The 2014 Illini Nike Uniforms and Rebrand

TheSecretWeapon · May 18, 2015

illini1 said:
I saw a couple new Nike apparel items with the Shield today if people are still looking. I'm sure there will be more as we get closer to football season.

View attachment 2428 View attachment 2429

so why is the font not the new Nike provided font? Wasn't that part of the deal? Nike provides a unified look but then new merchandise is released with this weird slanted two-tone? :huh:

HsvIllini · May 18, 2015

TheSecretWeapon said:
so why is the font not the new Nike provided font? Wasn't that part of the deal? Nike provides a unified look but then new merchandise is released with this weird slanted two-tone? :huh:

It could be the secondary font, which is pretty generic. You can see it here:

http://www.fightingillini.com/genrel/041614aab.html

wILL-INI · May 18, 2015

TheSecretWeapon said:
so why is the font not the new Nike provided font? Wasn't that part of the deal? Nike provides a unified look but then new merchandise is released with this weird slanted two-tone? :huh:

This is futura, which is the font Nike uses for everything. And the new font specifically said not to separate "fighting" from "Illini". So they probably just wanted futura.

Also, since it is part of a line of shorts, they dont wanna drop in everybodys specific font for their "mascot" so its easier to have one unified fonts. You see this with their shirts.

WesterveltVictoryCigar · Jul 8, 2015

@ILLequipment
Over 200 boxes came in today. The new gloves are looking nice!

KJKobs · Jul 8, 2015

Nice!

DrewD007 · Jul 8, 2015

Is there any word on the next apparel contract? I know the current deal with Nike expires July 1st, next year. Are we going to open up for bids or for sure stay with Nike since Chancellor Wise is on the Nike board?

illinicb · Jul 8, 2015

DrewD007 said:
Is there any word on the next apparel contract? I know the current deal with Nike expires July 1st, next year. Are we going to open up for bids or for sure stay with Nike since Chancellor Wise is on the Nike board?

Wise's involvement aside, from a branding perspective, Illinois is not a very attractive product in the two sports that count right now. Without knowing any of the financial particulars, I would like to see the Illini stay with Nike or go with Under Armour which is a much hotter brand with "the kids".

Given all that is on the plate of those affiliated with the DIA these days, they will likely sign any piece of paper that Nike puts in front of them.

BZuppke · Jul 8, 2015

Plus the rebrand. They just did it. I don't think you switch brands the very next year.

Shampoobanana · Jul 8, 2015

Glad to see they liked my idea.

Bomb Squad 217 · Jul 8, 2015

I thought I remembered someone making a mock up of something like that. Good call.

DrewD007 · Jul 8, 2015

BZuppke said:
Plus the rebrand. They just did it. I don't think you switch brands the very next year.

Arizona State got a Nike rebrand a year or two before us, but they just switched to Adidas.

illinicb · Jul 9, 2015

DrewD007 said:
Arizona State got a Nike rebrand a year or two before us, but they just switched to Adidas.

I'd rather see them switch to Roos than Adidas.

IlliniNation05 · Jul 9, 2015

Illinois isn't going to switch from Nike. They've had a working relationship for 19 years--one of Nike's longest such partnerships--and just underwent a rebranding.

Edit: For those of you bringing up Wise, I found this from a 2014 News Gazette article (article has other good details of the ongoing contract):

Negotiations haven't started on a new contract yet. Chancellor Phyllis Wise, who sits on the Nike board, has said she will not be involved in any negotiations for a new contract.

http://www.news-gazette.com/sports/...sistent-look-all-illinois-athletic-teams.html

Illinnoying Orange · Jul 9, 2015

DrewD007 said:
Arizona State got a Nike rebrand a year or two before us, but they just switched to Adidas.

This is surprising to me. I thought ASU's recent re-branding was one of the sharpest looking ones out there.

Poe's Law · Jul 9, 2015

Illinnoying Orange said:
This is surprising to me. I thought ASU's recent re-branding was one of the sharpest looking ones out there.

Agree with you, but Adidas offered a boat load more cash and Nike didn't commit to making ASU retail product after the rebrand (which was probably a function of demand).

Second and Chalmers · Jul 9, 2015

illinicb said:
Wise's involvement aside, from a branding perspective, Illinois is not a very attractive product in the two sports that count right now. Without knowing any of the financial particulars, I would like to see the Illini stay with Nike or go with Under Armour which is a much hotter brand with "the kids".

