quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,199
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2429
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: UNC officials now 'barking' about ACC revenue gap
(02-05-2024 10:13 AM)bullet Wrote: (02-05-2024 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (02-04-2024 09:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote: (02-04-2024 04:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (02-04-2024 03:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: Texas finished unranked 6 of the 9 years of Sic em 365's study (2013-2021), and finished #19 and #25 in 2 of the remaining 3 years.
It wasn't Sic em 365's study that was flawed. All that means is that Texas in its worst performing decade plummeted to #16 due to having their worst decade when that study was conducted. So we can take Sic 'em 365's study and conclude that "Texas' floor in an absolute doomsday scenario is #16, but their brand value when performing to their standards is much higher".
Like I said, I have no quarrel with Sice-em's numbers, I assume they are correct.
IMO, it just means that the TV numbers presented by Sice-em don't necessarily reflect brand value, because to me Texas is easily a top 3 brand, probably the #1 brand in the country, over the entire time of the Sic-em study, whether their TV numbers were at the top or not.
That IMO is why the SEC wanted Texas in 2021, and had no interest in other schools that may have been ahead of them in the Sic-em rankings.
You have to look closely at the conference numbers to see why the Big 12 schools look so bad. They had 52 rated games rather than the 21 of the ACC. If you take only the top 21 for OUT and Ok st, OU is at ~ 5.3m avg and Texas and Ok St are ~ 4.3m avg. The SEC numbers are inflated b/c we only have 18 games (thanks Vandy), while the B1G numbers are low b/c they have 27. Fortunately, it's easy to directly compare higher-drawing schools directly by looking at the graph, it shows the avg as it changes per game. ie, Texas' numbers don't fall off that much from 21 to 52, their avg falls from about 4.3m to 3m, Ok St's numbers drop off a bit more by game 52, down to ~ 2.7m. And, since I have to compare my Aggies constantly and in all things to Texas, we are both at ~ 3.5m avg for our top 40 games from that time period.
One of the reasons I like that data so much is that it helps to demonstrate why a program like Miami that has fallen on (relatively) hard times can still produce some serious ratings, and it also shows that a supposedly less-desirable program like Ok St is perhaps not quite as undesirable to media execs as many of us supposed, and far more desirable than the rest of the Big 12(16).
To me, once again relying on my own intuition and not data ... Miami in my view still has big brand potential because CFB fans of a certain age, basically 40 or older, remember when the Canes dominated football in the 1980s and in to the early 1990s. Not only did they win titles, they did it in a flashy, era-defining way that transcended college football. That has echoed down the years and still resonates with many of us, periodically revived by things like the brief time at the top in the early 2000s, the ESPN documentary on "The U" that was very popular, etc.
As for OK State, they have been a great performer, frequently ranked, in both football and hoops. That I guess is why their ratings are good - ranked teams are always of viewer interest. But that said, I've never seen any inkling from the SEC, much less the B1G, or when it was a power, the PAC, in Oklahoma State. If anything, they have always been described as the "little brother" that Oklahoma politics would want to tagalong with OU, and of course that didn't happen in 2021. So IMO, despite these numbers, I'll believe OK State has value to a better conference when I see it, so to speak.
IMO, among the nB12, schools like the PAC flagships recently added are all much more likely to eventually end up in the B1G or SEC than OK State. Ditto for Kansas. Maybe we'll see.
It takes a long time to lose a brand. Miami hasn't lost it. Nebraska hasn't lost it. Both outperform their records in TV ratings and generate lots of interest when they win. On the other hand, Minnesota, who was a power from the 30s to 60s, has lost its brand. Schools that generate views from winning but haven't built up a brand, like Boise St., can disappear pretty quickly.
I agree that brands tend to persist and it takes a long time to lose one. Also IMO it takes a long time to build one. Regarding the specific schools, IMO both Nebraska and Miami have seen their brands diminish somewhat. They still have them but they aren't what they were 20 years ago. The lack of titles has taken a toll, at least somewhat, IMO. On the other hand, Notre Dame has lost barely any brand luster at all, if at all, despite not having won a title for many years longer than Miami or Nebraska have. The Irish are just different, I guess.
|
|