Who do you all want making jerseys and apparel? Under Armor has been a little sketchy with us and I am genuinely curious what people want. Personally I like Adidas. I think they pay schools very well, they are on the rise with better uniforms, and they are something different.

Our next contract is going to be for low $$$, compared to what UA was willing tp pay us last go around. So with that in mind, I'd go with Jordan Brand for all sports.

I would love to see Jordan brand come back for basketball but I just can't wrap my head around having the Jumpman logo on a football uniform (or any other sport besides basketball).

If that's what it takes us to get back to being a Nike school however, I'm all for it. I'm not a fan of the under Armour designs.

Literally anyone but UA. I think they might have cursed us.

Nike-Jordan, Adidas would be great. Whatever the cool kids like really.

BeastMode would be dope! Edit: Looks like they don't do shoes which is a problem.

Calboy23 said:

---

Who do you all want making jerseys and apparel? Under Armor has been a little sketchy with us and I am genuinely curious what people want. Personally I like Adidas. I think they pay schools very well, they are on the rise with better uniforms, and they are something different.

---

In 1971 I stopped playing hoop in Converse and bought my first pair of Adidas Superstar basketball shoes. Adidas sports attire and shoes are all I have purchased since.*




*I do confess that I reverted to purple Cons for my Cal intramural career. Berkeley and purple Cons in the early to mid 1970's complimented one another.

bearister said:

---

Calboy23 said:

---

Who do you all want making jerseys and apparel? Under Armor has been a little sketchy with us and I am genuinely curious what people want. Personally I like Adidas. I think they pay schools very well, they are on the rise with better uniforms, and they are something different.

---

In 1971 I stopped playing hoop in Converse and bought my first pair of Adidas Superstar basketball shoes. Adidas sports attire and shoes are all I have purchased since.*




*I do confess that I reverted to purple Cons for my Cal intramural career. Berkeley and purple Cons in the early to mid 1970's complimented one another.

---

Those Superstars were something, weren't they? Especially compared to Cons (black lows for me). In 1972, I had a summer job at Harberts Sporting Goods on Shattuck and bought four pair (30% employee discount!) of various Adidas that lasted me through much of college. As a long-time runner, I'm pretty agnostic, Nike, Brooks, New Balance, Adidas, ASICS, I've worn them all. But my PRs were all in Nikes.

I do like the linear design UA created based on the Campanile, although I think it could be used more creatively and UA products seem cheesy to me. I always thought a very simple solid silhouette of the Campanile on the front of the basketball jersey but offset to one side would look great.

To answer the original question: based on the quality and design, I'd like to see Adidas or Nike. But practically speaking, whoever will pay the most as long as it's not some flaky company that will disappear in a year.

I bought a pair of these throwback 1984 LA Trainers from Eastbay.com


I bought a couple of pairs of these black Swift Run X. I rarely wear anything else.

Adidas uniforms are terrible. ASU, Washington, Louisville, etc. UA does better stuff than them. And yes, I know $ is more important than the on field or on court look.

But man, they're bad

UA has had fairly good, not great uniforms, but their fan gear is horrible. I remember when we changed to UA, several posters said I was out of touch and the tweens were all wearing UA. That was not what I saw at the HS / college age. Maybe it was true for some of the tweens, but I think it was only the curry effect. UA literally has nothing else

jumpman is only for a few select schools, and for the west coast that is now UCLA

adidas is old school, and their new stuff is ugly

puma is trying to get in the game with Ball, but it's not enough ... still primarily a soccer brand

nike is favored by most basketball players I talk to and see by a large margin. if you look at social media of the MBB and WBB players, they are wearing Nike when they are wearing one of the 5 major basketball brands. Of the major NBA stars (Lebron, KD, Kyrie, PG, Giannis, Zion, (Jordon). Their clothing designs and variety and innovation is 10X the other brands combined.

Reebok could be back in the game...it has new owners (including Shaq) and expansion plans after years of mismanagement by Adidas.

