The perception people refer to consist of nothing but what a bunch of message board posters say. Changing the name isn't going to send teams to bowl games

(05-08-2012 07:58 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 05:27 PM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  BIG Negative. Why would we change the name? We are a stable conference that is progressing year after year. Look where we were 10 years ago & look at where we are now...BIG difference.

Might be a big difference, but the public perception is the same as it was ten years ago - and that is the ones who even know that the conference is FBS. You re-brand the conference through a name to something that sounds more like a mainstream conference. Take advantage of the conference changes, call it a "major upgrade" and push the idea, as expressed earlier this week, that this conference was the only non-AQ conference to upgrade through the realignment, and thus is not the same conference as what the Sun Belt was.

(05-08-2012 11:01 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The perception people refer to consist of nothing but what a bunch of message board posters say. Changing the name isn't going to send teams to bowl games

I totally disagree. Perception goes FAR beyond the message board and into the casual fan's view.

It sucks, but that's the way it is. Conference moves aren't about improving competition, it's about perceptually increasing the "value" of the conference to garner more money from TV contracts.

(05-08-2012 11:42 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 07:58 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 05:27 PM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  BIG Negative. Why would we change the name? We are a stable conference that is progressing year after year. Look where we were 10 years ago & look at where we are now...BIG difference.

Might be a big difference, but the public perception is the same as it was ten years ago - and that is the ones who even know that the conference is FBS. You re-brand the conference through a name to something that sounds more like a mainstream conference. Take advantage of the conference changes, call it a "major upgrade" and push the idea, as expressed earlier this week, that this conference was the only non-AQ conference to upgrade through the realignment, and thus is not the same conference as what the Sun Belt was.

(05-08-2012 11:01 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  The perception people refer to consist of nothing but what a bunch of message board posters say. Changing the name isn't going to send teams to bowl games

I totally disagree. Perception goes FAR beyond the message board and into the casual fan's view.

It sucks, but that's the way it is. Conference moves aren't about improving competition, it's about perceptually increasing the "value" of the conference to garner more money from TV contracts.

So, your saying by changing the name of our conference is going to do that? LoL.
All your doing is putting a different label on the same product.

Like i already said, you want to make a statement & change a fan & teams perception...you kick their ass on the field. THAT is how you re-brand your conference....Not changing the name of the conference.

Performance speaks alot.
You can change the name of whatever you want, but if that product team or whatever does not hold up to it's name as it did before it doesn't matter what you call it.

Come on people think!

The time wasted changing the wrapper can better be used by changing the contents. The Sun Belt has come up in the eyes of many over the last year. Win non-conference games, bowls and pack stadiums. That's how you change perceptions. Oh, and by bringing in Appalachian State and Georgia Southern.

(05-08-2012 09:25 PM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  Soo, you want to put a new name on the same product to make your product look better? Why? There is no need too. This is a stable conference that has come a long way in the last decade.We should be proud of that. Just because we have ignorant individuals out there in this world does not mean we need to change our product name for them.

(05-09-2012 12:17 AM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  So, your saying by changing the name of our conference is going to do that? LoL.
All your doing is putting a different label on the same product.

Exactly. Remind me not to hire you the next time I need marketing help, as you have no clue what you are talking about.

Yes - name changes happen every day in marketing, and there are many success stories that prove it's success in situations where the initial brand name has image problems. ValuJet changed to AirTran, Datsun changed to Nissan, Phillip Morris changed to Altria, AIG now sells financial products using the name of subsidiaries.

It works, and it is entirely applicable to this situation. You have to realize that the target market for re-branding is not people who care enough to be on message boards - it is the casual fan who hears "Sun Belt" and equates it with a small geographic region, much like the Ohio Valley or Missouri Valley. It sounds like a second-tier FCS-quality conference. That is the perception, like it or not.

It really wouldnt take much effort or expense to simply change the logo and drop the actual words "Sun Belt" and simply add SBC to it. Everything can stay the same except for that. Then the name sounds more on par with others.

WAC
PAC
SEC
SBC
ACC

You dont see people talking about the "Atlantic Coast"" when discussing confrence issues, you see them use ACC.

Thats all that needs to be changed. Well that and we need to start winning OOC games against other confrences on a much more consistent level. But I digress.

Here goes one of those posts that get me some negative reputation votes but oh well. Easy for me to say but my opinion is to change the name, if that is what Benson is thinking about. Coming from TXST and graduating from SWT before the name change, I was not in favor of rebranding and was really upset when it happened. I made a lot of the same comments that have been made here arguing that the name does not make a difference when it comes down to it. But it did.

As many on this board have said, The Belt is not the same conference it was 10 years ago. However, the perception in the college football world is that it is. So, even though you guys are devoted to the name, it might be time to allow the conference start a new perception. Again, this should not matter (and wont if we don't win) but it does.

IMO

(05-08-2012 03:40 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Why change the name? What will that benefit? You can change the outerpackaging of a product, but if the contents of the product are not great you will still have a crappy product...a crappy product in brand new packaging.

