Why would I be kidding? If Rebok has new ownership, and shows some changes and some seriousness, I'd would certainly entertain looking at them. Why not?

You might wear Reebok. No prob

But I have literally never seen a basketball or football player ever wearing them

It would be a disaster for recruiting and Cal wear sales

TomBear said:

---

Why would I be kidding? If Rebok has new ownership, and shows some changes and some seriousness, I'd would certainly entertain looking at them. Why not?

---

HoopDreams said:

---

You might wear Reebok. No prob

But I have literally never seen a basketball or football player ever wearing them

It would be a disaster for recruiting and Cal wear sales

TomBear said:

---

Why would I be kidding? If Rebok has new ownership, and shows some changes and some seriousness, I'd would certainly entertain looking at them. Why not?

---

---

Montrezl Harrell wears Reebok.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-sneaker-king-power-rankings-montrezl-harrell-shows-off-for-reebok-p-j-tucker-rocks-15-year-old-jordans/

dimitrig said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

You might wear Reebok. No prob

But I have literally never seen a basketball or football player ever wearing them

It would be a disaster for recruiting and Cal wear sales

TomBear said:

---

Why would I be kidding? If Rebok has new ownership, and shows some changes and some seriousness, I'd would certainly entertain looking at them. Why not?

---

---

Montrezl Harrell wears Reebok.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-sneaker-king-power-rankings-montrezl-harrell-shows-off-for-reebok-p-j-tucker-rocks-15-year-old-jordans/

---

Shaq wore them. Actually, if Reebok brought back Pumps, I think those would blow up.

HoopDreams said:

---

You might wear Reebok. No prob

But I have literally never seen a basketball or football player ever wearing them

It would be a disaster for recruiting and Cal wear sales

TomBear said:

---

Why would I be kidding? If Rebok has new ownership, and shows some changes and some seriousness, I'd would certainly entertain looking at them. Why not?

---

---

so it turns out that Knowlton is a step ahead. He's hired and retained Fox to decimate Cal basketball recruiting to open up more bidders for our apparel contract. Brilliant! That kind of long game must be why he got a lifetime contract.

dimitrig said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

You might wear Reebok. No prob

But I have literally never seen a basketball or football player ever wearing them

It would be a disaster for recruiting and Cal wear sales

TomBear said:

---

Why would I be kidding? If Rebok has new ownership, and shows some changes and some seriousness, I'd would certainly entertain looking at them. Why not?

---

---

Montrezl Harrell wears Reebok.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-sneaker-king-power-rankings-montrezl-harrell-shows-off-for-reebok-p-j-tucker-rocks-15-year-old-jordans/

---

I rest my case:

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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

StrawberryCanyon said:

---

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

---

They're owned by Authentic Brands now, which is controlled by Blackrock and is well known for cutting costs and squeezing the last remaining cash out of businesses.

So I wouldn't hold my breath.

dimitrig said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

You might wear Reebok. No prob

But I have literally never seen a basketball or football player ever wearing them

It would be a disaster for recruiting and Cal wear sales

TomBear said:

---

Why would I be kidding? If Rebok has new ownership, and shows some changes and some seriousness, I'd would certainly entertain looking at them. Why not?

---

---

Montrezl Harrell wears Reebok.

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-sneaker-king-power-rankings-montrezl-harrell-shows-off-for-reebok-p-j-tucker-rocks-15-year-old-jordans/

---

You get credit for identifying Harrell, but all of the Reebok shoes in those photos are terrible.

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

Cal enforcing the deal is news to me as you very often make clear, you're a lawyer and you have more information than us lowly Club season ticket holders. If you think the UA deal is good, then that's terrific and I hope you enjoy your gear. I have a different opinion (and this is the internet, so I'll be keeping it).

maxer said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

Cal enforcing the deal is news to me as you very often make clear, you're a lawyer and you have more information than us lowly Club season ticket holders. If you think the UA deal is good, then that's terrific and I hope you enjoy your gear. I have a different opinion (and this is the internet, so I'll be keeping it).

