Big Ten CFB Rankings & College versus Pro Fandom

The Big Ten rankings start with the University of Michigan.  A passionate fan base that fills a massive stadium even when losing to the teams ranks 2 (Ohio State) and 3 (Michigan State).  In positions 4 and 5, we have Nebraska and Penn State.  It’s an interesting aside that the Big Ten has most of its premium brands concentrated in one of its divisions (East).

In positions 6 through 10, we have Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois and Maryland.  Seems about right.  Full disclosure – I’m an Illini.  Next we have Northwestern.  I did my PhD at NU and I don’t think I ever met a true NU fan.  We then have Indiana (basketball school) and Rutgers.  Purdue rounds out the league.

I’ll be interested to hear the complaints about this ranking.  OSU never wants to be behind Michigan.  And I could see some objections to Penn State and Nebraska trailing Michigan State.  The relative rankings of some of the recent additions does raise some questions.  Were Rutgers and Maryland the right moves?  As the importance of cable television wains over the next decade, the East coast expansion strategy may be less relevant.

College versus Pro Fandom

At the level of the individual fan, I suspect that college fandom is often even deeper than professional fandom.  Students and Alumni are directly connected to their teams.  When college fans say “We” they are talking about an institution to which they permanently belong.  In the case of the “Pros”, the fan often “just lives there.”  This isn’t always the case and pro fandom can be intense and borderline crazy.  In the past when people tended to be less mobile (and ordinary fans were not priced out of stadiums), affinity for and connection to a team may have started before kindergarten and been a lifelong affair.

When I publish my NFL fan base rankings I get some very aggressive hatred (Go Raiders!).  There are towns where pro fandom dominates.  Chicago is one such town.  It’s a Cubs and Bears town (and sometimes Bulls).  And the college teams (at least when I used to live there) get a lot less media.  It’s an aside, but DePaul basketball would be a fascinating case study as a college team that had and lost a significant media presence.  I also believe that Illinois is something of a “sleeping” brand equity giant.  On the unfortunately rare occasion when Illinois sports are relevant they are able to have an impact in Chicago.  In sports brand development, winning big is key but consistency also matters.

Everyone in Chicago can affiliate with the Bears or Cubs but it almost feels a little artificial to root for a school that you did not attend.  But at the level of the individual fan being a graduate or a school results in a deeper affiliation than being a resident.  The marketing challenge is how to leverage this natural fan base to come up with an aspirational brand that attracts non-attendees (and potential future students).  The Chicago metro area has a population of more than 9.5 million while I’m guessing that the Urbana-Champaign alumni base is less than half a million spread out across the globe.

A problem with any discussion of fandom (on the internet) is that we are talking about the “average” fan.  And we always have the classic problem that fandom varies with team performance.  I’m an Illini so I can speak to how fan passion changes over time.  As a student in the 1980s the football team was solid and the basketball team was great.  The Flying Illini were the best team in the country in 1989.  Don’t care that they didn’t win it all. It was easy to be a fan of the Flying Illini.

But the 1990s brought a collapse of both the football and basketball programs and I admit I tuned out.  But then we had Bill Self, Frankie Williams, Dee Brown, Juice Williams, Ron Zook, an NCAA finals appearance and a trip to the Rose Bowl.  And I was back in.

Now we are back in the wasteland and I’m tuning in less and less every year.

But, if they turn it around, I’m almost sure that I’m back in.  I think what the college affiliation ultimately provides is a reduction in fair-weather fandom.  If the Illini go 500 in football, I’m tuning in to see the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl appearance.  And I’m in for the next year.

This goes to the heart of the pro versus college fandom issue.  With “my” school I’m more resilient to mediocre or even poor performance.  Even now I follow recruiting for both Illini sports and tune in to a lot of first halves.  It also takes less for me to become fully engaged.  A 7 and 5 year with competitive games and I’m watching everything I can find.  Being an Alumni is forever and it’s often a key part of someone’s identity.

For the overall college football fan rankings, click here.

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.

Building Your Personal Brand: The Twitter Impact of National Signing Day

Edited NSD TwitterBuilding a Twitter following can be seen as a mechanism for developing an individual’s personal brand.  Athletes are investing in growing their personal brands at a young age.  We find evidence for this phenomenon in an examination of the young men who signed letters of intent for college football yesterday.  The table above presents a Twitter profile for the top thirty high school senior football players according to ESPN (we were not able to locate a Twitter account for Juju Smith & Dalvin Cook, so they have been excluded).   In addition to the overall total Twitter followers for each student, we also looked at the Twitter activity for each student in the last seven days.  We collected all tweets that included the student’s Twitter handle (e.g. @JabrillPeppers) over the last seven days.  The tweets were classified as having positive, negative, or neutral sentiment.   A few observations:

1)      Each student on the list has over 1,000 Twitter followers.  The median is just above 5K followers. 