The problem is not the name, it is the performance of the members that function under the SBC banner. Win and the Sun Belt gains luster. Continue to suck and the name sucks. Its just that simple.

The SBC is filled with a bunch of relatively new programs. When comparing us to such new leagues as the MWC and CUSA, we will not be on par with them because their member schools were, for the most part, at this thing way before we were. They have built reputations that we are not close to building. Therefore, we cannot look to those leagues from a comparison standpoint and wonder why we are not getting the accolades that we feel we should.

Let's look at the MAC. The MAC is pretty much on par with the Belt. However, they are perceived as better because they have been around longer. In turn, the Belt has caught up to them performance wise and in a year or two will have blown by the MAC. As long as we continue to past the MAC, the SBC brand will gain better quality points amongst the public.

So, keep the Belt as it is name wise, and just enhance and better the performance of the members who actually cause the development of the reputation of the SBC.

The Sun Belt's biggest problem isn't how others view us, it is how we view ourselves.

We are plagued by a defeatist attitude and an attitude of "good enough".

I've read post after post for years about what we cannot do. We can bust the BCS (assuming there is an access point at 12 or better or at least at some point other than 1-4). We just have to win games.

It is not a strange coincidence that TV rights fees tend to reflect where conferences fall in average attendance. We sit around and talk about how we need this team or that team to come play us in order to sell tickets. That's utter BS and more importantly its a cop-out, "Gee it's not our fault we don't sell tickets, its who we play." You have to build your own program. Who really wants to be tick sucking off the big dog?

Last year the #1, #15, #18, and #25 most improved programs in attendance were Sun Belt teams who will still be here in 2013.

Our problem isn't what we can't do but rather what we tend to believe we can't do.

From a public relations standpoint, the best thing we could have done on rebranding would have been to hold off adding GaSt, TXST, and whomever else and then announced all the new members and the new name in one press conference.

You steal a bit from the Big XII. The Big 8 expanded adding four teams but rolled out the new name at the same time and declared it a new conference. The Big XII says it was formed in 1996 but it really dates back to the Big Six formed in 1928.

(05-09-2012 08:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 03:40 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Why change the name? What will that benefit? You can change the outerpackaging of a product, but if the contents of the product are not great you will still have a crappy product...a crappy product in brand new packaging.

The problem is not the name, it is the performance of the members that function under the SBC banner. Win and the Sun Belt gains luster. Continue to suck and the name sucks. Its just that simple.

The SBC is filled with a bunch of relatively new programs. When comparing us to such new leagues as the MWC and CUSA, we will not be on par with them because their member schools were, for the most part, at this thing way before we were. They have built reputations that we are not close to building. Therefore, we cannot look to those leagues from a comparison standpoint and wonder why we are not getting the accolades that we feel we should.

Let's look at the MAC. The MAC is pretty much on par with the Belt. However, they are perceived as better because they have been around longer. In turn, the Belt has caught up to them performance wise and in a year or two will have blown by the MAC. As long as we continue to past the MAC, the SBC brand will gain better quality points amongst the public.

So, keep the Belt as it is name wise, and just enhance and better the performance of the members who actually cause the development of the reputation of the SBC.

The Sun Belt's biggest problem isn't how others view us, it is how we view ourselves.

We are plagued by a defeatist attitude and an attitude of "good enough".

I've read post after post for years about what we cannot do. We can bust the BCS (assuming there is an access point at 12 or better or at least at some point other than 1-4). We just have to win games.

It is not a strange coincidence that TV rights fees tend to reflect where conferences fall in average attendance. We sit around and talk about how we need this team or that team to come play us in order to sell tickets. That's utter BS and more importantly its a cop-out, "Gee it's not our fault we don't sell tickets, its who we play." You have to build your own program. Who really wants to be tick sucking off the big dog?

Last year the #1, #15, #18, and #25 most improved programs in attendance were Sun Belt teams who will still be here in 2013.

Our problem isn't what we can't do but rather what we tend to believe we can't do.

Stated very well . . the SBC teams need to continue to win football games and most importantly win the OOC games.

(05-08-2012 09:25 PM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 07:58 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 05:27 PM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  BIG Negative. Why would we change the name? We are a stable conference that is progressing year after year. Look where we were 10 years ago & look at where we are now...BIG difference.

Might be a big difference, but the public perception is the same as it was ten years ago - and that is the ones who even know that the conference is FBS. You re-brand the conference through a name to something that sounds more like a mainstream conference. Take advantage of the conference changes, call it a "major upgrade" and push the idea, as expressed earlier this week, that this conference was the only non-AQ conference to upgrade through the realignment, and thus is not the same conference as what the Sun Belt was.

Thats what i basically said.

Soo, you want to put a new name on the same product to make your product look better? Why? There is no need too. This is a stable conference that has come a long way in the last decade.We should be proud of that. Just because we have ignorant individuals out there in this world does not mean we need to change our product name for them.

You want to know how we advertise our conference and the teams within our conference??
ITs called going to their "House and kickin their Ass on the field when it matters most. Thats how you re-brand a product. The Sun Belt is staying...this thread is a waste.