Given all that is on the plate of those affiliated with the DIA these days, they will likely sign any piece of paper that Nike puts in front of them.

Nike is the gold standard. Unless a competitor makes a financial offer we can't refuse, I would stick with the swoosh.

illinicb · Jul 9, 2015

Second and Chalmers said:
Nike is the gold standard. Unless a competitor makes a financial offer we can't refuse, I would stick with the swoosh.

Nike is certainly the best known brand, but they probably aren't the hottest brand any longer (you can't be forever). From a university perspective, they probably look at the financial impact first and foremost and whatever is second is probably a distant second. I doubt the university looks what shoe affiliation John Groce would prefer.

Second and Chalmers · Jul 9, 2015

illinicb said:
Nike is certainly the best known brand, but they probably aren't the hottest brand any longer (you can't be forever). From a university perspective, they probably look at the financial impact first and foremost and whatever is second is probably a distant second. I doubt the university looks what shoe affiliation John Groce would prefer.

As well they should, but the shoe wars nonsense ultimately weighs into the DIA's bottom line very significantly and they would be foolish to totally ignore that.

jrichisamazing · Jul 9, 2015

illinicb said:
Nike is certainly the best known brand, but they probably aren't the hottest brand any longer (you can't be forever). From a university perspective, they probably look at the financial impact first and foremost and whatever is second is probably a distant second. I doubt the university looks what shoe affiliation John Groce would prefer.

Nike is still the hottest brand and it's really not even close. Some other brands might be close in certain sports, but overall Nike is king.

illinicb · Jul 9, 2015

jrichisamazing said:
Nike is still the hottest brand and it's really not even close. Some other brands might be close in certain sports, but overall Nike is king.

Based on my very scientific studies of my family, Nike is the big leader in shoes, but distant 2nd in clothes and accessories to UA and this is based on a LOT of purchases. I think having Spieth, Curry and Bray as spokesperson will help UA in sales, but they will remain a long way off in the shoe market for awhile.

Second and Chalmers · Jul 9, 2015

illinicb said:
Based on my very scientific studies of my family, Nike is the big leader in shoes, but distant 2nd in clothes and accessories to UA and this is based on a LOT of purchases. I think having Spieth, Curry and Bray as spokesperson will help UA in sales, but they will remain a long way off in the shoe market for awhile.

UA has made massive headway in the US apparel market in recent years (and decimated Adidas in the process), but sports apparel generally is a somewhat different question than licensed apparel.

These things can change quickly and it wouldn't shock me to see the tables turned by the time our next contract expires, but Nike is king of the uniform game for now and the preeminent driver of design and style for the industry. They have an Apple-like brand.

illini1 · Jul 9, 2015

I follow Matt Powell (@NPDMattPowell) on Twitter. He's THE expert when it comes to the business side of shoe companies. People are constantly tweeting saying UA is gaining on Nike. He says that is a joke. He said it would take UA 10 years to get to Nike's level if Nike had no growth. He also says endorsing athletes like Spieth doesn't move the needle because the golf industry is dying.

cjcastan · Jul 9, 2015

illini1 said:
I follow Matt Powell (@NPDMattPowell) on Twitter. He's THE expert when it comes to the business side of shoe companies. People are constantly tweeting saying UA is gaining on Nike. He says that is a joke. He said it would take UA 10 years to get to Nike's level if Nike had no growth. He also says endorsing athletes like Spieth doesn't move the needle because the golf industry is dying.

Just the Jordan brand alone imo puts Nike far ahead of any other competitor. IIRC I think I read somewhere that in just bball shoes and apparel if you seperated Jordan and Nike that Jordan brand is a close second

Second and Chalmers · Jul 9, 2015

cjcastan said:
Just the Jordan brand alone imo puts Nike far ahead of any other competitor. IIRC I think I read somewhere that in just bball shoes and apparel if you seperated Jordan and Nike that Jordan brand is a close second

As the flagship school of the state the Bulls are located in and Jeff Jordan's school, I have always felt we should make the move to Brand Jordan in basketball as some others have done.

mossimo142 · Jul 10, 2015

I may have missed this, but has there been an update on the midfield logo switching to the rebranded I?

Was that supposed to happen for this season?