(05-31-2012 08:42 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 06:38 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  You won't find many sports fans who vote with their heads. Thought rarely comes into the mix at sporting events...

Hey I am about as unbiased as it gets. I got no horse in this race. I am happy with a Big Ten at 12.

Me thinks thou doest protest too much...

(05-31-2012 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There was no confusion. U.N.C. is a national brand as is F.S.U.

UNC is a national brand - in basketball. But their football pales in comparison to FSU.

(05-31-2012 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 10:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 10:26 AM)esayem Wrote:  It is the UNC brand, a t-shirt or hat doesn't say "basketball" specifically.

...and how is basketball competing with football? Oh my word!

National brand is always inclusive of all sports. The issue is name recognition and product identification. If a school that only played checkers had a national brand in the top 10 that schools addition to any conference would increase the conference brand idetification and therefore that conference's profits.

That doesn't make much sense because the sports do not rub off much on each other. E.g., Boise State draws a decent amount of eyeballs and media attention for its football but its basketball is nearly invisible. Boise's football prominence has very little "rub off" for its basketball. USC football is massive, their basketball not much. Kentucky basketball is massive, but that doesn't mean anyone pays much attention to their football.

Thus, if a media company is thinking about offering billions to a conference, and the bulk of that money is for its football rights, then what will matter to that media company is the brand profile of the school's football, not their "overall" media profile that includes basketball, baseball, etc.

Conferences are a tapestry of teams and their contracts for Tier 1 &2 and Tier 3 are based on a combination of Football and Basketball. Tier 3 usually includes baseball and then minor sports as well. Understand that my perspective is from that of the SEC. We don't need strong football brands except to up our Tier 1 & 2 content, which is already the best nationally. We do need attention drawn to our basketball which has won more national titles in the last 20 years than either the Big 10, or the ACC, but receives no love in the national news. Duke and U.N.C. would change that overnight.

Don't get me wrong: I agree that from the SEC's perspective, UNC would be a much better acquisition than FSU. The SEC likes to add flagship institutions, and UNC is the flagship of a major southern state. And, as you note, UNC would boost SEC basketball a lot as well, and the SEC does not need football help.

Really, the only schools the SEC should be interested in are Texas, UNC, Virginia and Oklahoma. Those are the flagships on the periphery of their footprint.

Nevertheless, it is true that FSU's football brand is clearly greater than UNC's.

Steve, UNC is a legend in their own mind...

(05-31-2012 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There was no confusion. U.N.C. is a national brand as is F.S.U.

UNC is a national brand - in basketball. But their football pales in comparison to FSU.

No argument there, but the issue was national brand and value. JR

(05-31-2012 01:02 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Steve, UNC is a legend in their own mind...

UNC definitely likes to fancy itself as an elite liberal northern institution. And to their credit, they are a damn good university. To their discredit, they probably gnashed their teeth over the result of the recent gay marriage vote, LOL.

Their basketball is legendary, but while their football has produced some legends, it is an afterthought in the mind of the public, and on their own campus as well.

(05-31-2012 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There was no confusion. U.N.C. is a national brand as is F.S.U.

UNC is a national brand - in basketball. But their football pales in comparison to FSU.

No argument there, but the issue was national brand and value. JR

Right - and if football is 80% of the value of a media deal, than UNC's value in contributing to a media deal is much less than its elite basketball status would indicate. Just because millions of Carolina basketball fans spend lots of money on Carolina t-shirts and sweatshirts to support the basketball team doesn't mean a media company interested in football ratings cares about that.

FSU - UNC is just not a big football game to TV viewers, and that's not FSU's fault.

(05-31-2012 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There was no confusion. U.N.C. is a national brand as is F.S.U.

UNC is a national brand - in basketball. But their football pales in comparison to FSU.

No argument there, but the issue was national brand and value. JR

Right - and if football is 80% of the value of a media deal, than UNC's value in contributing to a media deal is much less than its elite basketball status would indicate. Just because millions of Carolina basketball fans spend lots of money on Carolina t-shirts and sweatshirts to support the basketball team doesn't mean a media company interested in football ratings cares about that.

FSU - UNC is just not a big football game to TV viewers, and that's not FSU's fault.

My point was from the SEC perspective UNC's value would be more. They augment and solidify our basketball image. There is nothing wrong with our football image. We don't have many basketball programs that are better than Carolina (just the Cats), but we have several football programs better than FSU. Plus Carolina adds a new market and FSU doesn't. That said FSU would still add great content value to the SEC if that ever happened, but we would make more off of a Carolina add. JR

(05-31-2012 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There was no confusion. U.N.C. is a national brand as is F.S.U.

UNC is a national brand - in basketball. But their football pales in comparison to FSU.

