Dwyane Wade, Converse, and College Basketball

[Gilsonky]

Hello my name is James Martin and I am a huge Dwyane Wade fan.  I first took notice of him when he made my Wildcats look like little kittens.  The reason I am coming to this board is to get some support for an online petition and movement to get Nike to hand over some of their college team to Converse.  Here is the my space pagewww.myspace.com/conversencaa and here is the link to the online petition http://www.petitiononline.com/ConsNCAA/petition.html

I am not asking you to specifically support a change at Marquette, but it just makes the most since because of Wade.  Thanks for your support; any ideas that you might have to reach more potential supporters would be appreciated

[spiral97]

welcome to the board gilsonky...

any particular reasons why we should support this movement?  who does it benefit and how?

[Gilsonky]

I just think it would be cool since Dwyane brought back Converse to the NBA that Marquette could help bring back the brand to college.  It would be like a face of the brand and not just another number at Nike.  So I am just going around to some different message boards trying to drum up some support. 

[ZiggysFryBoy]

isn't this already a done deal?  I thought MU had a exclusive deal with Converse for next year? to wear the Wade shoes.  no link or anything though....

[Chili]

i found this blurb:

Marquette news, courtesy of Dan Kinderman, who quotes a local newspaper columnist thusly: “Coach Tom Crean has been affiliated with Nike since coming to MU in 1999. And since the Golden Eagles advanced to the Final Four in 2003, they’ve been designated as an Elite program by the shoe company, meaning they receive one of the best outfitting deals around. Their gear could have a new look next season, though, thanks in large part to former MU star and 2006 SI Sportsman of the Year Dwyane Wade. Crean has been in discussions with Converse — the company Wade has endorsed since entering the NBA in 2003, and has since been purchased by Nike — to switch over. Assuming the deal goes through, the Golden Eagles will become the lone team in college basketball to sport ‘Brand Wade’ uniforms and shoes.”


http://www.uniwatchblog.com/category/beltswaistbands/


Rosiak mentioned it in a chat:

The next step in that could be if MU comes to an agreement with Converse/Nike and begins wearing Brand Wade gear and shoes beginning next season. The Golden Eagles would be the only team in the country to do so, and that's another recruiting tool to use. Don't ever discount what might be the potential difference in a 16- or 17-year old kid's mind.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=539533

[spiral97]

The Golden Eagles would be the only team in the country to do so, and that's another recruiting tool to use.

my first thought to this was an incredulous "really?!"

then I read the next sentence:

Don't ever discount what might be the potential difference in a 16- or 17-year old kid's mind

so I know I am not the ONLY person to have this reaction.. kids are really swayed but what brand name is on their shoes when they play?!?!  I'm sorry.. having a lot of trouble even fathoming that... and if a kid is that fickle wouldn't that also apply to other aspects of their game that make it tough to coach or something?

I'm probably short-sighted but the only difference I see shoe brand selection having is really money/gear to the university and support for a former player (can't even say alum can I?).. sure the PR image of being tied to wade helps but I gotta imagine we're already making that duck quack as loud and as often as possible.. another quack could start to get annoying a la aflac. *plink plink*

[MarquetteVol]

I'm actually not thrilled with moving to Converse. I like the panache of Nike. Maybe it's just me, though. Did else anyone notice that Under Armour is making football uniforms now? I think Auburn is an Under Armour school.

[Chili]

Maryland was the first Under Armour school as the founder is an alum.

[MUCrisco]

The shoes that you wear are huge for recruiting.  The Nike/Addidas war has been going on for a while.  People have speculated that it was a huge deal for Derrick Rose as all of his final schools were Addidas schools.  Shoe companies have gone away from spending money on professionals who endorse their shoes, and have focused in on colleges instead.  It's cheaper for them.

Personally, I would like to stick with Nike.  I know they own converse, but there is more exposure there.  I've been a Nike person ever since I was a kid and I love the MU Nike stuff that I have.

[StillAWarrior]

Did else anyone notice that Under Armour is making football uniforms now? I think Auburn is an Under Armour school.

