Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
Editor [∞]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43609
Joined: 12/12/12
|
TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 9:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4947]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6982
Joined: 10/12/06
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 9:55 AM
|
|
Good to see us catching up but still behind SCar's 71 million from UA. Good news, personally, is Nike is a much better brand.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [102]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 104
Joined: 9/25/11
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 10:28 AM
|
|
I wonder how often UA regrets that partnership...
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [17]
TigerPulse: 88%
Posts: 22
Joined: 2/19/15
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 9:55 AM
|
|
Glad to keep Nike, but we couldn’t get a better deal than $5.8m/year? Seems low given our success and having so many nationally televised games.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14511]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 22947
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 10:27 AM
|
|
has to do with fan base also. ours is smaller than most. we could have gotten more with ua but we think the kids are into nike more. drad has talked about this many times.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [33420]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32208
Joined: 2/20/04
|
I think it's low because they are replacing the 2018-2022
Aug 3, 2018, 11:05 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal ] |
|
of the old deal with the new deal, it says it was a 10 year extension and it runs to 2028 so it likely is 10 years starting now. We were in a below market deal under the old one, so Nike bumped us up now in exchange for agreeing to go out to 2028.
Personally I think we should have held out and waited until 2022 to see if we could get teams to bid the price up, but I'm guessing the administration wanted more cash now
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3524]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4057
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 10:01 AM
|
|
Yeah and in comparison Bama gets $750,000/yr.
UCLA's 15-year deal was $280 million deal with Under Armour, Ohio State -15 years, $252 million (Nike) Texas -15 years, $250 million (Nike) Michigan - 11 years, $169 million (Nike)
This doesn’t look like that good of a deal to me
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1418]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 993
Joined: 9/23/09
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 10:10 AM
|
|
Yea I agree, who is doing these negotiations? And how is UA paying these crazy numbers, thought they were verge of bankruptcy?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6223]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4311
Joined: 6/23/17
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 10:21 AM
|
|
maybe that's why they are on the verge of bankruptcy ?? but I have no clue.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [33420]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 32208
Joined: 2/20/04
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15549]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21428
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 11:05 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal ] |
|
They are, and no wonder. If they (UA) don't have better business sense than to offer a deal like that to usuc, they should go bankrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1418]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 993
Joined: 9/23/09
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 4, 2018, 4:15 PM
|
|
TU! That made me laugh out loud for real.
I was never a big fan of UA, the few products I purchased for my younger nephew/cousins were not great quality for the prices and didn’t last long. UA had a lot of hype for a bit a few years ago but died really quickly, I guess that’s when they made the big dollar commitments for 2nd tier programs.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15549]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21428
Joined: 9/24/07
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 6, 2018, 8:32 AM
|
|
"second tier programs" This! Coots definitely fall into that category. +1
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 10:52 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal ] |
|
You're comparing Clemson to massive brands in large/very large markets though. One thing we need to understand is that despite the success on the field, we won't ever see our brand have the same economic impact as those others. Let's take a look at some numbers:
Enrollment: Ohio State 59,837 Texas 51,331 Michigan 46,002 UCLA 44,947 Clemson 23,406
Population: Ohio 11,658,609 Texas 28,304,596 Michigan 9,962,311 Greater Los Angeles 13,353,907 South Carolina 5,024,369
Median Income: Ohio $51,610 Texas $56,139 Michigan $51,584 Greater Los Angeles $65,950 South Carolina $47,790
So, comparatively, Clemson has a fraction of the enrollment of those other schools, is located in a state a fraction of the size of the others, and South Carolina has the lowest median income of any of these areas. Furthermore, these other programs have been in the national spotlight for decades.
Here's a list of the top contracts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlybenjamin/2016/07/12/the-65-most-valuable-college-sports-apparel-deals/#29ed5d96308f
This new one would put us at #15 in the nation, above LSU and below NC State. At first glance, it seems weird to see NC State, South Carolina & Indiana above Clemson but if you look at the brands on the list, you'll quickly realize that Adidas & Under Armour have massively overpaid for mediocre brands in order to try to get a foothold in the NCAA apparel market. The Clemson brass most likely decided that the benefit of name recognition associated with Nike would outweigh the extra money they may be able to get from Adidas or Under Armour and I tend to agree with them. Nike carries weight with recruits, so I'm fine with the numbers that Clemson got out of this contract.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1596]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2145
Joined: 5/5/03
|
True but Clemson has been dominating the prime tv slots.
Aug 3, 2018, 11:46 AM
|
|
While our fan base may not be large Nike can have their brand in front of the prime time slot for TV audiences. Need to make sure we monetize that while we are on top.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3422]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 6697
Joined: 10/3/09
|
Re: True but Clemson has been dominating the prime tv slots.
Aug 3, 2018, 12:16 PM
|
|
And we are! Let's ignore UA & Adidas contracts for now because as I mentioned before, some of those contracts are just terrible decisions on those companies' parts and Nike isn't going to make the same mistake. We're now the #4 Nike contract in the country, behind only Michigan, Texas and Ohio State. We're never going to touch those programs monetarily due to their size & influence, so there's no point in arguing we should be near them.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1322]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2115
Joined: 12/25/10
|
There has never been a non-Nike playoff team.
Aug 3, 2018, 1:23 PM
[ in reply to True but Clemson has been dominating the prime tv slots. ] |
|
Nike doesn't need us at all. That's why everyone who signs with Nike gets a 'fair' deal. UA has to overpay to entice teams to give them a spotlight.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20946]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10176
Joined: 9/9/04
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 10:53 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal ] |
|
Clemson fans are passionate and support in big ways, but the size of our national fan base pales in comparison to the four schools you mentioned
5.8 might be a little low, but your comparisons there aren’t really good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13057]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22373
Joined: 4/24/04
|
It's double what we signed 3 years ago.
Aug 3, 2018, 11:08 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal ] |
|
Clemson has a small fan base compared to many of the other elite football schools. We are never going to make anywhere near as much off an apparel contract as schools like Ohio State, Texas, or Michigan.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [51579]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43087
Joined: 8/10/04
|
Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal
Aug 3, 2018, 11:20 AM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal ] |
|
I think it has to do with fan base size and TV network deals.
Big 10 Network PAC 12 Network Longhorn Network
Maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7544]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15440
Joined: 2/2/01
|
do the UA's have similar % for purchases? they may just be
Aug 3, 2018, 12:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: TNET: Clemson, Nike announce new 10-year deal ] |
|
paying fixed amount and not % on merch sales-- this can significantly change $s. The 14% should not be overlooked- it's significant given the growing popularity of our brand outside the alumni/geographic footprint.
how does the 14% stack against some of the other contracts?
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1322]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 2115
Joined: 12/25/10
|
I was hoping for Umbro***
Aug 3, 2018, 1:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [320]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 440
Joined: 7/22/18
|
Re: I was hoping for Umbro***
Aug 3, 2018, 7:28 PM
|
|
We all know money matters and bills must be paid .....but personally I don’t care if we came out in converse as long as our Tigers keep putting em up the backside of the UA wearing worm pulling dirtpeckers. Glad we were able to get a better deal and DRad is working hard to keep Dabo inc rolling. Go Tigers
|
|
|
|
Replies: 22
| visibility 1
|
|
|