On this blog, we often use Twitter as a proxy for customer/fan perceptions towards brands (leagues, teams, people). If we examine Twitter sentiment for Mack Brown since August 2012, it’s been trending down. Unfortunately, the last few months were not enough to save him.
We are presenting a series ranking the “best” fan bases in college football. The study uses data from the past ten years and the rankings are based on Revenue Premium Brand Equity. For more information on the analysis/methodology, please click here.
The Big 12 has undergone dramatic changes in the last two years, with the loss of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Missouri, and the addition of Texas Christian University and West Virginia. While the overall strength of the conference has suffered from these moves, our analyses indicate that entry into the Big 12 has been a positive for TCU and West Virginia. The conference remains precariously top-heavy, with the Texas Longhorns accounting for a significant portion of brand equity.
The University of Texas is number one on the list of most supportive fan bases in the Big 12. This finding should not come as a shock to anyone familiar with college football; however what is surprising is how loyal/supportive Longhorn fans are compared to the rest of the Big 12. Oklahoma, which is ranked second, won approximately the same number of games as Texas over the ten year period of the study. Texas football, however, produced 65% more in revenues than the Sooners.
Despite being a new entrant into the Big 12, TCU ranks third in the study. While TCU does not fill up the stadium as regularly as Texas or Oklahoma, it has enjoyed solid financial support given the size of its stadium and student body. West Virginia, similarly, has received a high level of financial support despite not always selling out.
Baylor and Kansas are in the cellar of the Big 12 fan rankings. Baylor is an interesting case. In RG3’s last year at Baylor, the school performed very well in terms revenue. However, prior to RG3, Baylor averaged fewer wins, and even fewer fans. Kansas seems to struggle with a problem endemic to many “basketball” schools: the ability to achieve high brand equity in both basketball and football.
Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.
Over the next week or so, we will be publishing analyses of the “best” fan bases in college football. Our plan is to go conference by conference, and talk about which teams have the most loyal fans. Our approach is data and statistically driven, as we will be looking at how fans support their teams after controlling for how well the team performs. The series will conclude with an overall ranking of teams.
Before we get to the team rankings we wanted to start with an analysis of conferences. Beyond regional pride, our conference rankings are related to the topic of conference realignment. Conferences are the sum of their parts with some added bonus due to the synergies the overall group creates. Our fan equity analyses therefore provide a means for anticipating how new or changed conferences will compare with each other.
For those that have previously seen our other brand equity analyses, we should note that our conference-level analysis takes a slightly different approach. For the fan analyses, we build a statistical model that predicts team revenues as a function of metrics related to team performance such as winning percentage and bowl participation. We then compare actual revenues to what is predicted based purely on team performance (and other factors such as number of students, capacity, etc…). Click here for an explanation of why we use this “revenue premium” approach to brand equity measurement.
For the conference analysis, we take a similar, but more financially oriented approach. This analysis also begins with a statistical model of team revenues, but now the explanatory variables primarily involve team expenditures. Team-level brand equity is then taken as the difference between actual revenues and revenues predicted based on expenditures. The logic of this approach is that teams with more powerful brands should be able to more efficiently increase revenues. As an example, imagine a comparison between the University of Notre Dame and perhaps Rutgers. If these teams spent the same amount in a given year, we would still expect Notre Dame to have significantly greater revenues simply because ND has such a large and loyal following.
We rely on this ROI (Return on Investment) oriented measure for the conference ranking because we have a significant interest in conference realignment. In this era of realignment, it seems obvious that conference membership decisions are almost entirely driven by financial considerations. In other words, while we feel that fan support should be measured relative to team performance, when it comes to conferences we believe that schools should be evaluated based on ROI.
Finally on to the rankings…
In an altogether unsurprising result, the SEC is ranked number one, followed by the Big Ten in the second position. The SEC ranking is notable in that while we all know that the SEC has dominated on the field; our results also suggest that the conference schools are extremely efficient in translating the intensity of fans into dollars. On the realignment front, it seems certain that Missouri and Texas A&M were largely driven by the financial attractiveness of the conference. It remains to be seen if these schools have traded cash for also-ran status.
In second place, we have the Big Ten Conference. The Big Ten is in many ways a leader in the space, as they have been successful in creating a network that leverages the appeal of its members. The Big Ten has also been notable in its efforts to attract teams that expand the conference’s access to media markets.
In a distant third place we have the Big 12. The Big 12 is interesting in that it has, and had, several very well-known brands such as Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Of course, the Big 12 has also been the major conference that has seen the most attrition as Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas A&M have all moved to seemingly greener pastures. Despite this attrition, the conference does well in our rankings, and out-performs two of the other Big 5 conferences. The big question for the Big 12 is whether it will be sustainable in the long-term. The Big 12 has two key weaknesses. First, it’s unclear if it covers enough major markets to successfully develop a media strategy that will allow the conference schools to be competitive with other better-located conferences. The second issue is that the Big 12 is very top heavy. Texas is the obvious (financial) jewel of the league. Will Texas share or will the Longhorns go their own way?