As the father of a 10-year old boy, I can tell you that Under Armour seems to have plans for total world domination -- and I fear that they might succeed.  I simply cannot recall any brand that achieved such wide-spread popularity so quickly.  Under Armour is hugely popular with the young boys around here - more than Nike, I think.  If they made regular athletic shoes, I have no doubt that my son would prefer and request them.  As it is they've started making some footwear (cleats).  The only other brand that I can think of (other than video games or things like that) that is having this kind of success marketing to young boys is Dick's Sporting Goods.  Whoever is in charge of youth marketing at Dick's deserves a raise.

Under Armour has Auburn, Maryland and Texas Tech football.

[IAmMarquette]

I'm probably short-sighted but the only difference I see shoe brand selection having is really money/gear to the university and support for a former player (can't even say alum can I?).. sure the PR image of being tied to wade helps but I gotta imagine we're already making that duck quack as loud and as often as possible.. another quack could start to get annoying a la aflac.

Actually (and I think this has come up in the past on another board) you can say 'alum' when referring to D-Wade. He did attend MU, making him an Alumnus. He did not graduate, and therefore (obviously) is not a graduate. I don't think one must be a graduate to be an alum.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[spiral97]

The shoes that you wear are huge for recruiting.

Not necessarily doubting you.. just don't understand why that is the case or the perception... why would a kid care what brand duke or unc or ucla or pitt or uconn (or marquette) have agreements with?  aren't most highly recruited kids interested in going to successful programs to work with coaches that are successful at getting players of their particular position into the nba?  or at the least aren't the more worried about how much playing time they can expect to get and in front of what kind of crowd and what kind of tv exposure?  Or even about what kind of practice facilities are available to them or who the team plays regularly?  Seems like there are SO many more important aspects to be considering than shoe brand... but I am obviously out of touch with today's kids (and am feeling quite old as a result).

Under Armour is hugely popular with the young boys around here - more than Nike, I think.

Under Armour has Auburn, Maryland and Texas Tech football.

Taking both of these statements as true.. have these teams really been attracting top notch recruits?  Does their shoe brand make the difference in the recruiting they get and therefore enhance their season results?

Let me stress I am not trying to be argumentative here and do not mean to call out anyone's comments.. just honestly trying to understand.

[Sir Lawrence]

Since he's a former student, he can be called an alumnus, and I'm certain the MU Alumni Association gladly takes D-Wade's dues:

1.   a graduate or former student of a specific school, college, or university.
2.   a former associate, employee, member, or the like: He invited all the alumni of the library staff to the party.

[MUCrisco]

I wouldn't say that it is that case for all recruits.  However, for some, I do think it makes a difference.  A huge reason is because of AAU programs.  Kids get involved in that at a very young age.  Shoe companies make dealS with AAU teams and a shoe rep can have a large influence on these kids.  WhEn it comes time to choose their school, they still are loyal to the shoe brand.  

Afterall, there are some bigtime programs that endorse Nike, and there are some bigtime programs that endorse Addidas, so the qualities in a school that you raise could be equal except for the shoe brand.  Personally, I would think the final decision would depend on who you want to be your coach and your teamates, but I do think shoe companies play a huge role.

[rocky_warrior]

I can tell you that Under Armour seems to have plans for total world domination -- and I fear that they might succeed.  I simply cannot recall any brand that achieved such wide-spread popularity so quickly.

I'm going off topic (I think), but anyway....Under Armour stuff is too expensive for world domination.   Yes, an infatuation with brand-conscious kids perhaps, but walking into a sporting goods store you'll find several alternatives with lower prices.  I've been into active sports for a long time, and while UA's marketing might be fresh, the concept of "performance" clothing is hardly new.  I own lots of stuff similar to what UA sells, but made by companies that have been selling this type of equipment for much longer - north face, patagonia, sierra designs, etc.  The difference?  Those brands are mostly marketed to outdoor enthusiasts, whereas UA has gone after the team sports.

[StillAWarrior]

Under Armour is hugely popular with the young boys around here - more than Nike, I think.

Under Armour has Auburn, Maryland and Texas Tech football.

