(03-20-2024 11:32 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 05:35 PM)superdeluxe Wrote:  

(03-19-2024 03:39 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Question is in the title.

It’s everything. Brand, market,etc

Also NIL is going to be massive. You have UW fans growing up loving the Dawgs,who are now in position to legally help pay for its teams.

Jed Fisch wasn’t sitting with Steve Ballmer at a clippers game for fun. He is going to leverage the wealth in our region for UW football

UW fans grew watching the Huskeys play against Pac 10 teams. My first team is from my birth state of Washington, and UW going to the Big 10 sucks. I am not interested UW playing the Big 10 teams. I want them to continue playing the PAC 10 teams. It is time to boycott the Big 10 and SEC, and get their tv media contracts terminated, and break the conferences up for better realignment by regions, not by what the networks want. Each conferences get the same amount of tv media dollars which can be split up by the records, and not by the fan base or tv markets. That would be fair and balance.

To do so would be ignoring the failure of the Southwestern Conference, IMO. The Southwestern Conference was a very regional conference, but failed to generate much interest beyond the state of Texas, IMO. It could be that the Pac 12 wasn't generating much interest beyond the West Coast.
I believe what the goal is, David, is to create a lasting brand/market combo like the Ivy League. Even though the Ivy League is heavily concentrated in the Northeast, everyone is familiar with the Ivy League. I believe that the P2 conferences (SEC & B1G), not the 2Pac conference ( ), are using the Ivy League as their model, whether they want to admit it or not.

I used Vanderbilt in my first example and will now use Memphis.

The Memphis Tiger "brand" is not so much specific to the basketball program as it is a component of the overall "brand" of the City of Memphis: basketball, (NBA, college and high school). Memphis (the community) is generally considered among the nation's 10 most basketball-centric cities. The market (the city) and the brand (hoops) are recognizable by many basketball fans (particularly African-American basketball fans). High school basketball in Memphis is like a religion. And the NBA would not have chosen a small-market city like Memphis were hoops not such a big deal to the community.

So, in the case of Memphis Tigers basketball, the market and the brand are 1. intertwined and 2. go beyond the UM hoops' program to include other factors (including cultural and demographic).

Now, admittedly, the Memphis Tiger brand/market is not remotely on the same brand/market level of, say, that of Duke (a national brand with a "market" that includes fans all over the nation).

(03-20-2024 11:43 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:45 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ultimately "market" pays the bills. The problem is assuming that a small brand delivers a big market -- in most cases, no.

I disagree. Ultimately viewership pays the bills.

Agreed, you can be in the middle of the Charlotte market, but if no one watches you then your market is meaningless.

Quite. If a school has a given audience, the only advantage of that audience being a smaller share of a larger market is if the other schools in the conference can attract an additional increment of the market to add to the audience for their total inventory.

The "market" period was about conferences with big brands leveraging that into contracts with cable companies that then had to be respected if they moved into new markets. As the relevance of those contracts fades, so does the relevance of markets independent of audience.

(03-20-2024 11:43 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:45 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ultimately "market" pays the bills. The problem is assuming that a small brand delivers a big market -- in most cases, no.

I disagree. Ultimately viewership pays the bills.

Agreed, you can be in the middle of the Charlotte market, but if no one watches you then your market is meaningless.

You are looking at "market" strictly from the perspective of the fans and media. However, there is also the importance of market related to existing members of a conference.

As to the University of Charlotte, as an example (since you note Charlotte) ... true, UNCC does not command its market (particularly in football) on the level the AAC would prefer (and need in the future).

However, the Charlotte market produces a good bit of prep football and hoops talent. And that could be beneficial to, for example, Memphis basketball for recruiting purposes. And what benefits Memphis indirectly benefits the AAC (which, in turn, indirectly benefits UNCC).

So, the AAC's adding the Charlotte market brings some value, at least in theory, to those AAC schools that want to recruit that market.

To suggest the Charlotte is "meaningless" just because "no one watches" UNCC is not fully accurate.

(03-20-2024 03:13 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... However, the Charlotte market produces a good bit of prep football and hoops talent. ...

That's stretching the meaning of "market" past the breaking point, since ranking by market size and by strength as recruiting grounds isn't even approximately the same ranking ... the quality as recruiting ground doesn't scale reliably up and down with the market. For instance, the Boston market is much larger than the Charlotte market, but Boston is just not great football recruiting grounds.

(03-20-2024 09:20 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 03:13 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... However, the Charlotte market produces a good bit of prep football and hoops talent. ...

