College Football Brands and Fans – 2018 Edition

College sports inspires amazing passion and loyalty.  But which team has the most passion and loyalty?  There are lots of ways to look at this question.  Who has the most fans?  The loudest fans?  The fans most willing to travel?  It’s a debate where the participants can’t agree on the criteria for success.

One way to proceed is to flip the question.  When we talk about fandom, we are really talking about the relationship between teams and fans.  If we focus on the team side the way forward becomes a bit clearer.  On some level, college (and pro) teams are brands just like Apple or Coca-Cola.  If we cast the question of fandom in terms of brand strength, then we can turn a bar room debate into a marketing science based analysis.

Today we are going to take a look at college football brand strength.  We will start with an overall look at FBS schools and then dig into each conference in later entries.  The highlight of today is a Top Ten list and a Bottom Five list.

Interestingly (a good wishy washy academic word), it’s the top ten list that’s going to cause the trouble. I can already hear the hatred coming.  Shockingly, I can also predict the zip code for the hate (35401).

In a futile attempt to limit the hate, I’m going to start with some comments about the methodology.  The basic idea is to rate the college football brands using some ideas from the field of marketing analytics.  In most categories, we can look directly at the market place and come up with judgments of the strongest or best brands.  It gets a little tricky in sports because there is so much variability in team quality over years.  This is the key point – if we want to assess brand strength then we need to look beyond the simple metrics.  A full stadium for a winning team means less than full stadium for a team that is struggling.

The way I get to the final rankings is too boring for most fans so I’ll just give a broad outline.  I start from the notion that college sports teams can be viewed as brands.  While sports fandom is intense, conceptually it isn’t that different from consumer loyalty to brands in categories ranging from cars to soft drinks.  When we think of the team as a brand, we can use theory and methods used in industry and academia to take an analytical look at fandom across schools.

For this year’s study, I rely on three different measures of brand strength.  The first measure is based on the idea of a “revenue premium”.  One way to look at brand strength is to compare the revenues produced by two brands with similar quality.  The idea is that if we control for quality differences then the difference in the revenue can be attributed to differences in preferences for each brand.  In other words, we want to rate marketing place performance while “controlling’ for variations in team performance and other factors such as size of the alumni base or stadium capacity.  I calculate these revenue premiums by comparing each school’s reported football revenues with the revenues predicted by a statistical model that includes factors such as stadium capacity, alumni base, won-loss record and other school level attributes.

The second metric is a measure of ROI (return on investment).  ROI is related to brand strength because a stronger brand yields many benefits in the market.  For example, in the case of college basketball (I want to avoid using college football examples for a moment), we might expect the blue blood programs to be more efficient operations in terms of recruiting investments.  A less prestigious program might spend years building a relationship with a prospect to lose out if a last minute offer arrives from a Kentucky or Kansas.

The third metric is simply the relative football revenues reported by each school. We can probably think of this as a measure of pure market share.  I like to include a top level estimate of revenue because this measure says something about the scale of each brand.  The revenue premium metric is more focused on the intensity of fandom and the ROI measure captures some notion of brand efficiency. Top level revenue is a nice compliment to these measures.

To generate a single ranking, I use a statistical technique that identifies a single latent variable that drives the three brand equity rankings.  I’m happy to discuss the method in depth.  But the results are likely of more interest.  So who are the winners and losers?

 

The Winners

There is a lot of passion across a lot of campuses.  But when you crunch the numbers, one brand stands out.  The University of Texas Longhorns dominate the rankings.  Texas reports the highest revenues, achieves the best ROI and wins the revenue premium competition.  Even when Texas struggles on the field the football program delivers amazing economic results.

Texas is followed by Tennessee, Notre Dame, LSU and Oklahoma to round out the top 5.  These are all solid programs.  Programs that regularly appear on national TV and in major bowl games.  Tennessee has struggled in recent years but they deliver financial results and amazing attendance.  Notre Dame is a true national brand and might “still” be the team that most fans associate with college football.  The LSU ranking might surprise some folks outside of the SEC but LSU is a program with crazy passionate fans.  Oklahoma like Notre Dame is college football royalty.

In positions 6 through 10, we have Georgia, Michigan, Oregon, Auburn and Florida.  This is almost a good list. But, as I noted above, one program, in particular, seems to be missing.  Alabama finishes 12th.  Auburn at 9 and no Alabama?!?!  The methodology is flawed!  Why does Emory pay you?  Have you ever been to an Alabama game?  And now I have probably insulted Ohio State.