2)      Students that waited until National Signing Day to announce their decision, tended to have more tweets overall and more negative tweets.

3)      The majority (85%) of the tweets over the last seven days occurred on National Signing Day.

This is just a snapshot of the top thirty, but we plan to study a larger pool of student-athletes over time, to analyze how their decisions and performance impact their personal brands.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory 2014.

 

What if the Heisman Trophy Really Was A Popularity Contest?

Ballots for the Heisman Trophy were due yesterday.  Ostensibly, the Heisman Trophy “annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity”.  However, many have argued throughout the years that the Heisman is essentially a large popularity contest.  This view is supported by the millions of dollars annually spent by universities on publicity campaigns for their Heisman candidates.  There are 928 voters for the Heisman Trophy.  This includes members of the media, former winners, and 1 “fan vote” that represents the public at large.  We were curious to see what would happen if the general public was completely responsible for determining the winner of the Heisman Trophy.  As with past studies, we decided to use Twitter as a proxy for the views of the public.  Below, we present our methodology and results.

The first thing to consider is how does one define “Popularity” on Twitter.  Often, studies will use the volume/number of mentions on Twitter as a proxy for popularity.  However, this measure does not account for sentiment (positive, negative, or neutral), which could be important in the decision to vote for someone.  So, we constructed a daily “popularity” measure that is the product of the volume of tweets mentioning a candidate and the average sentiment of those tweets (Note: we tried several specifications of the “popularity” measure, but the rankings were robust).

Once we had a method for determining popularity, we decided to look at the six Heisman Trophy finalists: Johnny Manziel, Jameis Winston, A.J. McCarron, Tre Mason, Jordan Lynch, and Andre Williams.  The pie chart on the left looks at the sum of the popularity measure for each candidate over the entire season (mid-August to Dec 9th).  Johnny Manziel is by far the leader of the pack.  This could potentially be attributed to the stellar start of his season, as well as his huge following.  Heisman-favorite Jameis Winston is in second place, and A.J. McCarron is third.  It’s incredible that Manziel leads Winston by more than a 2:1 margin.  We realize that Heisman voters mark their ballots for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place, and we are simply looking at most “popular”.

We performed a similar analysis, looking at only the last month and looking at only the last week.   It’s remarkable to see the variation in “popularity” over time.  Tre Mason had a relative 5% popularity if you look at the full season, but 11% over the last month, and 24% over the last week.  In the analysis of popularity over the last week, James Winston barely edges out Manziel for 1st place.  To better understand the factors behind these movements in popularity, we would have to perform content analysis on the tweets to determine what topics were being discussed with respect to these athletes; that is left for a future study.

It is interesting to note that in the their final straw poll, Heisman Pundit has the following ranking: 1) Winston, 2) Lynch, 3) Manziel, 4) Mason, and 5) McCarron.  The “popularity” measure for over the last week gives the ranking: 1) Winston, 2) Manziel, 3) Mason, 4) McCarron, and 5) Lynch.  Jordan Lynch is the only player of these top 5 that plays for a “Non-AQ” school (Northern Illinois).  Perhaps Lynch in second place is evidence that voters look at performance on the field, and not just popularity, however if Heisman Pundit’s straw poll is correct, it seems a lot can be explained by recent popularity.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.

 

 

Twitter Analysis: Who Really Talks About Their Rivals?

It’s rivalry week, and while there is much debate about the best rivalry in college football, it is generally agreed that the Iron Bowl (Auburn versus Alabama) and Ohio State versus Michigan are two of the top rivalry games in college football.  While both sides in these rivalries seem to hate each other, we were curious to determine if the level of vitriol was even or more one-sided in these two storied matchups.  What we found was interesting:  1) discussion around Michigan football seems to encompass A LOT more of the general conversation in Columbus than discussion of Buckeye football in Ann Arbor and 2) after accounting for where the game is being played, the relative level of discussion about the rival school is fairly even in Auburn and Tuscaloosa.