That's stretching the meaning of "market" past the breaking point, since ranking by market size and by strength as recruiting grounds isn't even approximately the same ranking ... the quality as recruiting ground doesn't scale reliably up and down with the market. For instance, the Boston market is much larger than the Charlotte market, but Boston is just not great football recruiting grounds.

I'm defining "market" in a comprehensive and unconventional manner. For those who define the term in a strict and standard way, your point is well made.

(03-20-2024 10:31 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:20 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 03:13 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... However, the Charlotte market produces a good bit of prep football and hoops talent. ...

That's stretching the meaning of "market" past the breaking point, since ranking by market size and by strength as recruiting grounds isn't even approximately the same ranking ... the quality as recruiting ground doesn't scale reliably up and down with the market. For instance, the Boston market is much larger than the Charlotte market, but Boston is just not great football recruiting grounds.

I'm defining "market" in a comprehensive and unconventional manner. For those who define the term in a strict and standard way, your point is well made.

Maybe we need to create new definitions that address the new market "veins" (is that the wrong word)?

Market Penetration
Athlete Market
Student Market
Viewership Market
Alumn Market
Streaming Market

(03-21-2024 06:52 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 10:31 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:20 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 03:13 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... However, the Charlotte market produces a good bit of prep football and hoops talent. ...

That's stretching the meaning of "market" past the breaking point, since ranking by market size and by strength as recruiting grounds isn't even approximately the same ranking ... the quality as recruiting ground doesn't scale reliably up and down with the market. For instance, the Boston market is much larger than the Charlotte market, but Boston is just not great football recruiting grounds.

I'm defining "market" in a comprehensive and unconventional manner. For those who define the term in a strict and standard way, your point is well made.

Maybe we need to create new definitions that address the new market "veins" (is that the wrong word)?

Market Penetration
Athlete Market
Student Market
Viewership Market
Alumn Market
Streaming Market

I like this list, GB. It's more broad than the definition we typically consider. Well done.

Brand, but once you get down to the G5 level (especially now that it's been hollowed out) there are no actual "brands" that register nationally at all outside of maybe the service academies. Very few that even register outside of their own market. So in that world for a long time as much as I didn't like it markets did matter more than the minor marginal differences between G5 "brands".

(03-21-2024 08:34 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Brand, but once you get down to the G5 level (especially now that it's been hollowed out) there are no actual "brands" that register nationally at all outside of maybe the service academies. Very few that even register outside of their own market. So in that world for a long time as much as I didn't like it markets did matter more than the minor marginal differences between G5 "brands".

I think there are a few. Marshall is decently well known, Boise, App State, ECU, Tulane, Memphis, Colorado State, Southern Miss?

(03-21-2024 08:34 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Brand, but once you get down to the G5 level (especially now that it's been hollowed out) there are no actual "brands" that register nationally at all outside of maybe the service academies. Very few that even register outside of their own market. So in that world for a long time as much as I didn't like it markets did matter more than the minor marginal differences between G5 "brands".

In the "G" category, I would definitely have the three services academies as brands.

Beyond that ...

... I suppose it depends on how you define "brand." If it largely (or solely) about name recognition and "distinctive elements," there are some G5 members that qualify.

If you define the term strongly about winning (and winning big) on a national scale and in the highest level of games/opponents ... then no G5 members qualify.

(03-21-2024 06:52 AM)GreenBison Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 10:31 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:20 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 03:13 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  ... However, the Charlotte market produces a good bit of prep football and hoops talent. ...

That's stretching the meaning of "market" past the breaking point, since ranking by market size and by strength as recruiting grounds isn't even approximately the same ranking ... the quality as recruiting ground doesn't scale reliably up and down with the market. For instance, the Boston market is much larger than the Charlotte market, but Boston is just not great football recruiting grounds.

I'm defining "market" in a comprehensive and unconventional manner. For those who define the term in a strict and standard way, your point is well made.

Maybe we need to create new definitions that address the new market "veins" (is that the wrong word)?

Market Penetration

The term doesn't mean anything until you are more specific about which market you are talking about.

Quote: Athlete Market

This is a factor market ... the employer is the demander in a labor market, and demand in the labor market is derived from demand for the product market(s) that the employer is selling into. Mixing it into the markets where the schools is on the supply side is a confusing way to go about doing things.

Quote: Student Market

This is the primary market for all of the operations of the University aside from the Athletic Department, and for the schools with subsidized Athletic Departments, the only commercially defensible reason for engaging in that subsidy.

Quote: Viewership Market
Streaming Market

The streaming, OTA and cable (and cable-like) markets are what make up the aggregate viewership market for the sale of entertainment services side of the Athletic Department.

