angrybeavs.com

Am I alone in wanting the Beavs to disengage from the runt's teat of Nike? Are we so stupid as to believe that we will ever get anything more from them than a slap in the face and hand-me-downs?

Here's your slap in the face:
Without Knight, Oregon would be ... (gasp!) Oregon State.

I was angry about our relationship with Nike before this. Now I am livid!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Dude. I feel ya.

But it doesn't take away from the fact that it's our own lack of vision and worthwhile (and owner-impulsed) alumnus that keep us suckling at this teat.

I can't begrudge the Ducks any more about the Nike thing, but I can begrudge the typical OSU fan's lack of pride, otherwise why would we take it up the proverbial ass so much from Nike?

And I mean lack of vision like not going to under armor or a competitor and signing a contract with them.

Adidas? New Balance? Grandma's sewing shack?

Anything but Nike!

I'm on the record as wanting New Balance. They're still committed to being somewhat American made, and they have odd sizes (wider and longer) and better craftsmanship. They had a contract with Auburn earlier this decade (their only D-1 contract) in which they custom made every shoe for the team (as opposed to the typical 'order your size' process). If I had to assume, I would say that Nike provides this service to UO as well. I would rather be the lone client of New Balance rather than the red-headed stepchild of Nike.

And now we know with certainty that we are the national butt of the Nike joke.

I really don't think our relationship with Nike matters. We could be with New Balance and would still be getting crushed by the Ducks on the field. This is all ancillary garbage. In fact, I think recruits prefer OSU be associated with Nike since it's the hip thing (speaking of which, how is Nike still hip? It's been like...25 years since Air Jordan's were released). Jeez.

Well angry, when you think of Nike and Oregon universities, which one comes to mind?

Being in their hip pocket is not the same as being hip. At the very least we should be making a power play to lose them. If they want to keep some other apparel company from touting major sponsorship in Nike's backyard, they better pony up.

But I'm willing to break our relationship off at the swollen udder... and violently. You have talked about perception being reality in an 18 year-old's mind. When it's reality in a national publication, and re-enforced in an article about our current sponsor and his favorite child, how does that play to a recruit? There's a difference between being told who you are by the bunch of diddling jerks that make up UO fandom and being told by the world that what the jerks say is true.

I think an average recruit is going to be more swayed to OSU because it's a "Nike school" than they will be turned off that it could be perceived by some that we're their bitches. I think being affiliated with them mostly helps, since kids care about Nike a lot more than they care about Adidas or New Balance. Well, hipsters and the art kids care about the latter, but we're not recruiting them.

We're basically just screwed until Phil Knight dies. He'll probably leave his fortune to the Oregon, so we'll be screwed forever. We're pretty much the most unlucky fans in the sport. Doesn't OSU have any successful Alum? To whom did the Reser fortune go?

Smart people know that a balanced rivalry is good for both parties, and it's for that reason Knight helps OSU out quite a bit. Hopefully he leaves us some change in his will.

Balanced?

I'm not even talking about the amounts he gives to the school as an alum. I will never begrudge any school their alums giving them money. That's just life. I do begrudge the state allowing them to circumvent law in order to allow his giving, but that's on the state.

What I'm talking about is the business side of it. We're getting less from Nike in our apparel contract than UO was getting before their Holiday Bowl year 12 years ago. And I'm not talking "with inflation". Theirs has grown three-fold over that time, and we're stuck with puddles of piddle. The business side says that we deserve similar amounts in some respect due to our being in precisely the same market. And don't let anyone tell you that we're not in the same market. Eugene may be larger than Corvallis, but it's populated with many OSU alums as well. And the remainder of the state falls slightly toward OSU.

Auburn doesn't have any problem with recruiting against other schools because they're affiliated with Under Armor. UCLA, Tennessee, Kansas, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nebraska don't have problems with recruiting due to apparel.

Those are all historical powers except Kansas, who do have problems recruiting. You could dress the rest in Fruit of the Loom and kids would still want to play for them.

I just don't have a big issue with this. Nike is probably not spending money on OSU because OSU doesn't return a lot on the investment. Low bowls, lack of national recognition, etc. There's respectability within a small group of die hard college football fans and pundits, but otherwise people either don't think of OSU or think badly of OSU. Why would Nike, or any company, invest a lot of money in that product?

I actually feel we're lucky to have Nike. It's one of the few "hip" things we can sell recruits. Unless I'm just really naive to how much more money New Balance would give us for our mediocrity...which is possible. Are you arguing an alternate company would have more incentive to promote OSU? Maybe. But it's difficult to promote an average product in any industry.

I guess this is a more succinct way to ask the question: if Adidas or New Balance sponsor the Beavs, what changes exactly?

The argument has been made that perception is reality. I fight this idea knowing that there is more truth to it than I want there to be, because I don't want to believe that my kids are going to grow up in such a stupid world.

