Over on the AAC board, someone brought up which conferences have the most "national brand" schools. I've seen this brought up on numerous occasions and there seems to be many differing opinions on the matter.

Does it mean having a national following or just people knowing who you are across the country? Some schools claim to have a national brand in certain sports. Others claim to be an all-around national brand.

What does it mean to you and (in your opinion) who falls in what category?

I tend to first judge a National Brand by how strong it's National Recruiting is. It used to be about if you were known nationally but thanks to an overbloated sports media, we all know about every school.

Recruiting seems to be the best stat to judge this upon. It does a pretty good job of representing the amount of Respect a program has nationally.

I think of it as the "kings," the powerhouses, who draw huge amounts of attention if they are winning and decent even when they aren't.

As far as recruiting, some schools recruit nationally and others stick to their region for the most part. Its not like basketball where anyone may chase a certain basketball player.

There are differing opinions on the kings. I would include USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St., Alabama, Notre Dame, Florida, FSU and Miami. Other people don't think the Florida schools have been good long enough, but they were so dominate in the 80s and 90s, their pre-80s limited success is now irrelevant.

Probably the next 4 brands are all SEC schools, and some would include them in the top group-LSU, Tennessee, Georgia and Auburn.

There are other schools that are close to those 16 in national interest, but don't have the consistent results and following.

So that gives you 1 Pac 12, 2 Big 12, 4 Big 10, 2 ACC, 2-6 SEC, 1 independent.

It's people knowing who you are. Southern Cal under Pete Carroll was almost a house hold name. Since his departure it has taken a hit on the national seen. Oregon currently is enjoying a national brand and so is Alabama.

(02-28-2015 01:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Over on the AAC board, someone brought up which conferences have the most "national brand" schools. I've seen this brought up on numerous occasions and there seems to be many differing opinions on the matter.

Does it mean having a national following or just people knowing who you are across the country? Some schools claim to have a national brand in certain sports. Others claim to be an all-around national brand.

What does it mean to you and (in your opinion) who falls in what category?

it's not 98% of the teams that dude listed over there

(02-28-2015 03:55 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  It's people knowing who you are. Southern Cal under Pete Carroll was almost a house hold name. Since his departure it has taken a hit on the national seen. Oregon currently is enjoying a national brand and so is Alabama.

You know I would not exactly say that...Southern Cal took a hit because people were used to it being a 10-12 win program every single year. And the sanctions they had took that away for about 2 or 3 seasons.

If you had to ask me USC has one of the youngest and most talented teams in the Pac-12 right now. I would be shocked if they lose more than two games next season.

And if they bring in another class like they did this year that 2016 game with Alabama is going to be a clash of two Titans.

But you can walk into a Walmart in Huntsville, Alabama and find USC gear.....Think about that for a moment lol.

A national brand is being able to find the universities gear pretty much nation wide.

A casual sports fan knows the team. Someone who doesn't follow sports has heard of them and knows they are good.

UNLV was a national brand for a bit back in the runnin reb days. Boise even gathered a bit of a national brand. They take awhile to build, but it takes a lot less for them to go. I don't consider Nebraska or Miami a national brands anymore.

Most are fleeting, but for most years teams like Bama & USC, Duke & Kansas (in basketball) are national brands.

IMO it means that you are a program that pretty much all general "sports fans" recognize.

IOW, If I'm flipping channels and see basketball players in blue and white with the "D" logo being referred to as "blue devils" then I know instantly it's Duke.

Or if I'm watching football and see one side in crimson with just numbers on their helmet playing player in hunter orange with same colored checkered end zones, I know immediately I'm watching the Tide vs Vols.

The elite programs have national brands. There are only 6 truly elite programs.

(02-28-2015 05:06 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  A national brand is being able to find the universities gear pretty much nation wide.

A casual sports fan knows the team. Someone who doesn't follow sports has heard of them and knows they are good.

UNLV was a national brand for a bit back in the runnin reb days. Boise even gathered a bit of a national brand. They take awhile to build, but it takes a lot less for them to go. I don't consider Nebraska or Miami a national brands anymore.

Most are fleeting, but for most years teams like Bama & USC, Duke & Kansas (in basketball) are national brands.