---

I think Cal receiving over $8 million from UA is a year is very good deal, compared to the deal it will get in the future. We apparently have different priorities. Enjoy your future gear.

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

Also, I'm curious what websites WIAF is referring to. I went to CalBears.com and as you can see there were only 21 UA items for sale.



Meanwhile, Wisconsin's official store had 171 UA items




And Northwestern's official store didn't show a total, but had 3+ pages of 48 each page for a total of 190 UA items.

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

If you look purely at the numbers...sure.

But Maxer brings up a good point if you look at the QUALITY of items. None of the items sold through the official Fanatics site are based on any new UA templates. Wisconsin and NW have newer / seasonal gear every year. Virtually every school that has a good relationship with their branding partner gets new fan gear each year.So while there could be a number of UA branded items listed on the Bookstore site (and not fanatics, mind you), they're all generic, bargain bin stuff. Cal no longer gets any new fan gear. It's kind of funny then that UA was complaining that sales were low to begin with...now they're probably even lower.

Calbears.com doesn't even sell our football uniforms or updated basketball uniforms anymore. You see how many fans are wanting to purchase the throwbacks, but we can't get any of the official replicas.

So yes, while the $8 mil could be good for Cal, there is a significant dropoff in the quality of merchandise available for fans to purchase....which does matter to a lot of people and shouldn't be discounted.

There basically has been no new fan merch or team merch from UA since the 2019 season.

There used to be a broad spectrum of team products, hats, shirts, pants, shorts, jackets, shoes, etc.

Now? Nada.

With no new quality merch, the school stands to lose engagement with fans and even some brand cache for the school itself.

AD should really look into this.

If you even want a new Cal hat, that's gonna have to be some off brand deal now.

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

---

First that is a generalization and overstatement. I picked two schools that I though were the most comparable. But for example. Coastal Carolina, which has a better football and basketball teams than Cal, has far fewer UA units. Does it rally make a difference to you that Cal has 20 less units than Wisky? Really?

My point is Cal is gets $8.5 million annually, where if they were to go to Nike/Adidas today that would be far smaller amount. So taking your word that Adidas and Nike are better clothes or will supply a broader range of clothes (not all posters here agree with all that), the trade off is Cal makes a lot more money than they will not get otherwise, but you have worse clothes choices BTW, if you go to the online Cal book store, you can buy Cal cloths from many other brands such as Champion, Spooner, etc. so how limited are your choices really? This seems to me to be much to do about very little.

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

---

First that is a generalization and overstatement. I picked two schools that I though were the most comparable. But for example. Coastal Carolina, which has a better football and basketball teams than Cal, has far fewer UA units. Does it rally make a difference to you that Cal has 20 less units than Wisky? Really?

My point is Cal is gets $8.5 million annually, where if they were to go to Nike/Adidas today that would be far smaller amount. So taking your word that Adidas and Nike are better clothes or will supply a broader range of clothes (not all posters here agree with all that), the trade off is Cal makes a lot more money than they will not get otherwise, but you have worse clothes choices BTW, if you go to the online Cal book store, you can buy Cal cloths from many other brands such as Champion, Spooner, etc. so how limited are your choices really? This seems to me to be much to do about very little.

---

So just to be clear, after all that threatened litigation, UA "terminating" the contract, and the unsigned contract, UnderArmour is now just performing under the terms of the contract?

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

---

First that is a generalization and overstatement. I picked two schools that I though were the most comparable. But for example. Coastal Carolina, which has a better football and basketball teams than Cal, has far fewer UA units. Does it rally make a difference to you that Cal has 20 less units than Wisky? Really?

My point is Cal is gets $8.5 million annually, where if they were to go to Nike/Adidas today that would be far smaller amount. So taking your word that Adidas and Nike are better clothes or will supply a broader range of clothes (not all posters here agree with all that), the trade off is Cal makes a lot more money than they will not get otherwise, but you have worse clothes choices BTW, if you go to the online Cal book store, you can buy Cal cloths from many other brands such as Champion, Spooner, etc. so how limited are your choices really? This seems to me to be much to do about very little.

