game I decided to get some new gear to sport. My wife has tons of KSU garb and I wanted to represent while in Manhattan. I went to Bear Wear and other sources and found the worst assortment of stuff ever concieved by a fashion designer.
I was expressly looking for a satin UCLA jacket that I remembered as being all the rage when I was in school. Needless to say, I had to resort to shopping on EBay to find any vintage gear.
The crap that Adidas has put out is an outrage. We are a school with almost a 100 years of tradition and style. The fact that you can’t find any decent classic gear is something to be abshamed of!
Did you miss last year's Report on our New $7.5 million a year Adidas Deal
Bad reporting. First off, those new Michigan and Notre Dame Uni’s are atrocious. Secondly, Nestor reported last year that our new deal with Addidas pays us an unprecedented $7.5 million a year, more than Nike pays any Pac-10 team and more than Addidas paid any school at the time. Michigan was only getting $6.85 million at the time. You should have at least made reference to this or linked Nestor’s story. Since you didn’t link, I will do it for you.
http://www.bruinsnation.com/2010/6/6/1503927/adidas-signs-ucla-to-largest
Anything to complain I guess.
LOL
Anything to complain? 7 million a year is chump change compared to what we could make with some effective marketing and innovative new products. Getting a lump sum contract isn’t where the money is made in apparel, but since you’re such a good reporter I suppose you already know that.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Jun 16, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Ouch
It’s hard for me to imagine 7 mil as chump change, but the point you make definitely has merit in that this is all typical of the shortsightedness of Morgan Center and their complete aversion to any kind of risk.
Right now it’s difficult to imagine us having the kind of brand recognition to make that 7 million look small, but that’s because we’ve been treated like ass by Adidas for so long now that they’ve eroded the cache of that brand, so they don’t then get credit for “overpaying” for something which they themselves devalued in the first place.
Exactly.
It’s a simple matter of seeing the big picture. If BruinFaithful (and the Morgan Center) are content with their seven million per year, good for them. Now look at Texas, the number one performer in collegiate apparel. They recieved, in 2006, 8.6 million dollars in royalties from Apparel sales. Sure that’s not much more than us, but please also consider their Nike contract, which is easily in excess of 3 million dollars. Hell, Oregon won’t even disclose what’s in their Nike contract. We are recognized worldwide. We should sell more than 8 million dollars of apparel without breaking a sweat. But no, we’re given kids table crap and told that Adidas knows what’s best. F@#k that.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
by OswegoBruin on Jun 16, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
YES!!!! Typically people here only post to complain and not provide solutions
Since you are such an effective marketer, show us how it’s done. Go to Morgan and sign a licensing agreement. Design your own product line and sell it or sell the current line. There are plenty of effective outlets on the internet and in retail stores. Let me know how that goes.
by BruinFaithful on Jun 16, 2011 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I can just see you goose stepping along
As Dear Leader Guerrero tells you that everything is okay, you just need to defend the MorgancenterLand. Dear Leader knows what’s best!
That's the dumbest comment ever.
In our society, we have a division of labor. Everyone specializes in something, and everyone else in the society counts on them to do their job well. If not, we have the right to complain without being able to do a better job ourselves. If a plumber comes out to your house and totally screws up the job, do you not have the right to complain? Must you provide him with plans on fixing the job, or get under the sink and fix it yourself before you can open you mouth?
formerly Westwood78
by PhoenixBruin on Jun 16, 2011 7:51 PM PDT up reply actions
PREDICTABLE. Now the name calling.
I was wondering how long it would be before that started. I would think most people here would be more intelligent and civilized than a plumber. Thanks for proving me wrong.
by BruinFaithful on Jun 16, 2011 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, it's not "name-calling"
He said your comment was dumb. He didn’t call you a name. He described the quality of your comment.
Quick, someone call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah-mbulance for this guy!
by Bellerophon on Jun 16, 2011 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Expecting people to do their jobs is not unreasonable.
Suggesting someone with a complaint about others not doing their job to go and do it themselves is, though.