Taking both of these statements as true.. have these teams really been attracting top notch recruits?  Does their shoe brand make the difference in the recruiting they get and therefore enhance their season results?

Let me stress I am not trying to be argumentative here and do not mean to call out anyone's comments.. just honestly trying to understand.

I wasn't trying to make the point that kids are choosing schools based upon shoes.  I was just commenting on the popularity of Under Armour.

That said, I think that what shoes a team wears probably has some influence on a minority of recruits.  Just like some recruits are interested in how the girls at a school are, how the engineering program at a school is, how the weather is, etc.  There are all kinds of kids out there, and they are motivated by any number of factors.

[mu03eng]

The shoes that you wear are huge for recruiting.

Not necessarily doubting you.. just don't understand why that is the case or the perception... why would a kid care what brand duke or unc or ucla or pitt or uconn (or marquette) have agreements with?  aren't most highly recruited kids interested in going to successful programs to work with coaches that are successful at getting players of their particular position into the nba?  or at the least aren't the more worried about how much playing time they can expect to get and in front of what kind of crowd and what kind of tv exposure?  Or even about what kind of practice facilities are available to them or who the team plays regularly?  Seems like there are SO many more important aspects to be considering than shoe brand... but I am obviously out of touch with today's kids (and am feeling quite old as a result).

Under Armour is hugely popular with the young boys around here - more than Nike, I think.

Under Armour has Auburn, Maryland and Texas Tech football.

Taking both of these statements as true.. have these teams really been attracting top notch recruits?  Does their shoe brand make the difference in the recruiting they get and therefore enhance their season results?

Let me stress I am not trying to be argumentative here and do not mean to call out anyone's comments.. just honestly trying to understand.

Spiral, it does make a difference.  Two reasons, one practical, one is "fame"

Practical:
Athletes get attached to brands or the feel of the brand.  Sometimes it is physicological sometimes its reality.  As an example, I played soccer at Marquette which was a nike school.  I have always been and always will be an Addidas guy.  I am a keeper and so wear gloves, and I have a particular kind of Addidas glove I have worn since they came out when I was a freshman in high school.  Well because Nike was the school's equipment sponsor I had to provide my own equipment if I wanted to use Addidas.  So I rather pay the 120 bucks a pop for the gloves then get ones that I wasn't comfortable with for free or at a reduced price.  Obviously for me it didn't matter cause I wasn't on scholarship and was going to Marquette whether I played soccer or not.  But had I been choosing between two schools and all other things equal, I absolutely would have gone to an "addidas school".

"fame":
The brand has always been important to youth.  Its the same thought process why people buy GAP instead of Kmart even though they are probably the same.  Name recognition.  Remember when Jordan's came out and people were literally shooting each other for them....same kind of thing only clearly less serious.


I'm not saying this would be the sole driving factor but it is certainly a factor.  I can't find a link but I do remember a player I think at New Mexico in his third year demanded to switch to Addidas because he blamed Nike shoes for a series of leg injuries he suffered.  It matters to people.

[MUCrisco]

http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9798/Jul08_98/hoop.htm

http://ww3.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/archive/nov97/higginsr112097.htm

http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/9624410

http://www.oregonlive.com/prepboysbasketball/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1160364313186220.xml&coll=7&thispage=1

http://www.powerbasketball.com/soleinfluence.html

http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/story/7462439

[StillAWarrior]

I'm going off topic (I think), but anyway....Under Armour stuff is too expensive for world domination.

You're right, I took the thread OT, but since I started us down that path...

I want to believe you.  I really, really do.  But, two things are holding me back:

1)  I vividly remember when my parents absolutely, positively would not even consider buying me a pair of Nikes because they were too expensive.  Somehow, Nike has managed to do OK.

2)  I am aware of few groups more eager to spend money on ridiculously overpriced merchandise than youth sports parents.  I'll include myself in this group, although to a far lesser degree than many.  When I was a kid each baseball team had a few bats that the kids shared.  On occasion, one or two players had their own (I had an old wooden Louisville Slugger).  Now, most of the kids on my son's team have their own bat (and bat bag, and gloves -- Under Armour, of course --, etc.)  Many of the bats are well over $100.  Fortunately, we get hand-me-downs from a next door neighbor (who has probably 8-10 bats and has given us 2-3).  When I was a kid, we used our uniforms and then returned them at the end of the season.  Now, most of the sports my son plays require us to purchase the uniforms which, of course, have names on the back.  It really is crazy.