---

Oh I get that the money cal gets is the reason the UA deal is good for Cal, even with the sub-standard UA fan gear.

But I'm pretty sure the smallest cost for UA is to have a few unique UA Cal branded fan gear. A high school design student could do better than the current UA stuff, and mfg/inventory costs can't be high, plus these ARE FOR SALE.

It's pretty obvious UA isn't even trying

maxer said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

---

First that is a generalization and overstatement. I picked two schools that I though were the most comparable. But for example. Coastal Carolina, which has a better football and basketball teams than Cal, has far fewer UA units. Does it rally make a difference to you that Cal has 20 less units than Wisky? Really?

My point is Cal is gets $8.5 million annually, where if they were to go to Nike/Adidas today that would be far smaller amount. So taking your word that Adidas and Nike are better clothes or will supply a broader range of clothes (not all posters here agree with all that), the trade off is Cal makes a lot more money than they will not get otherwise, but you have worse clothes choices BTW, if you go to the online Cal book store, you can buy Cal cloths from many other brands such as Champion, Spooner, etc. so how limited are your choices really? This seems to me to be much to do about very little.

---

So just to be clear, after all that threatened litigation, UA "terminating" the contract, and the unsigned contract, UnderArmour is now just performing under the terms of the contract?

---

Just to be clear, in Cal's case, UA never terminated the contact, nor has anyone at Cal to my knowledge said UAthreatened litigation. And yes, UA is operating under an unsigned agreement. There seems to be a misunderstanding on facts between the situation with UCLA and that with Cal, and the media misstated the the facts so baldly that Cal in fact had to make a public announcement, As I'm sure all the lawyers here will tell you, an unsigned agreement is enforceable as a signed agreement absent some statue of fraud concerns not present here. Where are you going to with all this?

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

---

First that is a generalization and overstatement. I picked two schools that I though were the most comparable. But for example. Coastal Carolina, which has a better football and basketball teams than Cal, has far fewer UA units. Does it rally make a difference to you that Cal has 20 less units than Wisky? Really?

My point is Cal is gets $8.5 million annually, where if they were to go to Nike/Adidas today that would be far smaller amount. So taking your word that Adidas and Nike are better clothes or will supply a broader range of clothes (not all posters here agree with all that), the trade off is Cal makes a lot more money than they will not get otherwise, but you have worse clothes choices BTW, if you go to the online Cal book store, you can buy Cal cloths from many other brands such as Champion, Spooner, etc. so how limited are your choices really? This seems to me to be much to do about very little.

---

Oh I get that the money cal gets is the reason the UA deal is good for Cal, even with the sub-standard UA fan gear.

But I'm pretty sure the smallest cost for UA is to have a few unique UA Cal branded fan gear. A high school design student could do better than the current UA stuff, and mfg/inventory costs can't be high, plus these ARE FOR SALE.

It's pretty obvious UA isn't even trying

---

If you truly believe the 64 units of clothes being sold are so inferior, why not buy the other brands being offered by the Cal books store?

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

---

First that is a generalization and overstatement. I picked two schools that I though were the most comparable. But for example. Coastal Carolina, which has a better football and basketball teams than Cal, has far fewer UA units. Does it rally make a difference to you that Cal has 20 less units than Wisky? Really?

My point is Cal is gets $8.5 million annually, where if they were to go to Nike/Adidas today that would be far smaller amount. So taking your word that Adidas and Nike are better clothes or will supply a broader range of clothes (not all posters here agree with all that), the trade off is Cal makes a lot more money than they will not get otherwise, but you have worse clothes choices BTW, if you go to the online Cal book store, you can buy Cal cloths from many other brands such as Champion, Spooner, etc. so how limited are your choices really? This seems to me to be much to do about very little.

---

Oh I get that the money cal gets is the reason the UA deal is good for Cal, even with the sub-standard UA fan gear.

But I'm pretty sure the smallest cost for UA is to have a few unique UA Cal branded fan gear. A high school design student could do better than the current UA stuff, and mfg/inventory costs can't be high, plus these ARE FOR SALE.

