Is There a Adidas Curse?

Okay, let me first just say that I am not on a jihad against Adidas.  It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the UTL jerseys.  In fact, I can't stand any of the apparel they have rolled out for that game.  I think it's ugly and much of the t-shirts and such look cheaply made and the whole thing just looks like what it is, a giant cash grab.  I don't like it.  I do, however, own a Adidas Michigan Football t-shirt and a couple of sideline polos that I do like.  I also have a ton of other Adidas polos that came from a family member that is sponsored by them.  I like them and wear them all the time.  So I don't have anything against them personally at all.

Before 1994, there were no huge contracts between apparel behemoths and college athletic departments.  Head coaches at top programs might receive a bonus from Nike or whoever to tell their kids to wear their shoes.  I think before this, Michigan already wore Nike shoes for the most part, but most of the rest of their stuff was Russell.  That may be wrong.  Either way, in 1994, Nike paid Michigan $1 million to become their equipment and apparel supplier.  This is generally considered to be the beginning of what we have today where every school is linked with someone and has a contract.

Now on to this curse thing.  Many of you are probably aware of the "Madden Curse".  If not, basically it is/was considered a bad omen for a player to appear on the cover of the hugely popular EA Sports NFL console game because the following year that player would suffer a serious injury and miss a large part or all of that next season.  It happened like 7 years in a row or something.  In regards to Adidas, I was recently thinking about Michigan Football since our switch from Nike to them.  It occurred to me that Notre Dame also experienced a very similar demise after they partnered with the three stripers.  So I decided to look into this phenomenon to see if there is any correlation between a switch to Adidas and a decline in on field performance.  A curse if you will.

Adidas is under contract with 70 colleges and Universities as their primary equipment and apparel provider.  The full list can be found here.  I will not be using all 70 of these schools in my study as many are small schools in lower divisions.  My main focus is the BCS conference schools.  That trims the list down to 15.  I could not find what years Adidas became the provider for Indiana, NC State, or Northwestern so I threw them out leaving me with a dozen.  Those 12 are:  Arkansas (now back with Nike), Cincinnati, Kansas, Louisville, Michigan, Mississippi State, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Tennessee, Texas A&M, UCLA, and Wisconsin.

To make a comparison, I looked at the seasons leading up to the switch to Adidas and the seasons after the switch.  Obviously there are a million other factors that go into this (coaching changes, injuries, recruiting, etc.), but we're talking about curses here so whatever.  Specifically, I looked at the 10 preceding seasons in terms of number of wins and bowl games (go to one or not) and then the years after the switch, up to 10 seasons.  I say up to 10 since because some schools haven't been with Adidas for 10 seasons and other have been with them longer.

I'll spare you a chart for each individual school and instead provide you with the comprehensive list with each team's averages.



So, there you go.  Is there a Adidas curse?  No.  Not unless you are in the top two in all time winning percentage anyway.  Generally, each team has had more wins and has gone to more bowl games since switching over to Adidas.  I, however, don't care about the other 11 teams in this chart and would like to see Michigan's numbers improve dramatically on the right side.  I think Coach Hoke is on the right path to do so.

Michigan's current deal with Adidas (8 years, $60 million) expires after the 2015 season.  I would like to go back to Nike at that point.  Actually, I would prefer Under Armour, but that's another story.  I think Adidas will offer a big contract to try and keep Michigan, but there is a lot more to all of this than dollar signs.  I hope AD Dave Brandon keeps that in mind.

The biggest difference I have noticed in handling and talking to players about equipment is in the shoes.  Players don't feel like the Adidas spikes give as much support and they don't feel as comfortable to them.  I have read several reports of the Michigan players complaining about the uniforms and the shoes.  IIRC, there was a team meeting recently in which DB was addressing the players and the whole team started chanting 'Nike, Nike, Nike'.  There you have it.  Keeping the players happy in their equipment is a small concession.