The financials of the deal were not included but assume it was pretty lucrative. Reebok had a window to match UA and I was told that they didn't because Under Armour came in with such a high number.
Although this doesn't directly impact the play on the field, I am excited about the switch. UA provides a cache that recruits will like and a wide variety of merchandise for BC fans.
How do you think a tight-fitting, breathable, maroon and gold t-shirt will look with my whalepants?
Posts
31 comments:
I am not so happy about this switch. Football might not be so bad, but the switch in basketball could prove costly.
I liked being sponsored by the NFL sponsor, it provided some good gear, while jerseys were not up to my liking, i dont expect the jersey to be available under UA either.
In the end its a money game, i just hope it doesn't affect our recruiting.
Reebok HQ is in Canton. Pretty big slap in the face to the local community, no?
Brian,
Big slap in face? Depends on how you look at things. If you look at the impact from a local (Boston) perspective; then maybe, yes.
However, if you look at it from a national perspective, the answer is clearly no.
Reebok is no longer a US-based company. It's owned by adidas which is based just a few miles outside of Herzogenaurach, Germany.
I've posted this before but I'll do it again, because I know not everybody reads the comments all the time:
The majority of the football players themselves hate wearing the Reebok gear. Only the kickers were allowed to wear different branded cleats and they had to tape over the logos. Reebok's football cleats are extremely narrow and take a long time to break in; part of our deal with Reebok required the players to get new cleats several times a season and it was a miserable week to work in the locker room.
I don't see how it proves costly in basketball though...
I ran track at BC, and every year received my free Reeboks and every year tossed them aside and bought other sneakers and spikes with my own money. They were awful.
I would have loved any other provider.
I drank beer at BC and wore sweatpants to class everyday... would have loved some under armour gear back then.
Is the hockey team still going to be outfitted by Nike? I don't see UA ever dipping into the hockey world...
I'm 99% sure that BC is the ONLY college team that wears Reebok so the lack of quality gear on their end over they years is pretty sad. I agree with Raj in that I like that its the NFL sponsor, but overall the move to UA will be much better for all - atheletes and fans.
CHI_Eagle...LOL
This won't be costly to basketball. Maryland, Auburn and Texas Tech have not had problems with hoops due to UA.
Also not a slap in the face of Reebok. Yes they are local, but we were their only college partner. They are focused elsewhere. A big part of our original Reebok deal was related to Don Hasselbeck. Reebok also had a right to top UA's proposal and didn't. It all comes down to money.
CHI, the hockey team has been Reebok for a while now (at least 4 seasons now).
Maybe UA was attracted to BC by the way they've protected their house this year.
Like someone on EO said, can we get a commercial of Herzy in his face paint shouting "WE WILL PROTECT THIS HOUSE!"
That'd be sweet. We can play it before home games.
or Father Leahy
I love this UA deal. There's nothing better than a football player - especially a hog - with his shirt hanging out (part of the style), wearing ballet-type, nylon see-through pants with dental floss up his giggy.
And how about those sorry individuals who also wear short football pants to boot - SHORT PANTS!
Give me a break!
This is a big-money deal for BC, probably in the range of $20M, judging by what Maryland and Auburn got. Also, the deal reportedly affects ALL of BC's 31 varsity teams.
http://baltimore.
bizjournals.com/
baltimore/stories/
2009/11/30/daily9.html
Paul Johnson just won ACC Coach of the year again???
Spaz only got 2 of 40 votes???
WTF????
I think to kick this partnership off right, Under Armour should drop a fat donation on our other UA, Uplifting Athletes, in honor of Herzlich and then as mentioned before a pumped up face-painted Herzlich is the perfect match for a protect this house commercial.
Good partnership. Money, appeal, maybe some national tv exposure and apparantly according to some posts better equipment.
Good job GDF.
I have no problem with updating to UA, so long as they are reminded that the school colors are maroon and gold...not red...not yellow...and certainly not black and grey.
the reason i say costly for basketball is because of the basketball shoes they sell. I believe they have all of 1 type of shoe. In fact they dont even sell their basketball shoe on their website.
"its gotta be the shoes".
ANd in terms of maryland, auburn, texas tech and their basketball programs. Are these guys competing for their conference championship?
Dan intersting on ACC coach of yetr .
HD is warming to BC. Here is her take:
Johnson received 24 of a possible 40 votes cast by ACSMA members, easily outdistancing his counterpart in Saturday's championship game. Clemson's Dabo Swinney had 10 votes, followed by Duke's David Cutcliffe (4) and Boston College's Frank Spaziani (2).