I’ll get back to Alabama in a later entry.  But, the key point is that we are looking at market place performance after controlling for team success.  I think the omission of Alabama is particularly brutal because Auburn finishes in the top ten in position 9.  The question that needs to be asked (and we will keep this in the SEC) is what would happen if Tennessee had a run like Alabama’s.  Would the Volunteer fan base be as intense as the Crimson Tide?  How about LSU?  Or Georgia?  As someone who has lived in SEC territory for the better part of the last twenty years I think the answer is yes.

 

The Bottom of the Power 5

At the bottom of the Power 5 we have Purdue!  Working upwards we then have West Virginia, Rutgers, Virginia, and University of Miami.  It’s an interesting list.  Probably not too many objections to teams like Purdue and Rutgers.  Purdue is in a tough sport for a football program.  It’s located in a small state that has multiple college programs.  It is also more of a basketball school.

Miami?  Miami is a storied program but Miami’s reported football revenues are nowhere what would be expected based solely on the team’s history of major bowl games.  And this is the key. We are not looking at team success.  We are focused on market place metrics relative to team success and investment.

The bottom of the list does raise some interesting questions.  Why do these schools fail to perform on the fan metrics?  Is it winning?  Miami has been an elite program at times.  Is it a lack of stars?  Purdue has a history of great quarterbacks from Bob Griese to Drew Brees.  Is it something about campus culture?  But Virginia and Rutgers would seem to be very different places?

It’s complicated and while winning is probably the key to developing a fan base, the factors that result in a less engaged fan base can vary.  Too much competition?  The weather is too nice?  It’s a pro town?

In some ways this whole fan base analysis is a great marketing case study.  One obvious path to success but many potential ways to fail.  And even if you do the right thing and win, sometimes it’s just not enough.

 

The Top Non-Power 5

The non-power 5 rankings are interesting in a variety of ways.  A lot of conference expansion and realignment was driven by access to TV markets (the Big Ten adding Rutgers).  But brand strength is another critical aspect (the Big Ten adding Nebraska).  The non-Power 5 rankings can help identify potential additions to the elite conferences.  I could almost imagine an approach similar to the relegation system used in European soccer – but the movement in and out of the top leagues would be based on brand strength.

At the top of the non-Power 5 list we have Boise State.  Boise is followed by University of Central Florida, North Texas, Wyoming and BYU.  North Texas is the eye-opener for myself.  But this is the beauty of taking a quantitative approach.  We are able to identify possibilities that our intuition might miss.

To listen to the 2018 College Football Fan Rankings podcast episode – click on the logo below.

2014 SEC College Football Fan Equity

For more of our studies, follow us on Twitter @sportsmktprof

For our Overall Top 10 & rankings explanation, please click here

For the Best & Worst of the Power Conferences, please click here

For our Non-Power Conference Top 10, please click here

The discussion of the conferences with highest fan equity begins and ends with the Southeastern Conference (SEC).  Six of the top twelve overall college football teams in our rankings are from the SEC.  For the second straight year, UGA tops our ranking of SEC college football fan equity. [For more on the overall study and methodology, please click here]

2014 SEC College Football Fan Equity

When we examine the SEC Fan Equity rankings from last year, the top 5 teams are the same except for Arkansas replacing Texas A&M.  The teams near the bottom are also relatively unchanged.   For those who are wondering why Georgia is ahead of Alabama, our explanation from last year still applies:

“The University of Georgia has the number one ranked football fan base in the SEC according to our study.  It should be pointed out that this study covers a ten year period, and that the top four ranked schools in the SEC are also among the top ranked football fan bases in the country.  So, what separates Georgia from Alabama?   Over the period of our study, both Georgia and Alabama averaged between 9 and 10 wins a season.  However, Georgia averaged 12% more in revenues per year than Alabama.  Alabama also had a couple of years in the beginning of our sample (2002 & 2004) where the home games were not all filled to capacity.  Thus, over the period of our study, when we control for team performance and other institutional factors, the Georgia fan base is just a bit more loyal and devoted.”

So why did Arkansas move up the rankings?  We believe that this could in part be due to enthusiasm resulting from the hiring of Coach Bielema.  Revenues were up for the Razorbacks last year and attendance remained relatively unchanged, despite winning less than the previous year.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

Twitter College Football Review: A Tale of Two Heisman Winners

College football is a business and college football fans are a vocal group of customers.  Like many businesses, college football has a new opportunity to track customer opinion: The Twitterverse.  For a bit of a of “Holiday diversion” we are going to take a look at several college football stories from the past season using Twitter as the data.Manziel vs Winston

The first story is a look at the past two Heisman trophy winners.  The chart shows something call Twitter sentiment for Johnny Manziel and Jameis Winston.  Sentiment analysis is basically the ratio of positive to negative Tweets. The higher the score the more positive the Twitterverse is about a subject.