" adidas is old school, and their new stuff is ugly."

bearister said:

---

" adidas is old school, and their new stuff is ugly."

---

Nike sweatpants with the 3 stripes down the leg, and warmups are still sweet

I just want to keep our current football uniforms. They look sharp.

Pretty disappointed buying the jersey from fanatics it's not like a dry fit or polyester material like 99% of football jerseys are now. Feels like I'm wearing a jersey from early 2000s. (Yes I know I could have read the description and such but it was the last one so I just bought it)

under armour has been an absolute joke. fan gear is crap, men's basketball (besides the throwbacks) looked like a high school women's team, football is whatever, and the shoes are trash. they are a minus in recruiting.

nike>>>> adidas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UA

flounder said:

---

under armour has been an absolute joke. fan gear is crap, men's basketball (besides the throwbacks) looked like a high school women's team, football is whatever, and the shoes are trash. they are a minus in recruiting.

nike>>>> adidas>>>>>>>>>>>>>>UA

---

I agree - the UA gear has been ugly and uninspired since the get go. Surely there's another route besides Nike.
As someone with an XL head, I have been wearing truly worn and discolored Cal hats for the past handful of years, and would love to have Cal fitted ball caps again ("just say no" to the adjustable back "fits all sizes" options).

gmunay said:

---

I would love to see Jordan brand come back for basketball but I just can't wrap my head around having the Jumpman logo on a football uniform (or any other sport besides basketball).

If that's what it takes us to get back to being a Nike school however, I'm all for it. I'm not a fan of the under Armour designs.

---

Jordan isn't happening. Only one school per conference can be Jordan…… and UCLA is the PAC-12 school with that distinction

Calboy23 said:

---

Who do you all want making jerseys and apparel? Under Armor has been a little sketchy with us and I am genuinely curious what people want. Personally I like Adidas. I think they pay schools very well, they are on the rise with better uniforms, and they are something different.

---

Whomever pays Cal the most.

Under Armour has been underwhelming. I would prefer Nike.

British Knights, of course

Football unies would look MUCH better if they went back to the font size and style they had previously and if the stripe down the side of each pant was bigger - similar to the Steeler's pants.

I really like Under Armor, but they really really did Cal dirty.

Not just with the pandemic money saving contract breaking, but the apparel they put out for fans sucked aside from a few items.

Nevada had better Under Armor apparel, and they were contracted with Adidas at the time. Nevada sells like 15 hats a year, I think.


Regardless, I see Cal as a top tier institution (athletically) with a large fanbase. Whoever we sign with, the contract should include support of gear for fans to buy.

BearDown2o15 said:

---

gmunay said:

---

I would love to see Jordan brand come back for basketball but I just can't wrap my head around having the Jumpman logo on a football uniform (or any other sport besides basketball).

If that's what it takes us to get back to being a Nike school however, I'm all for it. I'm not a fan of the under Armour designs.

---

Jordan isn't happening. Only one school per conference can be Jordan…… and UCLA is the PAC-12 school with that distinction

---

Did someone bother to tell SC, Furd, Oregon, etc., all of who are and sell Jordan Brand. In fact, the Jordan Brand makes special stuff for Oregon that UCLA, SC and Furd can't use.

LunchTime said:

---

I really like Under Armor, but they really really did Cal dirty.

Not just with the pandemic money saving contract breaking, but the apparel they put out for fans sucked aside from a few items.

Nevada had better Under Armor apparel, and they were contracted with Adidas at the time. Nevada sells like 15 hats a year, I think.


Regardless, I see Cal as a top tier institution (athletically) with a large fanbase. Whoever we sign with, the contract should include support of gear for fans to buy.

---

I'd assuming you mean UCLA was done dirty, whose contract was terminated. Cal's contract still is in place, and is being performed by both sides. Funny how these things take on a life all their own. Cal was under pressure from UC "to do something" due to UCLA, but that never really materialized.

