Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.
Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.
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.
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.