Then I have moments of clarity when I realize that the world really is that stupid, and they're piling their stupidity on top of my hum-drum and happy life for no reason.

Substitute any other school in the line given. I would bet that Phil Knight himself would change it to some school that had no Nike ties if he had knowledge of the story beforehand. That would just be a sound business decision, no?

But that is not the given attitude/perception/reality of Oregon State. In fact, his love for the Ducks surpasses his business acumen. We are Alton Baker Park, and the UO is just the bunch of fowl who live there. Guess what... we are loaded with a bunch of fowl poop.

But hey! We get some neat gear that makes life worth living.

You have also talked of Wisconsin and their habits. They were looking for a reason to break from Nike, and they found it in the Honduras factory closings. Never mind that Adidas had similar circumstances a couple years earlier in El Salvador. The point is that Wisconsin made a big deal out of dumping the school bitch for someone seemingly down to Earth. And the world bought the switch.

We need more than just an affiliation with an apparel company. We need to be the anti-Nike. And the future economy says that being the anti-Nike is good. The future will be New Balance versus Li Ning. In the end, NB will have lucked into not moving their manufacturing base to China (or maybe it was a conscious decision by those hipsters). And Li Ning will just take market share from the others.

Easy as pie.

Besides, the NB Minimus Trail is the most anticipated trail shoe to come out in decades:
http://barefootrunninguniversity.com/2010/11/17/new-balance-minimus-trail-review/

That color scheme can't be wrong.

For the record, I swear by Merrell as my brand of shoe, and I'm anticipating the Trail Glove more than I am the Minimus Trail. But it appears NB is again the most advanced of the major brands in the cross training community.

I'd love to try on a pair of Inov-8 X-Talon 190's, but the nearest retailer is either Seattle or Eureka. Can someone out there try on a pair for me and tell me how they feel?

I just don't understand why we don't try to form a relationship with any athletic supply distributor. It's something that can grow and we would get better advertisement out of it.

OSU is just lazy and fucking stupid.

You make it sound like OSU is so stupid for signing a long term deal with Nike when the reality of the situation is Nike gives the most money to schools far and wide who give them the most exposure. Guess what, they don't give UO more money than they do UCLA, or USC or any other Nike sponsored school in major media markets. Of all the big sports brands Nike's offer to OSU was the most generous and based on how much exposure we could give their brand. Plain and simple, quit complaining about it or make 12 million babies who will watch only Beaver sports.

If you're upset the Phil Knight and other co-founders of Nike give enormous amounts of money to their Alma Mater then go start your own business and become a billionaire/the richest guy in Oregon.

If you're wondering why UO always has fancy Unis and other sparkly shit then look no further than their marketing department. At Nike designer are assigned to a school on a project by project basis, so it's not like there's a crack team of designers at Nike who only work on UO gear... In fact I know many an OSU grad who have designed aspects of Duck unis at one time or another. If you want to join me in complaining about OSU marketing department for being unwilling to try new things when it comes to brand identity it would be welcomed and much needed.

Finally, Since leaving Nike I can tell you that OSUs biggest problem in removing the cartoon Beaver is money. The current logo is everywhere! It would take an extra-extra-extra-ordinary amount of money to move on to a new logo... it's seen as not worth the money because the cartoon logo is still relatively new.

@K2theC,

I think you miss the point in the first half of your response. Read the whole thread, then think of how much this is about what an alum gives to his or her alma mater. We're talking business here, not donations.

The point has already been made about markets and comparable stages of development. So the first half of your response is wasted on the wind.

Btw, UCLA does receive the most money of any of the public Pac schools (USC and Stanford don't disclose their private contracts). But every dollar Nike gives UO is one dollar more than they give to UCLA.

So, with all that said, a change in apparel outfitters would itself bring an opportunity for marketing at OSU. Any apparel company worth their salt should see the opportunity to lock horns with the devil. There is nothing but win/win in the deal. Hell, Daddy Phil might even be spiteful enough to try to go negative on OSU if we're not a business associate. We could get marketing just for being in opposition to Highlighter U.

So yes, this rant is aimed at the OSU marketing department and their lack of foresight.

It's also a rant against our teams being subject to really crappy equipment. As much as the story of Bowerman and his waffle iron is just cute, the development of unnatural soles and foot supports has crippled our nation... literally. Exercise should be fun. It shouldn't be painful. Too many kids are coming up with injuries only common to poor footwear design.

Men laugh at women because they buy painful shoes for the sake of vanity, yet they don't even know they themselves are victim to the same phenomenon. It's just a slower, less painful atrophying of the feet.

Many companies are now returning to the sanity of function over form. Think back on your life and all the shoes you've owned. There must have been a favorite pair or two (or more) that you wore everywhere. In looking at designs, mocs, deck shoes and wushus have remained over the years. They're still low cost, but I see a lot of people wearing them while swearing to their comfort without knowing why.

Nike recognizes the market, but they just don't get it. They think their brand is so tied to 'shoe technology' that they have a need to destroy every good plan with a bunch of crap.