It's pretty obvious UA isn't even trying

---

If you truly believe the 64 units of clothes being sold are so inferior, why not buy the other brands being offered by the Cal books store?

---

Quite honestly, it's all pretty bad UA or not. There is an expectation that our major brand partner provides schools with exciting Fan gear, as that is what all other schools have. The champion and antigua and fanatics items are all very generic and very dated in design

While I get it may not matter to some, I think it's important to realize that it does to others.

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

---

First that is a generalization and overstatement. I picked two schools that I though were the most comparable. But for example. Coastal Carolina, which has a better football and basketball teams than Cal, has far fewer UA units. Does it rally make a difference to you that Cal has 20 less units than Wisky? Really?

My point is Cal is gets $8.5 million annually, where if they were to go to Nike/Adidas today that would be far smaller amount. So taking your word that Adidas and Nike are better clothes or will supply a broader range of clothes (not all posters here agree with all that), the trade off is Cal makes a lot more money than they will not get otherwise, but you have worse clothes choices BTW, if you go to the online Cal book store, you can buy Cal cloths from many other brands such as Champion, Spooner, etc. so how limited are your choices really? This seems to me to be much to do about very little.

---

So just to be clear, after all that threatened litigation, UA "terminating" the contract, and the unsigned contract, UnderArmour is now just performing under the terms of the contract?

---

Just to be clear, in Cal's case, UA never terminated the contact, nor has anyone at Cal to my knowledge said UAthreatened litigation. And yes, UA is operating under an unsigned agreement. There seems to be a misunderstanding on facts between the situation with UCLA and that with Cal, and the media misstated the the facts so baldly that Cal in fact had to make a public announcement, As I'm sure all the lawyers here will tell you, an unsigned agreement is enforceable as a signed agreement absent some statue of fraud concerns not present here. Where are you going to with all this?

---

I'm honestly just asking. The last I heard was, UnderArmour tried to terminate, the contract wasn't signed, UCLA was suing, and on this board if i recall the consensus was that however it went for UCLA was how it was likely to go for us.

Seemingly that was not the case, as they are now Nike again.

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

Just to be clear, I did not say UA was basically not making fan gear at all for Cal and was not getting into your disagreement with the others. I was asking if the difference in the number of items that UA makes for Wisky and NW seems significant to you. To me, 31% and 63% absolutely do seem significant. (Candidly I was pretty surprised by those numbers.) Yes, those schools having 20 items and 40 items more than Cal seems significant. I am not sure how those differences do not seem significant to you, but it sounds like they do not.

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

Just to be clear, I did not say UA was basically not making fan gear at all for Cal and was not getting into your disagreement with the others. I was asking if the difference in the number of items that UA makes for Wisky and NW seems significant to you. To me, 31% and 63% absolutely do seem significant. (Candidly I was pretty surprised by those numbers.) Yes, those schools having 20 items and 40 items more than Cal seems significant. I am not sure how those differences do not seem significant to you, but it sounds like they do not.

---

yes, but I was responding to a poster that did say that, so that was why I responded the way I did.

But how do you then respond to Coastal Carolina having less items? Bottom line is I guess I simply don't see 20 o 40 clothing items being significant in view of the money Cal receives. You can buy other brands from the Cal student store if you need more Cal clothes.

Edit: or go to the Fanatics website and buy even more gear there.

GMP said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

Also, I'm curious what websites WIAF is referring to. I went to CalBears.com and as you can see there were only 21 UA items for sale.



Meanwhile, Wisconsin's official store had 171 UA items




And Northwestern's official store didn't show a total, but had 3+ pages of 48 each page for a total of 190 UA items.

---

You do realize you went on something called Fanatics, rather than the Cal or Northwestern student stores internet sites? Just because something says it if official doesn't mean it is. If you go to Wikipedia you will see that Fanatics is an independent brand which has its own merchandise on its own site, AND which also has deals with UA, Nike, Adidas and the like to carry some of their stuff on its websites. They have licensing deals with schools to do e commerce sales, but realize you are buying from Fanatics and not the school,

If you want to buy Cal stuff from Cal, you need to go to the student store website. Same with the other schools. Those were the websites I used.

wifeisafurd said:

---

GMP said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

Also, I'm curious what websites WIAF is referring to. I went to CalBears.com and as you can see there were only 21 UA items for sale.