Im not sure I see Cal as a top tier athletic institution under present circumstances. One of just a few P5 programs not to make post-season in football or either gender basketball, and its overall standings in the Director's Cup sinking. Poor fan attendance and poor TV ratings. And in a conference that has problems. Don't expect huge dollars from the next contract. Sometime reality hurts.

wifeisafurd said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

I really like Under Armor, but they really really did Cal dirty.

Not just with the pandemic money saving contract breaking, but the apparel they put out for fans sucked aside from a few items.

Nevada had better Under Armor apparel, and they were contracted with Adidas at the time. Nevada sells like 15 hats a year, I think.


Regardless, I see Cal as a top tier institution (athletically) with a large fanbase. Whoever we sign with, the contract should include support of gear for fans to buy.

---

I'd assuming you mean UCLA was done dirty, whose contract was terminated. Cal's contract still is in place, and is being performed by both sides. Funny how these things take on a life all their own. Cal was under pressure from UC "to do something" due to UCLA, but that never really materialized.

Im not sure a see Cal as a top tier athletic institution under present circumstances. One of just a few P5 programs not to make post-season in football or either gender basketball, and its overall standings in the Director's Cup sinking. Poor fan attendance and poor TV ratings. And in a conference that has problems. Don't expect huge dollars from the next contract. Sometime reality hurts.

---

Ooof, I feel like I just got pantsed.

I really like the UA stuff. Clean, got the gold right, and nothing flamboyant.

Nike is just plain awful. I'd be interested to see what Rebok is able to come up with. But if Nike tries to make Cal a test tube like oregon, I'd throw up.

wifeisafurd said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

I really like Under Armor, but they really really did Cal dirty.

Not just with the pandemic money saving contract breaking, but the apparel they put out for fans sucked aside from a few items.

Nevada had better Under Armor apparel, and they were contracted with Adidas at the time. Nevada sells like 15 hats a year, I think.


Regardless, I see Cal as a top tier institution (athletically) with a large fanbase. Whoever we sign with, the contract should include support of gear for fans to buy.

---

I'd assuming you mean UCLA was done dirty, whose contract was terminated. Cal's contract still is in place, and is being performed by both sides. Funny how these things take on a life all their own. Cal was under pressure from UC "to do something" due to UCLA, but that never really materialized.

Im not sure a see Cal as a top tier athletic institution under present circumstances. One of just a few P5 programs not to make post-season in football or either gender basketball, and its overall standings in the Director's Cup sinking. Poor fan attendance and poor TV ratings. And in a conference that has problems. Don't expect huge dollars from the next contract. Sometime reality hurts.

---

I feel like you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

In 2020 Under Armor claimed Cal was breaching it's contract because we had a few Nike items for sale in our store... we had to fight that. They claimed we broke our side of the contract through those 3 items or whatever, and we had to fight that. That was dirty as ****.

I am not talking about UCLA, I am talking about the contract with Cal and Under Armor and how it impacted Cal. Regardless of their ability to end the contact early, they tried very hard to.

But even when the contract was going smoothly, before the pandemic, I was dissatisfied with the selection and quality of designs Under Armor was providing for us to sell...

Again, Nevada, who is contracted with either Adidas or Nike depending on time frame, had Under Armor making better gear with more variety for fans to buy in Nevada's official store, and outside of their store.

Uniforms are a part of what a company can provide Cal. Exposure is part of what Cal can provide. Merchandise sales is part of what Under Armor came at Cal with... But then they provided a very slim selection of pretty substandard designs,compared to what they produce for midmajor schools, and never expanded. That is ****ty.

Under Armor agreed with us to cleare out some good designs from official stores and replaced them Under Armor... and they didn't make a good effort compared to how they treat non contracted second tier schools, in my opinion.

Finally, Cal is MUCH higher tier in terms of potential sales than, say, Nevada... Tiering is relative. Cal is in a very large market, is in a top tier of sports, and is in a top tier conference of those sports. Cal, also, has a massive network of alumni and fans willing to buy merchandise. There are literally thousands of smaller institutions. Of all potential partnerships, Cal is top tier when it comes to merchandising potential. Not top tier of the big 5 D1 conferences. Not top tier of the Pac12. But compared to the mid majors under armor supports? Absolutely.