In fourth place, we have the PAC 12. The PAC 12 is promising case in that it seems to be well positioned for the future. In terms of teams, it contains both historical powers like USC and up and coming teams like Oregon. The conference also covers major media markets, but its west coast time zone may be a limitation.
Perhaps the biggest surprise in our analysis was that the new American Athletic Conference (AAC) ranked higher than the ACC. This is a non-intuitive finding as we expected that historically successful programs such as Florida State and Miami would lead the ACC past an AAC led by Louisville and Cincinnati. The reason for this result is actually quite simple. The ACC schools have invested in football at about the same level as the Big 12 and PAC 12 schools, but with lower resulting revenues.
Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University, 2013.
College sports are changing rapidly. From the soon to be instituted college football playoff to the potential changes the Ed O’Bannon lawsuit forces on schools, we are clearly in a time of change. The subject of today’s post is another example of these changes, as our focus is on conference realignment. The cynic, who in this case would be correct, would say that the realignment activity of the past few years has been driven by money. It has been the quest for new television markets (Rutgers to the Big Ten) and powerful brands (Nebraska, also to the Big Ten) that has led some conferences to grow, and for many teams to make moves.
The topic of realignment is top of mind today because it is the first day of the American Athletic Conference. This new AAC is largely comprised of refugees from the Big East and Conference USA. Today’s analysis looks at how the shuffling across conferences has increased the overall brand equity of each league. For this analysis we use the results of our previous college basketball brand equity analysis. The one significant change is that for this analysis we do not separate out the conference effects when computing team-level brand equity. Each league’s rank is then the sum of its teams. We perform the analysis for both 2012 and 2014.
The analysis yields some expected and surprising results. The Big Ten leads the way both in 2012 and 2014, with the ACC following behind in both years. However, while the Big Ten has a large lead in cumulative brand equity in 2012, the gap is almost negligible in 2014 (In terms of percentages the brand equity of the ACC basketball programs was 81.7% of the Big Ten’s in 2012, but with the changes scheduled to occur, the ACC will have 97.2% of the Big Ten’s equity in 2014).
Of course, the most interesting part of the table concerns the new Big East (Catholic 7) and the new American Athletic Conference. The Big East drops from being the 3rd ranked conference to being the 6th best conference in 2014. However, it should be noted that this drop is primarily due to the reduction in the league size. In terms of average equity the remaining Big East schools still have the 3rd highest average score.
For the new American Athletic Conference the story is not very hopeful. The new American Athletic Conference is projected to rank 9th behind the power 5 conferences, the Big East, the Mountain West and the Atlantic Ten. This was a somewhat surprising finding given that the American Athletic Conference will still contain schools like Cincinnati, Memphis, and UCONN. But the numbers suggest that Dayton, UNLV and New Mexico have sufficient fan equity to move their leagues past the American Athletic Conference.
The other big story is the positions of the PAC 12 and the Big Twelve. In 2012, the Big Twelve had a 22% advantage in terms of brand equity, but we forecast that in 2014 it will trail the PAC 12 by 7%. These types of changes are important as there is a bit of a game that occurs within conferences. Schools in weaker conferences are likely to have a greater incentive to jump to stronger leagues because they fear being left in a dying league without great options. The Big Twelve has recently lost Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri. If Texas were to leave, the conference would likely disintegrate.
We would also like to make a couple of notes regarding some assumptions implicit in the model. Our use of revenue premium based brand equity as of 2012 means that each school’s brand equity can be viewed as partially a product of their affiliation in that year. This is important if a league’s value is more than just the sum of its teams. For example, the Big Ten pursued Rutgers largely to secure entry into the NY television market. The logic behind this move would seem to be an assumption that competition with Big Ten teams will improve Rutgers’ attractiveness within the market. Our analyses do not (as of now) include this type of potential synergy. The new ACC has at least partially adopted a television based strategy as the members are widely distributed across the nation. The hope has to be that this cross country coverage creates synergies that simultaneously create interest in the teams and the league. However, given the current lack of brand equity and the aggressiveness of stronger leagues to form lucrative television networks, this will be a tough haul.
In our current series on college basketball programs’ abilities to transform their available high school talent into NBA draft picks, we have decided to start with summary data for each school. We plan on concluding the series with a statistical model that predicts the likelihood of a player being drafted based on the player’s recruiting ranking, the school’s investment in the program, the rankings of the player’s teammates and other factors. We decided to start with the summary efficiency rankings simply because these rankings are more accessible to fans and tend to generate more conversation.
Our series continues with an examination of recruiting classes from 2002-2011 in the Big-12. The chart below lists our efficiency rankings for the Big-12 (for more details on our methodology, please click here). Iowa State was the clear leader in the Big-12 in converting talent into NBA draft picks. The Cyclones were followed by traditional power Kansas and then Texas.