What we have done is track sentiment for a one year period for each player. The blue line shows the weekly sentiment for Johnny Manziel.  This starts off very high following his historic Heisman victory.  But there are some ups or downs in the off season.  The downs can be linked to some of the news stories about Manziel gambling in casinos or showing up at high profile events.

The big dip for Manziel occurred in June.  Following his comments about being eager to leave College Station, his sentiment dropped from 93 to 20.  “Johnny Football” did recover much of the lost sentiment but then dropped to an even lower score of 18 following the mini-controversies surrounding his appearances at UT frat parties, and leaving the Manning passing academy early.  Interestingly, his autograph controversy in August did not generate an equal backlash as his sentiment bottomed out at around 30.

From a marketing perspective, this is a fascinating story.  The biggest damage to his brand occurred when he offended the locals by talking bad about College Station and partying in Austin.  The impact of breaking NCAA rules was not as large an issue.  It’s one thing to break a rule, but it’s much worse for a brand to insult it’s primary customers.

In contrast, there isn’t much to say about Winston during the off season.  While his sentiment also bounces around, this is more of a problem of small numbers (minimal data) rather than anything else.  Manziel’s Twitter traffic absolutely dwarfed Winston’s.  In marketing language we would say that Manziel had much higher brand awareness.  This is important in the context of the Heisman race since publicity matters quite a bit.

winston_manzielDuring the season, we see a steady climb for Winston and an up and down pattern for Manziel.  These patterns obviously have a lot to do with how the teams played.  For example, A&M’s late season losses dropped Manziel’s sentiment to the mid twenties.   Departing from college football for a moment, think about what this means for companies interested in tracking customer satisfaction!  The Twitter data almost tells us exactly what happened in games each week.   We say almost because one of Manziel’s biggest gaining weeks followed a close loss to Alabama.  In other words, Twitter gives us instant feedback about team quality.

Just like Manziel, Winston also had a huge late season drop in popularity.  He bottomed out with a sentiment score of 13 in the middle of November.  In Winston’s case, the drop can be attributed to legal issues.  The interesting thing about Winston’s drop is how quickly the public forgave.  The combination of “no charges” and the Heisman victory drove Winston’s sentiment to 97 in December.  Winston also finally passed Manziel in terms of total Twitter activity in December as well.

In terms of the final word – a look at these two brands / quarterbacks over time says something profound (and obvious) about sports brands: If you win then the public will be very forgiving.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.

Ranking the Most “Volatile” Fans in the SEC: LSU, Ole Miss, & UGA Lead the Way

Last weekend, Georgia beat LSU in a highly entertaining, closely contested football game.  After the game, fans were undoubtedly sad in Baton Rouge and elated in Athens.  These emotions were manifested through the tweeting activity of fans in both cities.  Using data from Topsy Pro, we were able to collect football-related tweets originating from Athens and Baton Rouge after the game.  There were almost twice as many tweets originating from Athens, and the ratio of positive to negative tweets was 9:1 in Athens, whereas the ratio was 1:9 in Baton Rouge.  As transplants who have lived in Atlanta for a few years now, we can attest to the overwhelming passion towards SEC football in the South.  Recently, we used data from Twitter to describe the emotions of NFL football fan bases during the 2012 regular season.  We decided that performing a similar analysis on the SEC football fan bases would be an interesting study.  We decided to empirically determine which SEC football fan bases really “live & die” by the performance of their teams.

The methodology for our study was straightforward.  We considered all of the regular season games from 2012 and the first five weeks of the 2013 season.  For each game, we recorded who won the game, and we collected football-related tweets from all of the SEC college towns for one, two, and three days after the game.  It would be reasonable to ask why we didn’t collect tweets from Atlanta for a UGA game or from all of Kentucky for a UK game.  We were trying to isolate tweets primarily from fans of the SEC team, and we believe that the college town is the best proxy for mainly fans of the college.  Atlanta is full of UGA fans, but there are also Alabama fans, Auburn fans, Florida fans, and pretty much fans of all SEC teams.  We wanted reactions of UGA fans to the UGA games, not the reactions of Auburn fans to the UGA games.  By football-related tweets, we mean tweets that mentioned any words that were commonly related to the particular college football team.  The tweets were coded as positive, negative, or neutral.  We were able to determine the “sentiment” of the collection of tweets as a rough index (1-100) of the ratio of positive to negative tweets.