Meanwhile, Wisconsin's official store had 171 UA items




And Northwestern's official store didn't show a total, but had 3+ pages of 48 each page for a total of 190 UA items.

---

You do realize you went on something called Fanatics, rather than the Cal or Northwestern student stores internet sites? Just because something says it if official doesn't mean it is. If you go to Wikipedia you will see that Fanatics is an independent brand which has its own merchandise on its own site, AND which also has deals with UA, Nike, Adidas and the like to carry some of their stuff on its websites.

If you want to buy Cal stuff from Cal, you need to go to the student store website. Same with the other schools.

---

No, I don't realize that. And I think you're wrong.

I went to https://calbears.com/ - that is the official Cal Athletics website, not "something called Fanatics," as you believe.



From the top menu, I clicked SHOP. From that drop down menu, I selected "Official Online Store - Shop.CalBears.com."



I then did a search and filtered by brand - UnderArmour only. Just like last week, 21 items.



What you think is a different website (Fanatics) is simply who Cal has farmed the task of running its online store out to - Fanatics. But this is the official Cal Athletics store. 21 UnderArmour items. The same goes for Wisconsin and Northwestern - I went to their Athletic Department websites and navigated from there to their official store. If you want to argue this is unofficial, take it up with the Athletic Department.

However, you did answer my question, - we were using different Cal affiliated stores. I now understand you are using https://calstudentstore.berkeley.edu.

I must admit I had no idea this website existed before you just clarified it was the student store website, so I did a google search to find it. Once there, I did a search on there for Under Armour. There were 98 results! Even more than the 64 you said you found. (Before anyone asks, I also searched flor "UnderArmour" and got zero results).



However, there are not 98 items on there.

First, a number of the items may be mislabeled. For example the top two results are those sweatshirts you see above. The first is titled "MENS UNDER ARMOR BIG COTTON FULL ZIP ARCHED BERK"




But it does not take long to see that this item is not an UnderArmour item. The logo on the tag was new to me, so I zoomed in.



"Gear for Sports." I googled it. Gear for Sports is a Hanes brand. Its website reads, "Gear for Sports sells its products under some of the most powerful brands in sportswear, including Under Armour, Champion and Gear for Sports."


This sweatshirt, though, is not UnderArmour but instead the last in that list - "Gear for Sports." So let's subtract that from the 98 results. Ok, the next two items are the same brand. The next ten items are clearly UA. Then there is a pair of pants that is clearly not UA. It is called "MD25-Youth Armour Fleece Pant Golden Bears" and seems to have fallen in these results because of the word Armour in its name. There is no UnderArmour logo to be seen.



Ok so we're at ten. The next nine items are UA. We're at 19. The next item is a pair of leggings that has no visible UA logo, but I can't prove it's not UA, so I'll give it to you. 20. The final six items on the page are UA. We're at 26.

But here's where things get interesting.

As you can see here, it says we are on Page 1 of 4 of the search results. That sounds about right. There were 30 items on this page (the 25+1 UA items and the 4 non UA items). And if there are 98 results, we'd end up with 4 pages.



But when I click next page, things fall apart.



That is an error message, showing we are now on Page 2 of 0, with 0 results for the search for Under Armour. Now, I don't know if there are really only 26 UA items and the website is just not working, but I also tried this from my phone and got the same result. So I can tell you that, right now, you can only find 20 UA items on the Cal Student Store website and 31 UA items on the Cal Athletics store website.

wifeisafurd said:

---

GMP said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

Also, I'm curious what websites WIAF is referring to. I went to CalBears.com and as you can see there were only 21 UA items for sale.



Meanwhile, Wisconsin's official store had 171 UA items




And Northwestern's official store didn't show a total, but had 3+ pages of 48 each page for a total of 190 UA items.