Similar to previous studies, we used geo-coded data from Twitter to serve as a proxy for fan conversation.  We collected all Twitter conversation in Ann Arbor, Columbus, Auburn, and Tuscaloosa for the Monday before the rivalry game in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.  We then calculated the percentage of tweets in that city that were about the opposing school’s football team (“Rival Team Share of Twitter Voice”).   Thus, we had a metric for how much of the conversation in a city was about the rival team.  It is interesting to note that we also determined the average sentiment for tweets in a city that were about the rival football team.  The average sentiment was very negative, but similar across years and cities (translation:  the toxicity of the comments about rivals is the same whether you are in Columbus, Ann Arbor, Auburn, or Tuscaloosa).

We would expect that a rivalry where both local fan bases hated (or were obsessed with) each other at a similar level would have relatively similar “Rival Team Share of Twitter Voice”.  However, we found that in the past four years, regardless of where the game is played, or who won the previous year, the percentage of conversation in Columbus regarding Michigan Football is at least twice the percentage of conversation in Ann Arbor regarding Ohio State football.  Thus, there seems to be a bit of an asymmetric rivalry here with respect to how much one of local fan bases spends its time talking about their rival.  It should be noted that 7% of the population of Columbus are Ohio State students (57,466 out of  809,798) while 37% of the population of Ann Arbor are Michigan students (43,426 out of 116,121).

The Auburn-Alabama rivalry seems to be more even with respect to the level of conversation regarding one’s rivals.  We found that the site of the game seems to change the direction of the ratio of the “Rival Team Share of Twitter Voice”.  If the game is in Tuscaloosa, then local Alabama fans spend more of their time talking about Auburn football than local Auburn fans spend discussing Alabama football.  If the game is in Auburn, then that trend is reversed.  Perhaps the Iron Bowl being played in their hometown adds some more desire to trash talk for the local fans.  It should be noted that 45% of the population of Auburn are Auburn students (25,469 out of 56,908) while 37% of the population of Tuscaloosa are Alabama students (34,852 out of 93,357).

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.

Instant Twitter Analysis: USC angrier but Texas Cares More

When teams lose fans get angry and coaches get fired.  Twitter now allows us to get an instant picture of fan anger.  Over the first week and day of the college football season, two coaches have emerged as mostly likely to be run out of town.  According to Topsy, Mack Brown has been the subject of the most negative tweets (2,550) but Lane Kiffen has the highest rate of negative to positive tweets (2 times as many negative as positive tweets).

USC fans are angrier but Texas fans are more involved.

College Football Brand Equity Rankings: The Overall List

Over the last two weeks, we have been reporting our football fan base rankings conference by conference.  Today, we turn to our overall ranking.  We started the list with an analysis of the brand/customer equity of the major conferences.  The Big Ten and the SEC are the leading conferences largely because they have strong TV deals.  That being said, the number one team on our list is not a member of either the Big Ten or the SEC.

Number one on the list is the University of Texas.  The Longhorns have some built in advantages that make it such a powerhouse.  Texas is the flagship school in a highly populated state with an incredible football culture.  Texas is also interesting because it is such a frequent target in realignment discussions.   Texas would bring the most valuable fan base to any conference.   In fact, Texas football is such a valuable property that we doubt that they will move anytime soon.  Texas is a strong enough brand to keep the Big Twelve a viable conference.  This means that Texas has an immense amount of bargaining power within the Big Twelve; which would be lost in a move to the Big Ten or the SEC.

Number 2 on the list is a bit of a surprise.  Based on the numbers, we found Georgia to have the second highest customer equity.  We go into more detail about Georgia football in our SEC writeup.

Number three on the list is the Big Ten’s Ohio State Buckeyes.  Ohio State has many of the same advantages as Texas, as they are the flagship school in a highly populated and football crazy state.

Numbers 4 and 5 on the list also hail from the Big Ten.  We have Penn State in 4th place and Michigan in 5th.  These are two interesting cases, since PSU is obviously in a transitional stage, and may fade a bit over the next couple of years, while Michigan is making moves to become even more profitable.  In positions 6 through 8, we have Alabama, Auburn and Florida.  Our rankings seem to confirm that the SEC and Big Ten are college football’s top conferences.

The 9th place team is one that we haven’t talked about in any of our previous rankings, Notre Dame.  Our guess is that Notre Dame fans will feel slighted by their 9th place ranking.  But, at the end of the day, our approach is driven by a combination of revenue and team quality data.  What we find is that Notre Dame is a great college football brand, but far from the dominant brand their fans believe it to be.

In tenth place we have the lone West Coast team in the rankings.  The Washington Huskies were the surprise leader in the Pac 12, beating out teams like USC and Oregon.

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2013.

PREVIOUS: RANKING THE SEC