If a company and Cal are going to agree to restrict what Cal can sell, providing good stock to sell shouldn't be a difficult ask. Again, Nevada, today, not sponsored, with no "sell our shirts, only" contract, has better selections of Under Armor gear, and their fan base is no where near the market Cal brings.

Is anything I am saying inaccurate? No, I don't feel pantsed. I feel like I am taking crazy pills when people gaslight pretending Cal didn't have merchandise disputes with Under Armor while Under Armor was under developing the merchandising angle of the contract.


Claiming Under Amor wasn't forcing Cal to constantly defend it's side of the contract in their attempt to break it is so asinine I can't possibly take this conversation further.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/18/details-emerge-in-under-armours-legal-dispute-with-cal-and-they-stretch-the-imagination/

You are kidding about Reebok right???

TomBear said:

---

I really like the UA stuff. Clean, got the gold right, and nothing flamboyant.

Nike is just plain awful. I'd be interested to see what Rebok is able to come up with. But if Nike tries to make Cal a test tube like oregon, I'd throw up.

---

chazzed said:

---

I just want to keep our current football uniforms. They look sharp.

---

I like to keep things simple:
Home: navy blue tops and navy blue pants.
Or navy blue and gold mix of tops and pants.
Away: White tops and gold pants. Or white tops and blue pants.
Get rid of the white pants.
Get rid of yellow tops and yellow pants combination
Numbers: should be in contrasting gold or navy blue.
Stripes (if any) should be in contrasting gold or navy blue.
Don't mess with the Cal Helmets

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearDown2o15 said:

---

gmunay said:

---

I would love to see Jordan brand come back for basketball but I just can't wrap my head around having the Jumpman logo on a football uniform (or any other sport besides basketball).

If that's what it takes us to get back to being a Nike school however, I'm all for it. I'm not a fan of the under Armour designs.

---

Jordan isn't happening. Only one school per conference can be Jordan…… and UCLA is the PAC-12 school with that distinction

---

Did someone bother to tell SC, Furd, Oregon, etc., all of who are and sell Jordan Brand. In fact, the Jordan Brand makes special stuff for Oregon that UCLA, SC and Furd can't use.

---

I mean Jordan is Nike and Nike is Jordan, but USC, Oregon, and Furd wear Nike logo jerseys on the football field and basketball court.

I've never heard that only one school can be Jordan brand per conference, but that could be a choice Nike makes for whatever reason. Jordan on football jerseys is pretty new. Oklahoma is joining the SEC, so at that point both Florida and OU will be Jordan if nothing changes.

I don't care what the team wears as long as it just wins, baby!

I saw a Nike ad showing 4 teams in the NCAA wearing Nike uniforms

one of them was Oregon

LunchTime said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

I really like Under Armor, but they really really did Cal dirty.

Not just with the pandemic money saving contract breaking, but the apparel they put out for fans sucked aside from a few items.

Nevada had better Under Armor apparel, and they were contracted with Adidas at the time. Nevada sells like 15 hats a year, I think.


Regardless, I see Cal as a top tier institution (athletically) with a large fanbase. Whoever we sign with, the contract should include support of gear for fans to buy.

---

I'd assuming you mean UCLA was done dirty, whose contract was terminated. Cal's contract still is in place, and is being performed by both sides. Funny how these things take on a life all their own. Cal was under pressure from UC "to do something" due to UCLA, but that never really materialized.

Im not sure a see Cal as a top tier athletic institution under present circumstances. One of just a few P5 programs not to make post-season in football or either gender basketball, and its overall standings in the Director's Cup sinking. Poor fan attendance and poor TV ratings. And in a conference that has problems. Don't expect huge dollars from the next contract. Sometime reality hurts.

---

I feel like you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

In 2020 Under Armor claimed Cal was breaching it's contract because we had a few Nike items for sale in our store... we had to fight that. They claimed we broke our side of the contract through those 3 items or whatever, and we had to fight that. That was dirty as ****.