No argument there, but the issue was national brand and value. JR

Right - and if football is 80% of the value of a media deal, than UNC's value in contributing to a media deal is much less than its elite basketball status would indicate. Just because millions of Carolina basketball fans spend lots of money on Carolina t-shirts and sweatshirts to support the basketball team doesn't mean a media company interested in football ratings cares about that.

FSU - UNC is just not a big football game to TV viewers, and that's not FSU's fault.

My point was from the SEC perspective UNC's value would be more. They augment and solidify our basketball image. There is nothing wrong with our football image.

... and as i said, i agree completely that despite FSU being a bigger football brand, UNC would be a more valuable addition to the SEC than would FSU.

If i were an SEC fan, i would only be interested in adding the following schools, and in order of importance:

Texas
UNC
Oklahoma
Virginia

(05-31-2012 01:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  UNC is a national brand - in basketball. But their football pales in comparison to FSU.

No argument there, but the issue was national brand and value. JR

Right - and if football is 80% of the value of a media deal, than UNC's value in contributing to a media deal is much less than its elite basketball status would indicate. Just because millions of Carolina basketball fans spend lots of money on Carolina t-shirts and sweatshirts to support the basketball team doesn't mean a media company interested in football ratings cares about that.

FSU - UNC is just not a big football game to TV viewers, and that's not FSU's fault.

My point was from the SEC perspective UNC's value would be more. They augment and solidify our basketball image. There is nothing wrong with our football image.

... and as i said, i agree completely that despite FSU being a bigger football brand, UNC would be a more valuable addition to the SEC than would FSU.

Since the SEC refuses to go to more than an 8 game schedule, they will not expand.

(05-31-2012 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There was no confusion. U.N.C. is a national brand as is F.S.U.

UNC is a national brand - in basketball. But their football pales in comparison to FSU.

No argument there, but the issue was national brand and value. JR

Right - and if football is 80% of the value of a media deal, than UNC's value in contributing to a media deal is much less than its elite basketball status would indicate. Just because millions of Carolina basketball fans spend lots of money on Carolina t-shirts and sweatshirts to support the basketball team doesn't mean a media company interested in football ratings cares about that.

FSU - UNC is just not a big football game to TV viewers, and that's not FSU's fault.

My point was from the SEC perspective UNC's value would be more. They augment and solidify our basketball image. There is nothing wrong with our football image. We don't have many basketball programs that are better than Carolina (just the Cats), but we have several football programs better than FSU. Plus Carolina adds a new market and FSU doesn't. That said FSU would still add great content value to the SEC if that ever happened, but we would make more off of a Carolina add. JR

Different programs make sense for different leagues. UNC is a big boost for the SEC compared to FSU while it would likely be the other way around for the Big 12.

(05-31-2012 02:16 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 12:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  UNC is a national brand - in basketball. But their football pales in comparison to FSU.

No argument there, but the issue was national brand and value. JR

Right - and if football is 80% of the value of a media deal, than UNC's value in contributing to a media deal is much less than its elite basketball status would indicate. Just because millions of Carolina basketball fans spend lots of money on Carolina t-shirts and sweatshirts to support the basketball team doesn't mean a media company interested in football ratings cares about that.

FSU - UNC is just not a big football game to TV viewers, and that's not FSU's fault.

My point was from the SEC perspective UNC's value would be more. They augment and solidify our basketball image. There is nothing wrong with our football image. We don't have many basketball programs that are better than Carolina (just the Cats), but we have several football programs better than FSU. Plus Carolina adds a new market and FSU doesn't. That said FSU would still add great content value to the SEC if that ever happened, but we would make more off of a Carolina add. JR

Different programs make sense for different leagues. UNC is a big boost for the SEC compared to FSU while it would likely be the other way around for the Big 12.

Yep.

(05-31-2012 03:09 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 02:16 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 01:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No argument there, but the issue was national brand and value. JR

Right - and if football is 80% of the value of a media deal, than UNC's value in contributing to a media deal is much less than its elite basketball status would indicate. Just because millions of Carolina basketball fans spend lots of money on Carolina t-shirts and sweatshirts to support the basketball team doesn't mean a media company interested in football ratings cares about that.

FSU - UNC is just not a big football game to TV viewers, and that's not FSU's fault.

My point was from the SEC perspective UNC's value would be more. They augment and solidify our basketball image. There is nothing wrong with our football image. We don't have many basketball programs that are better than Carolina (just the Cats), but we have several football programs better than FSU. Plus Carolina adds a new market and FSU doesn't. That said FSU would still add great content value to the SEC if that ever happened, but we would make more off of a Carolina add. JR

Different programs make sense for different leagues. UNC is a big boost for the SEC compared to FSU while it would likely be the other way around for the Big 12.

Yep.

Concur.