And people just eat it up because Mars Blackmon told them to once upon a time.

Here's a nice article from a local slant telling us how much the Ducks winning helps OSU in our quest for relevance:
When people think of Oregon...

Oh! But we had Pro Combat uni's when College Gameday came to Corvallis!

How about this OSU reference?
OSU is a winner too!

I know the paper I'm linking isn't widely read, but at least we get mentioned positively in the run-up to the BCS title game... well, as positively as I could find anywhere.

Woo hoo!

I know the BCS title game wasn't about OSU. It was deservedly about the Ducks. But our relative success in recent years is simply erased with every mention of our peogram. THAT is what an affiliation with Nike has done for us.

I know also that the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the fence. But what if the grass isn't green on our side? What if there is no grass? What if the fence is Nike itself?

We're less than relevant with our apparel association. We don't even get to be an also ran. And the perceived rewards are only perceived by those who lazily receive direct monetary compensation from Nike itself. I don't expect us to change this association either. Stale thought and laziness (malaise? depression?) is what put us in this situation. The very thing that would fire up the troops, that would give us fight (perceived or real), is the very thing that makes our athletic department a Quisling.

Yes... I just dropped the Hitler bomb. But how many people in today's world know that I did it without googling the name?

Too cynical?

The point is that even if we make only modest gains from a different association, we lose absolutely nothing. And that's if we think leaving an abusive relationship is only a modest gain.

Jack, stop posting here and post your review of the UW-OSU game.

I have been lazy over the holidays. I'll get on that.

Done

Sigh!

Another self-congratulatory move from the University of Nikegon

Jack, while I don't know that we can get anything more money wise with another contract I have always thought it would be interesting to pursue. I personally thought that we should have tried for Under Armor when they came on the scene. They were very giving to the first few schools that signed with them and they have done nice things at the collegiate level. They are also a large promoter of high school ball, so there is recognition with HS athletes.

Now anyone think that SI Post (the original article) points out some obvious violations? PK is essentially called a coach in the article, giving Oregon one too many coaches for it's football team. I don't think that the headset makes him a coach (just the Jerry Jones of college football), the fact that he might be calling a single play a game is a violation. While that is speculation, this is definitely a violation, coaches are not allowed to disclose recruits until they actually sign. If PK is personally told when a player commits, that should be a violation. Also, it seems suspect that he is in the coach's office when the commit letters are faxed in.

Ultimately, I came away from the article with a different feeling than you Jack. This just reinforced my idea that PK is the primary culprit in what is killing college football, the arms race. This links back to Angry's article about the decline of college football, it may not be yet but it will be soon.

There's a Duck who showed up in that thread...he sure thinks CFB is healthy.

I shall recap why we should really not be associated with Nike.
Nike Is Scum

I mean, really people, I'm not even talking about how really crappy their products are... and they are. I'm just talking about an institutional lack of human decency being the core value in this company.

I've been looking around the blogosphere for the last couple weeks, and the article first linked in the top post here has really started to sour a lot of people on Nike and Nikegon. There are open discussions on forums dealing with the same subject as this thread--dump Nike for anyone. Many others are beginning to search out and find links like the one in this post, and they are questioning their own (more than even their university's or sports team's) relationship with Nike.

It's a little funny to read about people deciding days, weeks or months ago to dump Nike for reasons of conscience and to try different shoes and apparel. They testify that they never knew shoes weren't supposed to be narrow pieces of plastic crap. Foot, leg, hip and back problems disappear. People start running again because it isn't painful anymore.

Sometimes publicity is not good even when it is intended to be so.

Duh?

Even their employer is lost on this subject. But get real. Why would the Ducks' mascot and the UO be featured for most of the Gameday experience at Auburn last year?

Hmmmm... we're forced to be here at an Under Armor school, so let's give love to Nikegon.

?

I know there's nothing obvious about the process, but it doesn't take Einstein to put the pieces together.

ESPN Gameday are Nikegon tools.

Similar to this is another topic. AAU and youth hoops "sponsorship" is insidious at best. But some people don't know what to think about it because it's far enough out of the realm of football to not be known.

But when you hear the names Sonny Vaccaro, World Wide Wes and the Pump Brothers, you instantly know where the conversation is going. So it was a surprise that a blog I occasionally read brought up a recently published book about the subject. It only touches on it, but it brings to light the evil seepage of corporate scum. If you think these associations mean nothing, think about Oregon HS hoops players and where they end up.

Love was deep in the sponsorship/agent/free lunch world of hoops. I doubt other Oregon kids are so tied to the man like Love was, but Wiltjer talked of his respect for Kenny Payne. Most of the others are at or are headed to schools where shoe money funds trips and funnels them into shoe-sponsored summer teams.

http://www.uniwatchblog.com/2011/02/15/excerpts-from-play-their-hearts-out-by-george-dohrmann/