Quote: Alumn Market

On the one hand, they are part of the viewership market.

On the other hand, they are the source for donations, However, sports is mostly important for booster donations, and boosters tend to focus their giving on sports, and are often a poor source of donations for educational operations.

(03-20-2024 09:45 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ultimately "market" pays the bills. The problem is assuming that a small brand delivers a big market -- in most cases, no.

I disagree. Ultimately viewership pays the bills.

So the Big Ten and Fox didn't know what they were doing when they took Rutgers, Maryland, and the pair of USC + UCLA (instead of ony USC)? They were locking down the best markets.

(03-21-2024 01:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:45 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 09:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Ultimately "market" pays the bills. The problem is assuming that a small brand delivers a big market -- in most cases, no.

I disagree. Ultimately viewership pays the bills.

So the Big Ten and Fox didn't know what they were doing when they took Rutgers, Maryland, and the pair of USC + UCLA (instead of ony USC)? They were locking down the best markets.

Back then there wasn't tracking like you can with streaming. With streaming they know which tvs in your house are watching and for exactly how long.

Back in the day when it was just cable or OTA they just had a vague idea of how many watched and for how long. They took a gamble with the numbers and hoped for the best. Anything they can sell for advertising whether anyone watches or not. Just tell Proctor and Gamble that you are showing a Rutgers game in the big city of 8.5 million and the ads sell themselves. You then report back to Proctor and Gamble that yes, we have a ball park of viewers for your well placed ad from last Saturday.

Now it's on streaming and they can report back to Proctor and Gamble that 500k people watched the game, 50% watched the entire game and 25% watched the first half. You can also tell them down to the zip code where the majority of viewers tuned in from.

So from this point on, advertisers are wiser and demand more transparency with viewership in regards to markets. You will see advertising go up with some schools and drop for others now that advertisers will get true numbers instead of vague ball park figures.

Advertisers will also see that a schools location doesn't necessarily dictate who watches. Lets say that streamed Rutgers game had 500k viewers. Only 300k watched from New Jersey. The other 200k were dispersed all over the country with 50k in Chicago and 25k in Tampa, etc.

With streaming the advertising dollar will change and advertisers will demand more for their buck from here on out.

It is always better to have a market, than a brand.

The size and value of a market is completely beyond a university's control. You got what you got, and nothing can change it. With the right leadership and vision, any school can build a brand.

(03-20-2024 01:09 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I used Vanderbilt in my first example and will now use Memphis.

The Memphis Tiger "brand" is not so much specific to the basketball program as it is a component of the overall "brand" of the City of Memphis: basketball, (NBA, college and high school). Memphis (the community) is generally considered among the nation's 10 most basketball-centric cities. The market (the city) and the brand (hoops) are recognizable by many basketball fans (particularly African-American basketball fans). High school basketball in Memphis is like a religion. And the NBA would not have chosen a small-market city like Memphis were hoops not such a big deal to the community.

So, in the case of Memphis Tigers basketball, the market and the brand are 1. intertwined and 2. go beyond the UM hoops' program to include other factors (including cultural and demographic).

Now, admittedly, the Memphis Tiger brand/market is not remotely on the same brand/market level of, say, that of Duke (a national brand with a "market" that includes fans all over the nation).

Great post as usual. Memphis, like Houston was before making their recent move, is really a Power program in a g5 body when it comes to basketball.

(03-21-2024 06:09 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-20-2024 01:09 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I used Vanderbilt in my first example and will now use Memphis.

The Memphis Tiger "brand" is not so much specific to the basketball program as it is a component of the overall "brand" of the City of Memphis: basketball, (NBA, college and high school). Memphis (the community) is generally considered among the nation's 10 most basketball-centric cities. The market (the city) and the brand (hoops) are recognizable by many basketball fans (particularly African-American basketball fans). High school basketball in Memphis is like a religion. And the NBA would not have chosen a small-market city like Memphis were hoops not such a big deal to the community.

So, in the case of Memphis Tigers basketball, the market and the brand are 1. intertwined and 2. go beyond the UM hoops' program to include other factors (including cultural and demographic).

Now, admittedly, the Memphis Tiger brand/market is not remotely on the same brand/market level of, say, that of Duke (a national brand with a "market" that includes fans all over the nation).

Great post as usual. Memphis, like Houston was before making their recent move, is really a Power program in a g5 body when it comes to basketball.

Kind words, B-1995.

I appreciate the positivity.

Brand over market.

Charlotte, Temple, FIU, in my big markets, with little fan support or interest.