In the period of our study, 15% of 2-Star recruits and 13% of non-rated recruits at Iowa State were drafted into the NBA. This is very impressive given the overall national draft rates: 0.8% for 2-Star recruits and 0.4% for non-rated recruits! Furthermore, two 3-Star recruits were drafted from Iowa State. Iowa State did a remarkable job of converting its available talent into NBA draft picks.
Perennial power Kansas finished second in the rankings. Kansas had an overwhelming 30% of its overall recruits drafted into the NBA. The Jayhawks also had 39% of its 4-Star recruits drafted (compared to the 13% national 4-Star average). Third place Texas had 66% of its 5-Star recruits drafted (compared to the 51% national 5-Star average).
PREVIOUS POST: RANKING THE PAC-12
NEXT POST: RANKING THE SEC
One of the more entertaining aspects of producing the Emory Sports Marketing Analytics blog has been emotional nature of the criticisms that we have received. Our series ranking fan bases has been particularly provocative.
What does the preceding have to do with the Big Twelve? Some of our critics claimed that our rankings were “silly” because Kansas was not ranked in the Top Ten, while Oklahoma State and Texas were. We thought that we would take a bit more time with this post to investigate how we could possibly come to this result.
As a starting point, if you had asked us to name the top fan bases in college basketball before we ran the numbers we would have said (in no particular order) Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas and Indiana. In other words, we would have bravely identified the conventional wisdom. But our goal at Emory Sports Marketing Analytics is to go beyond the conventional wisdom, and to see what the numbers say.
Our emphasis on financial metrics also leads to some complaints. This is somewhat odd given that we are covering sports that are clearly run like businesses. It has been reported that Bill Self’s current deal with Kansas will pay him close to $50 million over ten years. This suggests to us that Kansas very much views basketball through a financial lens.
Getting back to the conventional wisdom, we believe that Kentucky, Indiana, Kansas and Duke have exceptional fan bases. However, we are not ready to concede that the passion felt by a Kansas fan exceeds that felt by an Oklahoma State or Texas fan. Rather than rely on the noise created by fan bases, we examine how fans vote with their dollars. And more to the point, we try to control for the role of on-court success. While some may view this as crass, if you were the CEO of Apple or Coca Cola would you rather that your customers were highly loyal and willing to pay premium prices or would you rather that your brand was voted a fan favorite in an Internet poll? The marketing concept that we are exploring is referred to as customer equity. The basic idea is a brand’s ultimate source of revenues and profits is its customers. Now a big caveat to this is that by measuring the value of the customer bases we are not controlling for how good of a job each institution does with managing its customer base.
The preceding list provides our breakdown of the Big Twelve. Texas leads the way followed by Oklahoma State and then Kansas. So what drives this result? Over the last decade Texas has reported the largest basketball revenues in the conference followed by Kansas. Texas’ advantage in revenue is slightly more than 4%. More importantly, Texas generated this slightly higher revenue while winning around 5 games less per year than the Jayhawks. Now one can argue that Texas has unique advantages or that Kansas could be generating more revenue, but our analysis is at least based on solid numbers and our dependent measure (revenue premium based brand equity) is an unambiguous term.
The other surprise was the ranking of Oklahoma State. In this case, Kansas does produce about 25% more revenue than Oklahoma State. But the Cowboys generated their revenue while winning about 35% less games per year and no national championships. Both schools have proud histories and legendary past coaches. What our analysis gets at is what would happen if both teams performed identically. What would the environment be like at Gallagher-Iba arena if the Cowboys averaged 30 wins per year for a decade and had numerous trips to the Final Four?
(Note: The study examines 2001 to 2011, thus Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M, and Missouri are included in the Big 12)
The 2013 NFL Draft has concluded, and we would like to offer our thoughts on the ability of conferences and schools to turn high school talent into NFL Draft Picks. We continue our team-level discussion with an analysis of the Big 12.
To reiterate from our previous post, this is only an analysis of the 2013 NFL Draft. We are examining how many picks were produced by each school, relative to their recruiting classes over the relevant corresponding period for the 2013 Draft. As with any analysis based on essentially a single data point it’s important to remember that these results are more anecdotal than conclusive. That said, the 2013 draft does produce results that are largely consistent with our multiyear statistical study of recruit conversion.
Winners: Iowa State had the worst average recruited talent during the relevant time period, but still managed to produce more picks in this draft than Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech. In Manhattan, they managed to produce three draft picks in this draft despite having an average class ranking just outside of the top 60 during the relevant recruiting period.
Middle of the Pack: While Oklahoma and Texas are both in the “Middle of the Pack,” it should be noted that they represent the two extremes of this segment. Both schools averaged top 10 recruiting classes, but Oklahoma produced six draft picks, while Texas only produced three.
Losers: Texas Tech had no draft picks in the 2013 NFL draft, however Oklahoma State’s performance seems to be most alarming. Despite having averaged a recruiting class just outside the top 30, they managed to produce only one draft pick.
By Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013
Methodology for the study explained here.