Have you ever had a marketing class? If your trying to sell something the most Important thing is packaging. It's what people see before they buy. And if I'm a company that has been struggling with a product sales ( sunbelt) and I change it even slightly ( tst,gst) you can bet I'm changing the name because that name change opens people up to the " iv never tried this" mentality. Your gonna get more attention and initially sales are gonna go up. And if the perception of the old product isn't there and this new product is improved people are gonna keep buying.

SBC! SBC! SBC! I like it...

(05-08-2012 09:25 PM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  Soo, you want to put a new name on the same product to make your product look better? Why? There is no need too.

I found it ironic that a Cajun fan gave you a rep point for this comment. I repsect Louisiana's program a lot and their new branding, I just thought that was a bit funny.

(05-08-2012 04:28 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 03:20 PM)jayswt Wrote:  In the TXST press conference, Benson mentioned some re-branding of the Sun Belt in 2013. Do you think he is considering changing the name? I think it would help the image of the SBC and would put us on a level playing field with CUSA and MWC. (say what you want about the name change from SWT to TXST, but it worked)

What are some names you think Benson should consider if any at all?

Southern Athletic Conference (SAC)
Gulf Coast Conference (GCC)
Southern American Conference (SAC)
Southern 10
Dirty South Conference (DSC)

Just from your list above I would say that four are out just because they almost the same as other conferences.

Southern Conference SoCon.

Also did there used to be a confernce by the name of the "Gulf Coast Conference".

Still is one - in the NAIA. They'd file suit in a heartbeat.

No!

A. The Sun Belt is a healthy, growing conference with an improving reputation. Why start over with that?

B. One of the league's biggest selling points is its geographic footprint. Keep that identity in the name. (C-USA is literally starting to cover the whole US; not what we are or what we want).

I like the name like it is, especially now that Denver is gone.

(07-07-2012 09:44 AM)Journeyman22 Wrote:  No!

A. The Sun Belt is a healthy, growing conference with an improving reputation. Why start over with that?

B. One of the league's biggest selling points is its geographic footprint. Keep that identity in the name. (C-USA is literally starting to cover the whole US; not what we are or what we want).

This.

And I like the idea of simply using SBC and changing the logo. The SBC has a decade under it's belt and is growing and improving. Fill stadiums and beat the other OOC teams we play.

(07-07-2012 10:44 AM)Green Menace Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 09:44 AM)Journeyman22 Wrote:  No!

A. The Sun Belt is a healthy, growing conference with an improving reputation. Why start over with that?

B. One of the league's biggest selling points is its geographic footprint. Keep that identity in the name. (C-USA is literally starting to cover the whole US; not what we are or what we want).

This.

And I like the idea of simply using SBC and changing the logo. The SBC has a decade under it's belt and is growing and improving. Fill stadiums and beat the other OOC teams we play.

You realize that North Texas is headed for C-USA don't your?

(05-09-2012 08:20 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 09:25 PM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  Soo, you want to put a new name on the same product to make your product look better? Why? There is no need too. This is a stable conference that has come a long way in the last decade.We should be proud of that. Just because we have ignorant individuals out there in this world does not mean we need to change our product name for them.

(05-09-2012 12:17 AM)TroyMan88 Wrote:  So, your saying by changing the name of our conference is going to do that? LoL.
All your doing is putting a different label on the same product.

Exactly. Remind me not to hire you the next time I need marketing help, as you have no clue what you are talking about.

Yes - name changes happen every day in marketing, and there are many success stories that prove it's success in situations where the initial brand name has image problems. ValuJet changed to AirTran, Datsun changed to Nissan, Phillip Morris changed to Altria, AIG now sells financial products using the name of subsidiaries.

It works, and it is entirely applicable to this situation. You have to realize that the target market for re-branding is not people who care enough to be on message boards - it is the casual fan who hears "Sun Belt" and equates it with a small geographic region, much like the Ohio Valley or Missouri Valley. It sounds like a second-tier FCS-quality conference. That is the perception, like it or not.

I'm neutral about changing the name. But to take your point one step farther:

What happened to the Mid-Continent Conference?
What happened to the Midwestern Collegiate Conference?
What happened to the Trans-America Conference?

They are now the Summit, the Horizon and the Atlantic Sun. All three leagues improved their perception.

(07-07-2012 11:08 AM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 10:44 AM)Green Menace Wrote:  

(07-07-2012 09:44 AM)Journeyman22 Wrote:  No!

A. The Sun Belt is a healthy, growing conference with an improving reputation. Why start over with that?

B. One of the league's biggest selling points is its geographic footprint. Keep that identity in the name. (C-USA is literally starting to cover the whole US; not what we are or what we want).

This.

And I like the idea of simply using SBC and changing the logo. The SBC has a decade under it's belt and is growing and improving. Fill stadiums and beat the other OOC teams we play.

You realize that North Texas is headed for C-USA don't your?

Uh, yes I do. But that does not diminish my desire for the SBC to succeed. North Texas helped SBC football get started and I've seen it kicked around and sh!t on far too long now. Hey, I'm for any conference not called the Big 12, Pac 12, Big 10, Big East, SEC, and ACC.