I am not talking about UCLA, I am talking about the contract with Cal and Under Armor and how it impacted Cal. Regardless of their ability to end the contact early, they tried very hard to.

But even when the contract was going smoothly, before the pandemic, I was dissatisfied with the selection and quality of designs Under Armor was providing for us to sell...

Again, Nevada, who is contracted with either Adidas or Nike depending on time frame, had Under Armor making better gear with more variety for fans to buy in Nevada's official store, and outside of their store.

Uniforms are a part of what a company can provide Cal. Exposure is part of what Cal can provide. Merchandise sales is part of what Under Armor came at Cal with... But then they provided a very slim selection of pretty substandard designs,compared to what they produce for midmajor schools, and never expanded. That is ****ty.

Under Armor agreed with us to cleare out some good designs from official stores and replaced them Under Armor... and they didn't make a good effort compared to how they treat non contracted second tier schools, in my opinion.

Finally, Cal is MUCH higher tier in terms of potential sales than, say, Nevada... Tiering is relative. Cal is in a very large market, is in a top tier of sports, and is in a top tier conference of those sports. Cal, also, has a massive network of alumni and fans willing to buy merchandise. There are literally thousands of smaller institutions. Of all potential partnerships, Cal is top tier when it comes to merchandising potential. Not top tier of the big 5 D1 conferences. Not top tier of the Pac12. But compared to the mid majors under armor supports? Absolutely.

If a company and Cal are going to agree to restrict what Cal can sell, providing good stock to sell shouldn't be a difficult ask. Again, Nevada, today, not sponsored, with no "sell our shirts, only" contract, has better selections of Under Armor gear, and their fan base is no where near the market Cal brings.

Is anything I am saying inaccurate? No, I don't feel pantsed. I feel like I am taking crazy pills when people gaslight pretending Cal didn't have merchandise disputes with Under Armor while Under Armor was under developing the merchandising angle of the contract.


Claiming Under Amor wasn't forcing Cal to constantly defend it's side of the contract in their attempt to break it is so asinine I can't possibly take this conversation further.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/18/details-emerge-in-under-armours-legal-dispute-with-cal-and-they-stretch-the-imagination/

---

I'm struggling to find out what you mean when Cal was done dirty when Cal actually has said publicly that both UA and Cal have lived up the their parts of their agreement. Cal claims no damages, nor does UA.

The problem is you believe what the media had to say initially, which if you want to run with what Wilner and the Mercury News have to say, they had a June 29 statement that UA had said they had terminated their contract. This forced Cal to actually have to publicly say on July 1:

1) there was in fact no signed contract to terminate, and
2) Cal was operating under a term sheet which wad fully in place and that had not been terminated.

Nevertheless you posted Wiliner's desperate attempt to do a partial retraction of his earlier inaccurate article, where he acknowledges that in fact there is no formal contract to terminate, Wilner then says that UA claimed a force majeure provision had been triggered (this is what resulted in an actual termination notice in UCLA's case) and the sale of miscellaneous left over Nike goods. None of that is in the term sheet. Wilner still tries to stick in that termination language, even though it is really clear that no termination notice ever happened in Cal's case. Cal said so. That a Cal attorney actually had to introduce UA to its agreement may be amusing, but I'm still having problems with your major contention that Cal was "done dirty" even though no one has suggested that UA did not and has not fulfilled its obligations under the agreement.

In your exuberance you say: "I am talking about the contract with Cal and Under Armor and how it impacted Cal. Regardless of their ability to end the contact early [sic], they tried very hard to." What actually happened was a Cal lawyer wrote a letter to UA saying nice try guys, but read your agreement. You seem so put out that just is sooo horrible, unthinkable, and rarely happens in today's world that a lawyer says to other party sorry, but your request isn't in the agreement. There is naive, but your comments go so far beyond that. To that extent you end with the following hyperbole: "Claiming Under Amor wasn't forcing Cal to constantly defend it's side of the contract in their attempt to break it is so asinine I can't possibly take this conversation further." As far as I can tell there is just one letter by UA's lawyer and one letter thrown back by Cal's lawyer. Why yes, I'm having problems with anything you said being even remotely accurate.

