Thursday, March 12, 2015

Guessing the dollars of BC's Under Armour extension

BC and Under Armour extended their partnership another 10 years. This is good news for BC. Despite some early gripes in the first year with regards to feet problems with the shoes, overall I think both sides have been happy. Under Armour is still only supplying eight Power 5 schools, so BC still gets the attention we deserve. It still also adds a little coolness to recruits and fans. But as much as the marketing and recruiting is important, what really matters is the money.

Unfortunately for BC, it doesn't seem like our other potential partners in Adidas and Nike were writing blank checks for apparel deals. Under Armour just signed Notre Dame to the largest deal in college sports. It is estimated that the Irish got $100 million for 10 years. Nike even let Miami leave for Adidas for an estimated $4.5 million. If Under Armour didn't break the bank to sign Miami -- a traditionally a higher profile school than BC -- I don't think they were breaking the bank for BC's extension. The most lucrative UA deal right now is with Auburn and that is only a little over $4 million annually. Texas Tech renewed their UA deal recently and terms are not yet public. My guess is that because we renewed and agreed to a long deal, BC is probably getting around $3.5 and have some kickers if we raise our profile in the next ten years with some sort of basketball or football championship.

Now that the deal is done, I hope BC and Under Armour agree to some new looks and guidelines for the uniform. My preference remains a traditional, consistent conservative look for the majority of our games. I don't like tweaks year to year and especially tweaks during the season. Then in the one or two "marketing" games BC can go crazy. Try Super Fan yellow! Go with a winged helmet! I would even accept a full stain glass helmet for one game. Do throw backs from different eras.

BC's revenue from apparel is never going to be among the highest in college football. At this point that doesn't really matter. What matters is getting fair money with upside and having a partner who is focused on BC. This UA renewal does that.


mod34b said...

Auburn gets $4.0+M per year and BC gets $3.5M (87.5% of Auburn $$)?

That scenario seems unlikely given the relative fan base and name recognition of the two schools. But terrific if B-squared could negotiate such a deal.

blist said...

Atl is probably close (ish.) BC, being private, isn't disclosing its contracts, but this link shows the public ones with UA. I'd say we certainly better than Utah, at $2.4, arguably better than U of So Carolina at $3.2M and, in all likelihood, not too far off of Maryland, at $4.3M

ATL_eagle said...

Our deal is more recent than Auburn. My guess is they will go past 4.5 in their next deal.

Bravesbill said...

I don't think BC holds a candle to South Carolina. I'd say it probably falls somewhere in between South Carolina and Utah.

mod34b said...

USC gamecock have stadium seating over 80,000

"Williams-Brice Stadium was sold out prior to the start of each of the last seven college football seasons and consistently ranks in the top 20 in average attendance and the top 15 in total attendance"

mod34b said...

Utah also draws bigger crowds than BC and draws at over 100% capacity.