---

You do realize you went on something called Fanatics, rather than the Cal or Northwestern student stores internet sites? Just because something says it if official doesn't mean it is. If you go to Wikipedia you will see that Fanatics is an independent brand which has its own merchandise on its own site, AND which also has deals with UA, Nike, Adidas and the like to carry some of their stuff on its websites. They have licensing deals with schools to do e commerce sales, but realize you are buying from Fanatics and not the school,

If you want to buy Cal stuff from Cal, you need to go to the student store website. Same with the other schools. Those were the websites I used.

---

WIAF, Fanatics is what the official CalBears.com store links to. I don't see how it's correct to call one more official than another, but you can equally expect a fan to go through the official Cal Athletics site that sells Cal fan gear AND the Cal Bookstore site.

Most people tend to go through Calbears.com to get athletic apparel. I don't think it's necessarily correct to say one is the default store over the other. It's the same way I go to get Giants gear or any pro team's gear. You go to their primary Athletic site and the store that links to that page. It's reasonable to expect any fan to go through the official Athletics site for fan gear.

CalBearinLA said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

That wasn't the issue. That Wisky has 20 more clothing units than Cal really doesn't rise to the level of "basically not producing fan gear at all." Does that sound like that to you? Does Whisky feel they are "basically not producing fan gear at all" because Northwestern got 20 more clothing units? I doubt it. I suppose if Cal was selling more units of any manufacturer, they might care about the percentages. Hopefully with some more wins it might matter in the future.

Seems to me Killa22 and CBLA may have the better argument. OTOH, UA has to know that UC will never allow Cal to contract with UA again after what they did to UCLA, so why make new products that will become excess inventory? Does the agreement require UA to make a certain number of new products?

---

the point is UA has generic fan gear for Cal, which is worse than comparable UA brand schools, or Nike/Adidas schools, and that sucks

---

First that is a generalization and overstatement. I picked two schools that I though were the most comparable. But for example. Coastal Carolina, which has a better football and basketball teams than Cal, has far fewer UA units. Does it rally make a difference to you that Cal has 20 less units than Wisky? Really?

My point is Cal is gets $8.5 million annually, where if they were to go to Nike/Adidas today that would be far smaller amount. So taking your word that Adidas and Nike are better clothes or will supply a broader range of clothes (not all posters here agree with all that), the trade off is Cal makes a lot more money than they will not get otherwise, but you have worse clothes choices BTW, if you go to the online Cal book store, you can buy Cal cloths from many other brands such as Champion, Spooner, etc. so how limited are your choices really? This seems to me to be much to do about very little.

---

Oh I get that the money cal gets is the reason the UA deal is good for Cal, even with the sub-standard UA fan gear.

But I'm pretty sure the smallest cost for UA is to have a few unique UA Cal branded fan gear. A high school design student could do better than the current UA stuff, and mfg/inventory costs can't be high, plus these ARE FOR SALE.

It's pretty obvious UA isn't even trying

---

If you truly believe the 64 units of clothes being sold are so inferior, why not buy the other brands being offered by the Cal books store?

---

Quite honestly, it's all pretty bad UA or not. There is an expectation that our major brand partner provides schools with exciting Fan gear, as that is what all other schools have. The champion and antigua and fanatics items are all very generic and very dated in design

While I get it may not matter to some, I think it's important to realize that it does to others.

---

I don't mean to say it doesn't matter, but I think the Cal AD and Learfield are going to be looking at the dollars Cal gets paid primarily when selecting a new sponsor.

Lol

Simply put, the current UA product offerings are minimal, at best.

Compared to other major sponsored programs, the products offered are not even close to comparable in both variety and quality.

Just take a sample of UA hats for sale now, compared to back during 2017/2018/2019. You once were able to source fitted, flat billed, snap back, adjustable, etc. in all different colors (blue, white, gold), Albeit gold was harder to come by, in 2019, I believe only the team was issued gold hats (QBs wore them as signallers).

Now - try find a new UA Cal hat. Good luck.

We used to have several cal exclusive color ways of shoes offered each year, even the new hovr tech shoes. In blue and gold, with the cal logo on them. Athletics dept personnel / players were issued these and they were for sale directly on the UA website and at the student store.

