arkansas with adidas?

Is that you Tim?

Sorry but you are mistaken. You are now comparing apples to oranges. Only a fool would argue against you on this topic. My argument holds true when you compare Arkansas Track and Field to any other NCAA Track and Field Program. I would say the same about 95 percent of the Nike Athletes. I would say that the Arkansas Track Program could be as valuable to Nike as 95 percent of their track and Field Athletes. Winning the Indoor and Outdoor NCAA Champs gets a lot of T.V. time I would say. Plus its all positive news rather then negative (Marion Jones along with many others). As for Non revenue sports you are right but Im sure that Arkansas Track has a lot of respect and support from the University. When you consider their facilities, their coaching staff, and their huge budget how can you think different. Now if a shoe company is going to sponsor a Track and Field Team they should look no further the University of Arkansas. Now if you want to argue on how football and basketball make more money then Track and Field go ahead and give yourself the No-s*** Sherlock Award.

Most of what they give the University is product. The gear does not cost them much to make, but the revenue it helps generate is enormous.

think about now, every time their is a meet at tyson the giant adidas banner that will be hanging, and visible to the whole world via television and internet broadcasts. that means $$

What is the cover of Track&Field News worth in advert $$$?

Or that giant 40 foot banner of Alistair Cragg that was hangging at the Penn Relays last year?

Do you guys really think a company like Nike benefits leaps and boounds for sponsoring big name running programs? I mean it is cool and all but I really don't expect Nike's sales projections for running goods to dive because they no longer sponsor Arkansas. I know exposure is a great marketing force, but I myself have never been more prone to buying Nike, Adidas, etc. because I saw they sponsored collegiate program X. I am sorry but when a company sponsors a collegiate running programs, it is more charity work than anything else, and because you want to be known for fostering/backing the sport in general.

Exactly! The point that others seem to miss is that it isn't about Nike or Adidas vying to sponsor Arkansas T&F, it's about them vying to sponsor Arkansas athletics because of the exposure men's basketball and football televised coverage provides; the exposure gained by the T&F program, by comparison, is mere peanuts to the sponsor. Sure it's a positive, but a really small one and assuredly not a deciding factor. It's certainly less than what's gained through sponsorship of things like the entire Golden Spike Tour and their other T&F athletes, since collegians can't be used in ads on TV and in print media. If Arkansas T&F was really that valuable to Nike then they'd still have logos on Arkansas gear, since they have the clout and $ to outbid Adidas or anyone else.

"What former Arkansas track athletes have ever been a part of any remotely visible marketing campaign"

-falcon was part of an asics campaign 90/91. mostly in european mags.

Georgia State wrote:

Tribble- No one cares about the Arkansas women. They are a second tier program and always have been.

They have been and will stay one step behind the big guns.

Georgia State: Arkansas women may not have won as many natl. championships as the men, but a second rate program? No way. Year after year they have women that contend for national titles. Do you call Deena Drossin, Amy Yoder-Begley, Tracy Robertson, Christin Worth, etc. second rate??? And how many lady sprinters did they have in the Olympics this year? Not quite what I would call a second tier program.

Charity work is what it is. Sub6miler already pointed that out . He's not comparing it to Football or any other sport. The point is out of all the NCAA track and Field Teams Arkansas has to be the best one to sponsor. As for why Nike is no longer the sponsor of Arkansas. Thats the point of this thread! It may have nothing to do with money and more to do with Nike going after athletes. Maybe Coach Mcdonnell told Nike to kiss off. I mean like you said they arent paying him or the program that much anyways right? Its just Track and Field. Does anybody remember the article when the coach talked about Nike sneaking around trying to sign people during the school year. I have a feeling that is why Arkansas is with adidas.

It's about Adidas doing a whole school deal with Arkansas, nothing more nothing less. How visible are Arkansas athletics these days anyhow? Basketball and football are not that good like when Nolan Richardson was the basketball coach.

You can have that feeling, but it's still a mystery what on earth it would realistically be based on. Despite the fact that the UArk men's basketball and football teams are far from contending for national or even conference titles, they're still SEC members and are still going before tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of eyes (in person and on local telecasts) each week during their respective seasons. Arkansas may indeed be "one of the best" NCAA T&F teams to sponsor, but that still isn't saying a lot. That's about like being the best NCAA tennis team to sponsor and not quite as good as being the best NCAA baseball team to sponsor; it's still a secondary concern, at best. McDonnell's input on the sponsor situation at UArk is a distant third behind men's basketball and football concerns and isn't likely to be a deciding factor. It's probably that Nike felt like UArk's overall athletic department (T&F included) just didn't present a great enough stature for marketing to bid competitively with Adidas to get the contract. McDonnell might indeed be pleased with the outcome, but his feelings surely had nothing to do with who won the bid.

I would have to disagree with that. McDonnells opinion is not a distant thought to the administration. That man is loved and gets what he wants. MARK MY WORDS.

He's not going to trump what the revenue sports want, period, especially SEC football in the South.

REVENUE SPORTS WERE ALREADY WITH ADIDAS YOU IDIOT. YOU THINK HE WAS 'FORCED' TO GO WITH ADIDAS? THE BOSS CHOSE TO GO WITH ADIDAS. I WOULD BET THEY ARE PAYING HIM MORE CASH THAN NIKE.

So, McDonnell had a side deal with Nike that was independent of and usurped the deal Adidas has had in place with the rest of the varsity sports at Arkansas? And Nike still tried to poach undergrads from his team? Damn, that's cold. I wouldn't blame him for taking a loss, financially, to sever those ties.

swoosh boy wrote:

Charity work is what it is. Sub6miler already pointed that out . He's not comparing it to Football or any other sport. The point is out of all the NCAA track and Field Teams Arkansas has to be the best one to sponsor. As for why Nike is no longer the sponsor of Arkansas. Thats the point of this thread! It may have nothing to do with money and more to do with Nike going after athletes. Maybe Coach Mcdonnell told Nike to kiss off. I mean like you said they arent paying him or the program that much anyways right? Its just Track and Field. Does anybody remember the article when the coach talked about Nike sneaking around trying to sign people during the school year. I have a feeling that is why Arkansas is with adidas.

That's not what happened. This topic cameup in a casual conversation that I had with the coaches last year. They are switching b/c of football and basketball. Do not accuse McDonnell of being so selfish. He encouraged Wallace to make the jump. He wanted what was in the best interest of Wallace. After all, I think he knew that with their stature, they could get a few more athletes to come run for them.

You summed it up. And you are calling me an idiot. If only you knew.