You ever have complaints about the state of anything – health care, foreign policy, the price of gas, public education, potholes on your street? PhoenixBruin is exactly right. There are supposed professionals who are trained and paid to manage those things. And it is not unreasonable to hold them accountable for their failures.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
What a petty hypocrite
First, you opening complain about the content here on BN. You deride the original story because it’s off whatever message or agenda you have and you belittle this community and frontpagers by saying we’ll do anything to complain.
Then you turn around and call out another moderator for complaining without fixing UCLA’s problems.
So, in short, you like to criticize others for criticizing others.
Hypocrite.
by Bellerophon on Jun 16, 2011 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Bellerophon, don't you know everything posted on this site is just hating on UCLA?
You don’t allow innocent posters to come here and fire off ad hominem attacks to provoke a response, and when they are given rational arguments, they respond by wailing that all their pre-supposed stereotyples are correct. You’re clearly not seeing the bigger picture here. Hypocrisy is the new… um… normalcy?
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I can care less what the jerseys look like
if there are improvements made on the field, anything else is irrelevant.
We all know Nike markets better than Adidas. They do a better job putting their stuff in the stores in the right markets and worrying about that is out of our control. We are getting a nice amount of money from Adidas.
And for the record those new jerseys are hideous, they look like something out of a bad 90s musiv video
Correct me if I'm wrong, but
there is the UCLA Adidas wear that consist of jerseys, warmups, shorts, shoes, etc and then there is Bearwear that consist of t-shirts, sweatshirts, Hawaiian shirts, and various items. Bearwear is completely separate from the Adidas contract and is marketed by ASUCLA. Next time you are at the student store, you will see there are separate areas. I am also pretty sure most of the Bearwear is made by other companies than Adidas.
Not sure how other schools market their stuff but having two different entities could be part of the problem.
You are correct
of the 7 pieces of UCLA clothing I have at home (that I can remember), only 2 are Adidas, but all are from the UCLA store.
Correct me if I'm wrong......
One of the things I have learned from my son the sportswriter is that coaches have shoe contracts as well as the teams having shoe contracts. One of the problems that arises in coaching search is that a candidate has a different contract with a shoe company than the school.
One of the things I learned is that Ben Howland had a contract with the same company as UCLA did and so the match was made. I don’t know who Rick and Ben have contracts with but I’m sure the issue came up in negotiations for a new shoe and sports wear contract.
If attendance numbers
serve as a basic measure of market share / public interest, then it only makes sense that addidas give us the short end of the stick when it comes to football-specific marketing.
On a related note, does anyone know where to get detailed TV ratings numbers?
Attendance numbers are only part of the issue
as most apparel is marketed and sold outside of the venue itself. If you look at U$C marketing, they’ve effectively locked down almost every major retailer that carries collegiate gear in Los Angeles. Every store you go to is full to the brim with U$C crap, and UCLA generall is given the hyena’s share. They capitalized on their success in football by aggressively marketing their gear, and they are reaping the benefits, not only monetarily, but in terms of name and brand recognition as well.
"Every day was a good day at UCLA." -Coach John Wooden
I disagree
I think attendance numbers are a very good yardstick of overall public interest. If my numbers are correct we average 64.6% of capacity over 13 seasons. I think it is safe to say that UCLA fans have proven they can be quite apathetic in terms of support for their teams and I beleive this translates to lack of interest in buying UCLA gear.
Over the past 13 seasons UCLA has a record of 94-76, with an average of 64.6% capacity.
Notre Dame has a slightly better record at 99-73 yet averages 100% of capacity.
Somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5-year old
Last year Adidas picked a Thursday-night nationally-televised game on ESPN between UCLA and the Ducks to unleash its new football uniforms. What is the issue here?
Nike!
Can UCLA please just go Nike? Let’s face it, in the athletic apparel game, it’s Nike and everyone else. Kids these days grow up wearing, or at the very least, wanting Nikes. Nobody wears adidas anymore.
by LavinRuinedCollege on Jun 16, 2011 10:36 PM PDT reply actions
Dunno about that. Under Armour is THEE label of choice with ballers right now.
Only problem is that they don’t make the full range of athletic gear Nike or Adidas makes.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