Those no longer exist.

We are missing 2 full years worth of cycle of fan gear.

The team also has been issued more generic type stuff white /blue shoes, etc.

Compare the cleats our players use now vs the 2019 season…

It's a completely different level of product / customization.

This UA deal is pretty crap.

GMP said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

GMP said:

---

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

maxer 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 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.

---

I believe Cal and UA negotiated a bad settlement. I would consider us still "done dirty". Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

---

A negotiated settlement indicates two things that did not happen. There were no negotiations, and there was no settlement, unless you want to invent some facts. UA's attorney asked for something based on the premise that their contract with Cal was the same as that of UCLA. Cal said here is your agreement, and the answer is no. UA then agreed to abide by the terms of the existing agreement. You sound a lot like a guy looking for things to be offended by if you think that is being done dirty.

Then you added: Not to mention they are basically not producing fan gear at all.

So I did a quick test. I went on the Cal internet bookstore site and found 64 UA clothing items for sale. That is not at all. Then I went to the list of UA teams and went to the two FBS schools that I thought would be closest to Cal: Northwestern and Wisconsin.

Northwestern's internet book store has 104 internet UA items.
Wisconsin internet book store has has 84 internet UA items.

You also sound like a guy who may be overstating a little bit.

---

I am not looking to get in the middle of your disagreement, but I am just curious about the numbers you listed. Those differences in the number of items (about 63% and 31%) seem pretty significant to me. Do those differences not seem significant to you?

---

Also, I'm curious what websites WIAF is referring to. I went to CalBears.com and as you can see there were only 21 UA items for sale.



Meanwhile, Wisconsin's official store had 171 UA items




And Northwestern's official store didn't show a total, but had 3+ pages of 48 each page for a total of 190 UA items.

---

You do realize you went on something called Fanatics, rather than the Cal or Northwestern student stores internet sites? Just because something says it if official doesn't mean it is. If you go to Wikipedia you will see that Fanatics is an independent brand which has its own merchandise on its own site, AND which also has deals with UA, Nike, Adidas and the like to carry some of their stuff on its websites.

If you want to buy Cal stuff from Cal, you need to go to the student store website. Same with the other schools.

---

No, I don't realize that. And I think you're wrong.

I went to https://calbears.com/ - that is the official Cal Athletics website, not "something called Fanatics," as you believe.



From the top menu, I clicked SHOP. From that drop down menu, I selected "Official Online Store - Shop.CalBears.com."



I then did a search and filtered by brand - UnderArmour only. Just like last week, 21 items.



What you think is a different website (Fanatics) is simply who Cal has farmed the task of running its online store out to - Fanatics. But this is the official Cal Athletics store. 21 UnderArmour items. The same goes for Wisconsin and Northwestern - I went to their Athletic Department websites and navigated from there to their official store. If you want to argue this is unofficial, take it up with the Athletic Department.

However, you did answer my question, - we were using different Cal affiliated stores. I now understand you are using https://calstudentstore.berkeley.edu.

I must admit I had no idea this website existed before you just clarified it was the student store website, so I did a google search to find it. Once there, I did a search on there for Under Armour. There were 98 results! Even more than the 64 you said you found. (Before anyone asks, I also searched flor "UnderArmour" and got zero results).



However, there are not 98 items on there.

First, a number of the items may be mislabeled. For example the top two results are those sweatshirts you see above. The first is titled "MENS UNDER ARMOR BIG COTTON FULL ZIP ARCHED BERK"




But it does not take long to see that this item is not an UnderArmour item. The logo on the tag was new to me, so I zoomed in.



"Gear for Sports." I googled it. Gear for Sports is a Hanes brand. Its website reads, "Gear for Sports sells its products under some of the most powerful brands in sportswear, including Under Armour, Champion and Gear for Sports."


This sweatshirt, though, is not UnderArmour but instead the last in that list - "Gear for Sports." So let's subtract that from the 98 results. Ok, the next two items are the same brand. The next ten items are clearly UA. Then there is a pair of pants that is clearly not UA. It is called "MD25-Youth Armour Fleece Pant Golden Bears" and seems to have fallen in these results because of the word Armour in its name. There is no UnderArmour logo to be seen.