My definition of being a national brand is that it's inherently NOT fleeting. If it's fleeting, then all that it means is that it's a team that was temporarily good. There's needs to be a an extra factor of timelessness that stays whether the program is up and down. To me, Miami and Nebraska are still national brands in a way that, say, Oregon isn't as of yet. It's NOT about "what have you done for me lately?" Notre Dame is a national brand even if they go 0-12 in a season, while Boise State won't ever be the national brand that ND is no matter how many wins that they might have.

You don't have to be elite to be a national brand...a few of you think elite in FB is all that matters...sigh

To me, a national brand is one that is immediately recognizable all over the country.

For example, when I met my ex-wife's family in very rural Nebraska many years ago, I was wearing a UConn sweatshirt and they knew exactly what UConn was ("the Huskies"). If I was wearing a Rutgers or UMass sweatshirt, I probably would have needed to explain ... "Rutgers is the state university of New Jersey. The team is called the Scarlet Knights", or "UMass is the main campus of the University of Massachusetts. We are the Minutemen".

(02-28-2015 05:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You don't have to be elite to be a national brand...a few of you think elite in FB is all that matters...sigh

this

(02-28-2015 05:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You don't have to be elite to be a national brand...a few of you think elite in FB is all that matters...sigh

Yes, Georgetown has been a national brand and they don't even play FBS or FCS football.

(02-28-2015 06:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 05:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You don't have to be elite to be a national brand...a few of you think elite in FB is all that matters...sigh

Yes, Georgetown has been a national brand and they don't even play FBS or FCS football.

They play FCS in the Patriot League.

(02-28-2015 06:28 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 06:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 05:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You don't have to be elite to be a national brand...a few of you think elite in FB is all that matters...sigh

Yes, Georgetown has been a national brand and they don't even play FBS or FCS football.

They play FCS in the Patriot League.

Thanks. I watch the FCS playoffs, and I don't remember seeing them play or even hearing about them in those telecasts.

(02-28-2015 05:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You don't have to be elite to be a national brand...a few of you think elite in FB is all that matters...sigh

In terms of realignment, football is what matters. Basketball is an afterthought. There are, of course, national brands in basketball-UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Georgetown, Syracuse and perhaps some others.

(02-28-2015 06:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 05:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You don't have to be elite to be a national brand...a few of you think elite in FB is all that matters...sigh

In terms of realignment, football is what matters. Basketball is an afterthought. There are, of course, national brands in basketball-UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Georgetown, Syracuse and perhaps some others.

UConn has been better than every one of those schools the last 20 years, but you left them out.

(02-28-2015 07:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 06:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 05:23 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You don't have to be elite to be a national brand...a few of you think elite in FB is all that matters...sigh

In terms of realignment, football is what matters. Basketball is an afterthought. There are, of course, national brands in basketball-UCLA, Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Indiana, Georgetown, Syracuse and perhaps some others.

UConn has been better than every one of those schools the last 20 years, but you left them out.

"Brand" doesn't necessarily correlate perfectly with success over a given time span. E.g., yes, UConn has been more successful in basketball the last 20 years than anybody, but clearly UConn is not as big a brand as Kentucky or Duke, and I'd say also less a national brand name than all of the other teams the other poster mentioned even though UConn has had WAY more national success than any of those during that time. Louisville is a bigger brand name than UConn too.

Likewise, in football Boise has clearly been more successful than Notre Dame the last 15 years, but are nowhere near as big a brand name.

(02-28-2015 05:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To me, Miami and Nebraska are still national brands in a way that, say, Oregon isn't as of yet.

Miami is an example of how a program can lose that status, or maybe an example of someone stretching the "king" label too far.

Your comparison proves the point. Is Miami's "brand" still ahead of Oregon right now? You might think so, but that would be a minority opinion. I would say that neither Miami nor Oregon is in "permanent" status. It really hasn't been that long since Washington was universally thought of as the #2 "name" football program in the Pac and the Ducks were the team that was always overshadowed by them; now it's the other way around. Actually Miami and Washington would be a good comparison, both are now at the point where it's, "I remember back when they were great."

However many teams you want to put in that "king" category, there are fewer than ten that are "permanent", that is, they could be mediocre for ten years and still have that "king" status. Miami is not one of those programs.