2014 College Football Fan Equity Rankings: Texas, Notre Dame, & UGA are on Top

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

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

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

For our SEC Rankings, please click here.

After a summer of examining fan quality in the NBA, NHL, MLB, NFL, and College Basketball, finally we get to the most important sport in the South, College Football.  The winner this year (and last year) and probably into the distant future in our ranking of college football fan bases is the University of Texas.  It’s not close.   Following Texas, we have a top 5 of Notre Dame, Georgia, Florida, and Auburn.

2014 College Football Fan Equity RankingsOne notable loser from our previous rankings is Penn State.  The Nittany Lions dropped from the top ten to number sixteen.  And what about other power schools like Alabama and LSU?  They finished 11th and 12th, respectively.

Our approach is data and statistically driven, as we look at how fans support their teams after controlling for how well the team performs on the field, the market it plays in, and school characteristics.  For the fan equity analysis, we build a statistical model using publicly available data from the last fourteen years that predicts team revenues as a function of metrics related to team performance such as winning percentage, bowl participation, and other factors such as number of students, stadium capacity, etc.  We then compare actual revenues over the last few years to what is predicted by our model.  Please click here for an explanation of why we use this approach to fan equity measurement.   Click here for more information on the methodologies behind our studies of fan quality in general. 

Mike Lewis & Manish Tripathi, Emory University 2014.

What Schools Recruit the Best, the Worst and Perhaps a Bit too Well?

For the final entry in our college basketball recruiting series we have taken a look at how well different schools recruited for the period from 2002 to 2011.This is the culmination of our other analyses that looked at factors that are expected to affect recruiting such as a team’s fan base support and ability to convert recruiting hauls into draft picks.  In this last entry we take a look at how schools recruit versus how we would expect schools to recruit.

What do we mean by “expect schools to recruit?”  Basically, our premise is that recruits are interested in playing for teams that have supportive fan bases, play in high profile conferences, are successful on the court, have significant financial resources, produce NBA players and have storied histories.  Our analysis begins with a model that predicts recruiting results (we use Rivals recruiting points as the dependent variable) as a function of these factors (revenues, last season winning rates, previous NCAA tourney appearances, previous final fours, recruit conversion into draft picks, conference, etc…).

We then compare a school’s actual recruiting results with the model’s prediction for each year in the data.  We then look at the ten year average of the difference between the actual and the predicted results (the residuals) to classify schools as over and underachievers. Because our results have the potential to stir up emotions, before we get into specific results we should make a couple of points clear.  First, the meanings of over achieving and under achieving recruiting results can be interpreted in multiple ways.  One interpretation is that schools (and coaches) that “over” achieve do a great job in attracting recruits.  However, given that the model controls for factors such as winning rates, being on the list of over achievers can also imply that the school underachieves on the court with the given talent.  Likewise, at the bottom of the list, “under” achieving can be interpreted as either lousy recruiting or an ability to get the most out of recruits.

The Top 10 list for the high majors is led by Texas at number one (I can almost hear Texas fans saying that this proves that Rick Barnes is a poor game coach), UCONN at 2, Florida at 3, Villanova at 4 and Memphis at 5.  Duke was number 10.

At the very bottom of the list of high majors we have Boston College, Houston and Arkansas.  In the cases of Boston College and Arkansas, these are fascinating results.  These schools regularly make the tournament and win games.  They just don’t seem to be able to draw elite recruits.  If I am a college AD looking for a new coach, I would take a close look at the coaches at these schools.  Perhaps these are coaches that if surrounded by super start recruiters could build elite programs.

While we aren’t going to spend much time on the mid majors in this analysis, our analysis did yield one very interesting finding for this group.  The school at the very bottom of the list is Butler.  Again, this is a result that can be spun in either direction.  Perhaps Brad Stevens is truly a basketball savant who can succeed with any players.  Alternatively, maybe schools like Illinois and UCLA dodged a bullet because Stevens would not have been able to recruit at the high major level.

Finally, maybe the most interesting element of our analysis is that we are able to identify recruiting results that are statistically unlikely.  If we agree that our model captures the key drivers of recruiting (expenditures, revenues, past success, current success, conference affiliation, conversion of recruits to NBA picks, etc…) then exceptional recruiting hauls should be a bit troubling.  These unusual results mean that either a given coach or program have a “specialness” not included in the model.  We will let readers speculate as to what this “specialness” might be. Our list includes three programs: Kentucky, Texas and Villanova.

The Kentucky results are especially dramatic.  Our calculations (which are a bit of the back of the envelope variety) suggest that the probability of Kentucky’s results occurring by chance is just 1%.  But again, we do acknowledge that there may be something special about this program that our model doesn’t capture.  However, we should also note that we do not find a similar “specialness” for schools such as North Carolina, Kansas, Duke and UCLA.  And to take things just a step farther if we just look at John Calipari’s results across Memphis and Kentucky our estimated probability of his recruiting results is less than .1%.  As before we acknowledge that we may be omitted a variable or two that captures coach Calipari’s recruiting gifts, but our model doesn’t identify other high powered recruiters such as Thad Matta, Bill Self or Coach K as outliers.

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

Ranking the “Best” Football Fans in the Big 12: Texas & Oklahoma on Top

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.

PREVIOUS: RANKING THE AAC

NEXT: RANKING THE BIG 10

 

Iowa State & Kansas Best at Converting Talent into NBA Draft Picks: Ranking the Big-12

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

 

Why Texas and Oklahoma State are Ahead of Kansas: The Best Fan Bases in the Big 12

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)