Ok so we're at ten. The next nine items are UA. We're at 19. The next item is a pair of leggings that has no visible UA logo, but I can't prove it's not UA, so I'll give it to you. 20. The final six items on the page are UA. We're at 26.

But here's where things get interesting.

As you can see here, it says we are on Page 1 of 4 of the search results. That sounds about right. There were 30 items on this page (the 25+1 UA items and the 4 non UA items). And if there are 98 results, we'd end up with 4 pages.



But when I click next page, things fall apart.



That is an error message, showing we are now on Page 2 of 0, with 0 results for the search for Under Armour. Now, I don't know if there are really only 26 UA items and the website is just not working, but I also tried this from my phone and got the same result. So I can tell you that, right now, you can only find 20 UA items on the Cal Student Store website and 31 UA items on the Cal Athletics store website.

---

Where to begin? It is not like a hid that I was going directly to the schools though their book store sites. I must have said that 10 times. I must have said if you want more items go to the Cal Book Store a lot.

Why don't you just google "Cal student store" and "under armor".

The first thing I noticed is that at the top of each page the book store website says:

"Official Website of UC Berkeley."

You also get this:

"Under Armour
83 Results"

And then pictures of 83 Under Armor items on three pages. The first page has 9 rows of three, next page 10 rows of 3, the third page 7 rows of 3 and one row of two. I'm going to let you do the math.

Why did I say first say 64 times, and not 83?

I had previously gone to the store and then put in Under Armor in the search box and got only 64 items. Why the difference? I don't know - ask Cal.

You said you could not get any more pages - I didn't have that problem.

Mislabeling: And then I looked at the items. So there are these MD-25 items that clearly say UA on the product description on them and also MD-25-F19 kids things that clearly have a UA label, so I'm really confused by your comment that these seem to be someone else's product. In fact, if you look at the tags in the pictures of the clothes, all the items have the UA logo. Now I didn't get 98 items on my search. Why ? I don't know ask Cal.

As for your comment about me being wrong on Fanatics, you simply don't understand that the schools have given an e commerce license to the Fanatics. The schools don't control the website. Fanatics has separate website that is puts on its own product and others that it buys from others companies. Prove it to yourself:

1) Buy something and see who the money goes to.
2) Go to the company's website and read it about what is does.
3) You can google "Fanatics" and learn about their website

If you don't like the number of UA items you need to complain to Fanatics.


What is amusing about all this is all the crybaby posters about Cal having less items now have to deal with the fact that Cal actually may sell more items than other schools. Cal just has a difficult website to navigate. The problem I see is that many of you are using the Fanatics site that doesn't support much in the way of UA items. That is a decision Fanatics makes, not UA. Realize Fanatics' main objective is to sell their own brand.

I will say this for what seems like the zenith time, go to the Cal Book Store site, the "Official Site of UC Berkeley", and you can get many more choices, including much more in the way of UA selection.

killa22 said:

---

Simply put, the current UA product offerings are minimal, at best.

Compared to other major sponsored programs, the products offered are not even close to comparable in both variety and quality.

Just take a sample of UA hats for sale now, compared to back during 2017/2018/2019. You once were able to source fitted, flat billed, snap back, adjustable, etc. in all different colors (blue, white, gold), Albeit gold was harder to come by, in 2019, I believe only the team was issued gold hats (QBs wore them as signallers).

Now - try find a new UA Cal hat. Good luck.

We used to have several cal exclusive color ways of shoes offered each year, even the new hovr tech shoes. In blue and gold, with the cal logo on them. Athletics dept personnel / players were issued these and they were for sale directly on the UA website and at the student store.

Those no longer exist.

We are missing 2 full years worth of cycle of fan gear.

The team also has been issued more generic type stuff white /blue shoes, etc.

Compare the cleats our players use now vs the 2019 season…

It's a completely different level of product / customization.

This UA deal is pretty crap.

---

Where do you go to buy your stuff?