In other words:  yes, Under Armour is really expensive.  But so was (is?) Nike, and there's plenty of parents out there that think nothing of dropping that kind of cash on stuff like that.

[Edited to clarify:  I was talking about batting gloves, not the baseball gloves.  Even when I was a kid we didn't all share the same baseball gloves.]

[spiral97]

ok - all that makes sense.... amazing info in the links too...

so.. with all that taken in... I'd have to think since it is difficult to say that the players we want to target even 3-4 years from now overwhelmingly prefer one brand vs. another (as long as we are looking solely (no pun intended) at those brands that invest in the AAU aspect) so the practicality influence, while obviously sensible, probably impacts little in the decision making process that a university goes through in choosing a brand.  that leaves the fame part.. which means there's a hard sell to get us to move from the granddaddy of all shoe brands in the fame department - Nike. No?

[rocky_warrior]

In other words:  yes, Under Armour is really expensive.  But so was (is?) Nike, and there's plenty of parents out there that think nothing of dropping that kind of cash on stuff like that.

Oh, I'm not saying that UA won't do well - in fact I believe they will.  I just believe your "world domination" statement may be a bit far.  I expect them to be competing with Nike, Addidas, etc for team sport stuff.  But I don't think they're simply going to sink those guys.

[MUCrisco]

ok - all that makes sense.... amazing info in the links too...

so.. with all that taken in... I'd have to think since it is difficult to say that the players we want to target even 3-4 years from now overwhelmingly prefer one brand vs. another (as long as we are looking solely (no pun intended) at those brands that invest in the AAU aspect) so the practicality influence, while obviously sensible, probably impacts little in the decision making process that a university goes through in choosing a brand.  that leaves the fame part.. which means there's a hard sell to get us to move from the granddaddy of all shoe brands in the fame department - Nike. No?

I would think so.  Nike does own Converse and Wade obviously has a lot of influence.  I don't think that would outweigh the influence of AAU teams and camps.  Nike is still the bigger name than even Jordan.

[State]

Next year we will wear not only Wade's converse shoes but will be the first team to wear his line of uniforms.  Just like Nike has the Jordan collection, Converse is coming out with the Wade collection.

[StillAWarrior]

I just believe your "world domination" statement may be a bit far.  I expect them to be competing with Nike, Addidas, etc for team sport stuff.  But I don't think they're simply going to sink those guys.

It wasn't meant literally.       Mind you, I think Nike has achieved "world domination."  I don't think UA will sink those guys either, but I think they've got a shot at being right there with Nike dominating the world.

[mu03eng]

ok - all that makes sense.... amazing info in the links too...

so.. with all that taken in... I'd have to think since it is difficult to say that the players we want to target even 3-4 years from now overwhelmingly prefer one brand vs. another (as long as we are looking solely (no pun intended) at those brands that invest in the AAU aspect) so the practicality influence, while obviously sensible, probably impacts little in the decision making process that a university goes through in choosing a brand.  that leaves the fame part.. which means there's a hard sell to get us to move from the granddaddy of all shoe brands in the fame department - Nike. No?

Unless what you sell is that you get in on the ground floor of the "new" Jordan, DWade.  I'm not really comparing their basketball games or talent but their marketability.  There hasn't been a basketball player this marketable since Jordan.  Wade is someone you can market to rich kids in the suburbs and poor kids in the inner city....he can cover it all.  Remember Nike didn't get huge UNTIL Jordan had his shoe line.  Wade can do the same with Converse especially since Nike owns them and can pump money into the product. Also don't forget that being the only team in a brand is a factor....ie, "holy sh$^ dude I'm going to Marquette where we are the only ones that gets to wear Wade line jersey's."  Seems kind of silly but it matters.  It at least give us something to get them interested.  I bet you dollars to donuts Crean thinks so and is going to use it or he would never make the switch.