Thus after each game, we were able to calculate the sentiment of the fan base.  We determined on average how positive a fan base was after a win, and how negative they were after a loss.  To understand the “volatility” of a fan base, we looked at the delta between the average sentiment after a win and the average sentiment after a loss.  In other words, how big is the difference in a fan base’s “high” after a win and “low” after a loss.  We believe that this metric best captures “living & dying” by the performance of your team.  After computing this metric for each fan base, we determined that LSU has the most “volatile” fans in the SEC.

The chart on the left gives the full rankings for the SEC.  It should be noted that these rankings were robust to whether we looked at how fans felt one, two, or three days after a game.  We believe that volatility is in part driven by 1) the expectations of the fan base and 2) the expressiveness of the fan base.  The top three schools in our rankings seem to get to the top for different reasons. The volatility of LSU & UGA fans is driven more by extreme negativity after losses, whereas the volatility of Ole Miss fans is a function of high levels of happiness after wins. This could, of course, in part be due to expectations.  UGA & LSU fans may have higher expectations than Ole Miss fans.  An examination of the data reveals that LSU fans had an extremely negative reaction to the Alabama loss last year and the Georgia loss this year.  These fans even had an overall negative reaction to a close WIN over Auburn last year!  UGA fans spewed a lot of vitriol on Twitter after the loss to Clemson this year.  Ole Miss fans, on the other hand, did not have overly negative reactions to losses, and were very positive after wins (e.g. the win over Texas this year).   It is interesting to note that the Alabama fan base is at the bottom of the volatility list.  Alabama only lost one game during the period of this study (a good reason for publishing this list again next year when we have more data).  But, even after wins, the Alabama fan base is not very positive on Twitter.  There are several tweets that are critical about the margin of victory.  If Alabama does ever go on some type of losing streak in the future (as unlikely as that seems), it will be fascinating to observe the reaction on Twitter.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.

 

 

 

 

Twitter Analysis: College Station Buzzing About Alabama

It’s amazing what a difference a year (or ten months) can make.  Last November, Johnny Manziel was a redshirt freshman leading a two-touchdown underdog team into the hostile environment of Bryant-Denny Stadium.  This weekend, the Heisman-Trophy winning, John Hancock-machine leads the sixth-ranked Aggies into a matchup with Alabama that is undoubtedly one of the most anticipated games of the college football season.  ESPN College GameDay will be in College Station, even though the game is on CBS.

We decided to use Twitter to study (1) how much more chatter is there about the game this year versus last year and (2) how is the chatter different between the two campuses?  Our key findings: (1) The pre-game chatter has increased over 600% in College Station and 350% in Tuscaloosa as compared to last year and (2) The level of pre-game chatter was over 3oo% greater in College Station versus Tuscaloosa in 2012 and over 400% greater in 2013.

The methodology for our study is quite straightforward.  As in our Michigan-Notre Dame “rivalry” study, we used Twitter data from Topsy Pro Analytics.  We essentially collected all of the tweets originating from College Station, TX and Tuscaloosa, AL in the Sunday-Wednesday period before the game in 2012 and before the upcoming game.  In the pool of tweets from College Station, we counted how many of them mentioned a term that was related to Alabama (e.g. “Alabama”, “Bama”, “Tide”, and “Saban”).  We divided this number of tweets by the total number of tweets collected from College Station.  We performed this analysis separately for 2012 and 2013.  This gave us the Twitter Share of Voice for the match-up in 2012 and 2013 in College Station.  We did the exact same thing for the pool of tweets from Tuscaloosa in 2012 and 2013, but we looked for Texas A&M related terms (e.g. “Aggies”, “TAMU”, “Manziel”, and “Johnny Football”).  We believe that the Twitter Share of Voice metric is a good proxy for the level of game related chatter in the two markets.

The results indicate that while both communities seem to care a lot more about the game this year than they did last year, the Texas A&M community cares a lot more about the match-up than the people in Tuscaloosa.  We look forward to performing a similar analysis when Alabama plays Auburn later this year.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University, 2013.

Ranking SEC Football Fans: Georgia beats out Alabama

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.

As a rule, when we begin any analysis we start with no prior expectations about the results.  We let theory and numbers guide our findings.  However, living in the South, it is hard not to witness the extreme passion and loyalty of SEC fans on a daily basis.  The SEC football season is year-round (season, recruiting, spring football).  Therefore, we were not surprised when the SEC was the top rated conference in our college football Revenue Premium Brand Equity rankings.   Given the passion of SEC fans, we expect that our SEC conference rankings will engender a lot of “constructive discussion”.