What probably pisses everyone here is that you called Cal a top tier program and now then compared it to UNLV. Gee, thanks, you said Cal is actually better than UNLV. With Cal fans worried about going from an $86 million agreement to something significantly lower in value, you want Cal to get something better than UNLV money? Well tier this. When the Cal agreement stated in 2016, Cal was 5-7 in football, it's basketball team had finished at no. 23 in the county and in the big dance, and the women's team had finished number 7 in conference. Since then:

1 the football team has basically the same record, but far less attendance and TV ratings, in what is not the worst P5 football conference.
2. the men's basketball program has basically cratered;
3) the women'd BB team is worst in the conference; and
4) want to guess what happened to the Cal Director's Cup ranking?

You may think the guys at Nike are stupid and are going to listen to you tell them about tiers, but they actually look at this stuff, not to mention sales of goods. Here is something to consider: when folks don't go on campus and attend sporting events sales go down - a lot.. Some of this is C-19 related, but the reality of declines in Cal and Pac sports can't come as a total surprise. Ask Jon Wilner. I could care less what you think about UA's clothes, what I, and more importantly the AD, care about is the money he has to replace when the UA contract is over. It won't be anywhere near $86 million over 10 years unless JW's guys start winning a lot more games.

I have seen a lot of Jon Wilner articles. He has such winners as Sandy Barbour had renewed Jeff Tedford's contact (nope he got fired) onward to the latest of Jon's recent winners, about Furd's Haase getting fired, which of course meant he got an extension, and then the other couple hundreds of times that Jon got it wrong in between. He can get it right. He is probably the only guy left who reports on the Pac 12, so take him for better or worse. But he and bunch of other writers got it wrong on the Cal UA contract initially. There was confusion that Cal and UCLA were in the same situation. They were not. UCLA's contract was terminated and they sued. Cal is in a agreement with UA that everyone, but you, seems to agree is being honored.

PS for the non-lawyers, an unsigned term sheet can be an enforceable agreement.

ColoradoBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearDown2o15 said:

---

gmunay said:

---

I would love to see Jordan brand come back for basketball but I just can't wrap my head around having the Jumpman logo on a football uniform (or any other sport besides basketball).

If that's what it takes us to get back to being a Nike school however, I'm all for it. I'm not a fan of the under Armour designs.

---

Jordan isn't happening. Only one school per conference can be Jordan…… and UCLA is the PAC-12 school with that distinction

---

Did someone bother to tell SC, Furd, Oregon, etc., all of who are and sell Jordan Brand. In fact, the Jordan Brand makes special stuff for Oregon that UCLA, SC and Furd can't use.

---

I mean Jordan is Nike and Nike is Jordan, but USC, Oregon, and Furd wear Nike logo jerseys on the football field and basketball court.

I've never heard that only one school can be Jordan brand per conference, but that could be a choice Nike makes for whatever reason. Jordan on football jerseys is pretty new. Oklahoma is joining the SEC, so at that point both Florida and OU will be Jordan if nothing changes.

---

You can buy the Jordan brand in the Furd, SC and Oregon bookstore to your hearts' content. If you mean there is something Jordan brand special only on a UCLA uniform, then Colorado, I defer to your superior knowledge.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

chazzed said:

---

I just want to keep our current football uniforms. They look sharp.

---

I like to keep things simple:
Home: navy blue tops and navy blue pants.
Or navy blue and gold mix of tops and pants.
Away: White tops and gold pants. Or white tops and blue pants.
Get rid of the white pants.
Get rid of yellow tops and yellow pants combination
Numbers: should be in contrasting gold or navy blue.
Stripes (if any) should be in contrasting gold or navy blue.
Don't mess with the Cal Helmets

---

Any shoe company should be able to recreate our classic (90s?) uniforms. Let's just get one that will do that and pay us a lot of money.