It's an absolute shame that Spaziani received only two votes. Considering what he had to overcome? That's how many wins most people probably gave the Eagles credit for back in August -- two. All of these coaches have done an outstanding job, but if you consider who has done the most with the least, Cutcliffe and Spaziani deserve a lot more credit.
Luke Kuechly Defensive Rookie of Year!!!
2009 ACC Rookie of the Year Results as voted on the by Atlantic Coast Sports Media Association (ACSMA)
Rookie of the Year
Ryan Williams, rb, Virginia Tech (34)
Luke Kuechly, lb, Boston College (29)
Greg Reid, cb, Florida State (4)
Kyle Parker, qb, Clemson (4)
Steve Greer, lb, Virginia (3)
Conner Vernon, wr, Duke (2)
Kenny Okoro, cb, Wake Forest (2)
Kevin Reddick, lb, North Carolina (1)
Jacobbi McDaniel, dt, Florida State (1)
Offensive Rookie of the Year
Ryan Williams, rb, Virginia Tech (34)
Kyle Parker, qb, Clemson (4)
Conner Vernon, wr, Duke (2)
Defensive Rookie of the Year
Luke Kuechly, lb, Boston College (29)
Greg Reid, cb, Florida State (4)
Steve Greer, lb, Virginia (3)
Kenny Okoro, cb, Wake Forest (2)
Kevin Reddick, lb, North Carolina (1)
Jacobbi McDaniel, dt, Florida State (1)
Can we please get rid of Reebok Red and get back to Maroon?!
I really hope that UA ditches their normal styling for their teams. BC doesn't need piping or random color patches. Give me White, maroon (Maroon!), and gold. I want classic styling, no italics, no hyper aggressive fonts/graphics.
If we can get the Auburn uniforms (swapping maroon for the navy and gold for the orange) I'll be very happy.
I'm with you, Danny Boy.
I with you, too, Danny Boy. Auburn has such a classy look and it would be awesome to emulate that classic simplicity. I definitely don't want to tune in to watch our team in maroon versions of Maryland's uni set.
I agree with everyone else on here -- especially regarding the use of our traditional colors (Maroon & Gold; NOT red and yellow/tan) and typography (PLEASE no more italics).
Unfortunately I don't think these issues will be addressed by the new Under Armour deal. UA will take its directions from GDF and the Athletics Marketing office, and they seem content with the current graphic identity.
On a positive note, BC is now selling "throwback" items that feature the old BC Interlock logo and licensing its use. See for example this hat from lids:
http://www.lids.com/pid/20119699
Along with a return to block letters (see: http://www.bkstr.com/ProductDisplay/10001-10040-46404-31866180-1?demoKey=d), I would love to see the original BC Interlock logo used again on our uniforms and all athletics marketing. It is distinctive, collegiate and classic. I think it represents our school well, evoking our history, tradition and even the beauty of our campus. By contrast, the current italicized BC interlock suggests "NFL-wannabe," and is already starting to look dated.
Better link to block letters:
http://store.cstv.com/marketplace/product_enlarge.cfm?product_id=154076&store_id=396&image_num=1
Couldn't agree more: the interlocking logo is the way to go with classic maroon and gold.
No red and yellow. No italics. And expecially no eagle head (seriosuly, it looks cheap and generic).
Nothing tops the interlocking logo, with or without the eagle at center.
People seems to care more about fashion than football. yeesshhh.
What are the players, fashion mannequins?
Give me the blue-collar grit, not the "don't they look so nice and really represent BC so well" crap.
so long as the uniform has some blood, sweat, dirt or grass stains (when we are playing on natural grass), it will look good me.
I always liked the Italics
As a former player at the Heights - yes, getting out of Reebok is the right step. However - is the step in the right direction? I understand GDF is trying to create revenue for the Height's but this is going to DISSUADE alot of recruits for ALL sports! I interact with alot of HS athletes and their opinion of UA cleats and apparel (lately) has not been glowing. The cleats don't offer much protection/stability for any of the field sports that they are involved with such as football, soccer and baseball. In addition, the apparel breaks down pretty quickly because of inferior construction and technology. If you don't believe it, look at what the elite programs (Florida, Oregon, Bama, Ohio State, Tex, PSU, VA Tech, LSU)are wearing and look at how far some of these "elite programs" that wear UA have fallen (Auburn - Russell, Maryland - Nike, SCar - Champion, Hawaii - Nike, TexTech - Champion/Nike) and it's because the HS athletes pay attention to these things, however small they are. I want nothing but the best for BC but this is definitely not a step in the right direction, possibly a step backwards
Post a Comment