The University of Georgia has the number one ranked football fan base in the SEC according to our study.  It should be pointed out that this study covers a ten year period, and that the top four ranked schools in the SEC are also among the top ranked football fan bases in the country.  So, what separates Georgia from Alabama?   Over the period of our study, both Georgia and Alabama averaged between 9 and 10 wins a season.  However, Georgia averaged 12% more in revenues per year than Alabama.  Alabama also had a couple of years in the beginning of our sample (2002 & 2004) where the home games were not all filled to capacity.  Thus, over the period of our study, when we control for team performance and other institutional factors, the Georgia fan base is just a bit more loyal and devoted.

Auburn University finished in third place, being just edged out by its friendly neighbor, Alabama.  The Crimson Tide generated slightly more revenue per year on average than the Tigers, despite averaging almost the identical number of wins.  Also, while Alabama’s revenues are growing, Auburn has been facing a decline.   The University of Florida finished fourth in our study.   The Gators actually average 6.9% more revenue per year than Auburn, however they also averaged 0.5 more wins per season during the period of our study.  Remember, our conjecture is that it is easier for a fan to shell out for a team when the team is winning games, thus we control for team performance.

Vanderbilt is ranked 11th in our study.  We would like to point out that the last couple of years have been positive for the Commodores, and although lagged, the revenues for the football program seem to be improving.  Ole Miss and Mississippi State are at the bottom of the study of SEC fan bases.  During the period of our study, Ole Miss and Mississippi State actually averaged more wins per season than Vanderbilt.  However, Ole Miss generated roughly the same amount of revenue as Vandy, and Mississippi State generated 20% less.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.

PREVIOUS: RANKING THE PAC-12

NEXT: OVERALL RANKINGS

Ranking the “Best” Fan Bases in College Football

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.

NEXT: RANKING THE NON-BCS CONFERENCE SCHOOLS

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University, 2013.

Basketball Conference Realignment: Winners and Losers

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.

 

Vanderbilt & Florida Best at Converting Talent into NBA Draft Picks: Ranking the SEC

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 SEC.    The chart below lists our efficiency rankings for the SEC (for more details on our methodology, please click here).  Vanderbilt was the leader in the SEC in converting talent into NBA draft picks.  The Commodores were followed by Florida and then traditional power Kentucky.  To all of our friends in Lexington, we realize that Coach Calipari has done an excellent job in producing NBA draft picks.  Our analysis covers the recruiting classes of 2002 to 2011, and thus Calipari only comes in at the tail-end of the sample.  We are trying to look at long-term trends.  It is quite likely that if we only looked at the Calipari era, Kentucky would be on top.

In the period of our study, 14.3% of 3-Star recruits at Vanderbilt were drafted into the NBA (The overall national draft rate for 3-Star recruits during this period was 3%).  The Commodores only had one 5-Star recruit during the time-frame of our study, and that 5-Star recruit was drafted.  Thus, Vandy was able to effectively convert the limited high-level of talent that it recruited, and it was able to transform lower-ranked talent into NBA material at a rate far above the national average.

During the time period of our study, Kentucky and Florida had 32% and 21% of their overall recruits drafted, respectively.  This puts both schools in the top 10 in the country for overall percentage of recruits drafted.  While Kentucky had 72% of their 5-Star recruits drafted (the national average was 51%), they did not do as well with lower-rated recruits as compared to Florida.  Florida had 26% of their 4-Star recruits drafted (the national average was 13%), and also had 3-Star and non-rated recruits drafted during the time period of our study.

PREVIOUS POST: RANKING THE BIG-12

NEXT POST: RANKING THE BIG EAST

The Best Fan Bases in the Southeastern Conference (SEC)

Our series on the Best Fan Bases in college basketball continues with an examination of the Southeastern Conference (SEC).  The Arkansas Razorbacks are on top, followed by the Kentucky Wildcats and the Florida Gators.  LSU and South Carolina are on the bottom of the rankings.  (Note: For additional information on our methodology, click here)

One possible point of contention is that Arkansas rates higher than perennial power Kentucky.  The key to the separation between the two schools is that while both Arkansas and Kentucky receive outstanding support, Arkansas’ support occurs despite less on-court success (Kentucky averaged 9 more wins per year than Arkansas over the period of the study).  The other possible interpretation is that Kentucky tends to underprice tickets, and may collect less revenue than possible.

LSU and South Carolina are at the bottom of the rankings for the SEC.  In the time period of our study, LSU made the NCAA tournament four times (including a Final Four), but in three of those years they still could never get above 66% in average attendance/capacity.  South Carolina averaged just over 50% in average attendance/capacity in seasons where they had over 20 wins.