(02-28-2015 09:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(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.

If Miami has a good year, everybody watches them. And a lot more would watch them than Oregon. Nobody would watch Oregon if they were 6-6.

Minnesota is the example of losing a brand status. They were a power into the 60s. Tennessee has been working on it. They had a mediocre 80s, came back strong, but now are really struggling. Miami is probably the most vulnerable of the brands, but they still generate excitement when they win. They haven't lost it yet.

(02-28-2015 10:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 09:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(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.

You're right to some extent, perception takes a while to catch up with reality. UCLA won something like 12 championships in 13 years, but they've done almost nothing in the last 40 years and the brand is diminishing with each passing day. Conversely, it will take a while for UConn's brand to catch up with its success on the court.

Even so, I would argue that if you polled Americans nationally on naming "big time collegiate basketball programs", UConn would essentially tie all of them (within the margin of error) except for Kentucky and Duke. They'd blow out Georgetown by a mile.

But when you are more than a year removed from a national title is a lot better measure. What you would be measuring would be short term memory. UConn's been working its way up, but its not in the top group.

(03-01-2015 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:01 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:48 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Quo: You stated that "UCONN is not a bigger brand that Georgetown, despite four national titles" in your thread above.

I disagree. Gtown is still a national brand, although fading ever so much annually. However, UCONN is a much bigger national brand and it's not even close.

I guess we just have to disagree. IMO the Georgetown name still carries more cachet than UConn, at worst, it is even.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but since you have conceded that we can agree to disagree you are also clearly showing that we are talking about opinions rather than facts, which would be correct. Your opinion is Gtown is a bigger name nationally right now than UCONN. My opinion is that you are wrong. No problem. But since we are talking opinions, you need to state that rather than posting this stuff in such a way as as to present it as fact. It is not fact.

For the record, I think if we used metrics, UCONN would factually be shown to be a bigger name, but since we don't have the metrics, that is conjecture on my part. But if I'm a betting man, I lay my money on UCONN in this one.

First, I said that GT is bigger, at worst it is even, so I am not definitively saying GT is the bigger brand. It could be even, so obviously i think it is a close call. You are definitively saying UConn is bigger, and by a big margin ("it's not even close").

Second, I have not stated my opinion as 'fact' any more than you. In your previous post, you said that UConn is bigger and "it's not even close" and was stated just as much as a fact as anything I have said. In fact, I, not you, was the first in this exchange to mention that I was giving an opinion. And I never needed to "concede" that we can agree to disagree about opinions, as that is always the case and I have never denied that.

As for metrics, we'd have to chose the right ones. E.g., if Gonzaga is #2 and UCLA is unranked, then we couldn't use this year's TV ratings to claim Gonzaga is a bigger brand, since high-ranked teams usually out-draw unranked ones regardless of brand value. We need advertising Q-scores or the like.

And also merchandising sales outside of the area over 3-5 years.

I see Georgetown gear everywhere. Now that's anecdotal, not detailed metrics. Women's basketball is an entirely different issue.

(03-01-2015 11:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:35 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 10:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 09:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  "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.

You're right to some extent, perception takes a while to catch up with reality. UCLA won something like 12 championships in 13 years, but they've done almost nothing in the last 40 years and the brand is diminishing with each passing day. Conversely, it will take a while for UConn's brand to catch up with its success on the court.

Even so, I would argue that if you polled Americans nationally on naming "big time collegiate basketball programs", UConn would essentially tie all of them (within the margin of error) except for Kentucky and Duke. They'd blow out Georgetown by a mile.

Brand is a funny thing: UNLV was a national brand from the late 1970s until the mid-1990s. But not anymore, it faded away. Georgetown has been to one Final 4 in the past 30 years but is still a big-name national brand. Go figure, that's the way brand works. UConn is not a bigger brand than Georgetown, despite 4 national titles.

And yet, obviously there is a big connection between "brand" and success. Until Georgetown was successful in the 1980s, and UConn in the 1990s (and since), neither was a blip on the brand screen.

Verdicts:

1) You NEED a period of big-time success to become a national brand, nobody has become one without it.

2) But, size of brand doesn't necessarily correlate to level of success. E.g., Syracuse basketball is a bigger brand than UConn, despite much less success.

3) Other factors can help build and maintain a brand -a famous coach, a famous arena, famous players or team, a memorable mascot or fight song, etc.

FWIW, I'd say this is one reason UConn's brand isn't bigger than it is, it lacks these intangibles:

Coach: Jim Calhoun is the second-best coach since John Wooden, but he lacked the color and notoriety of coaches like Boeheim, Tark, and John Thompson, was never as famous as they were despite the bigger success.

Players: While some very good players have come through UConn and gone on to good NBA careers, they have never had any "signature" stars - nobody like a Patrick Ewing, Michael Jordan, Bill Walton, etc. I mean, Rip Hamilton was a very good NBA player, but when he retired a couple days ago, almost nobody noticed, most assumed he'd been gone a few years now.

Think about it: Bobby Hurley never played a minute in the NBA, and he's probably STILL more well-known, 20+ years after he ever played a game, than anybody who has played for or who has come out of UConn, ever. There is a fame-factor about UConn players that is lacking. Nobody ever heard of Kemba Walker before the 2011 NCAA tournament, even though he had a great senior year. He was a nationally- famous player for maybe a week his whole career. He's gone on to a very good NBA career, but almost nobody knows it. That doesn't help with the brand. In contrast, Patrick Ewing was famous for 4 years at Georgetown - not just famous within the college basketball world, he was well-known to the general sports public. That builds a brand.

Teams: Iconic teams and dynasties can help build a brand. Duke's brand was solidified by their early 90s dynasty that won back to back titles with well-known players like Grant Hill, Christian Laettner, and Bobby Hurley. Nationally, people knew that team, they were in the media spotlight for 3 full years. Georgetown's Hoya Paranoia team was also famous for three years. These teams were loved by their fans and "hated" by many others, but one way or the other, everybody in the sporting world knew them. The Fab 5 and Phi Slamma Jamma are other examples.

No UConn team has ever been famous. One reason is the nature of UConn's success. UConn has had massive success but no dynasties. UConn has never gone to the Final 4 in back to back years. Their 2011 and 2014 title teams are separated by just 3 years, but there was no continuity, it was like two entirely different teams.

UConn also lacks week in, week out consistency. This matters because it translates into media visibility. Some teams seem to live in the top 20, even though they never win anything. This translates into lots of highlight footage on Sportscenter, which tends to focus on the ranked teams. I bet Syracuse has spent more weeks in the top 20 the past 10 years than UConn, despite UConn's far greater success. At least it seems that way. UConn isn't constantly ranked, you guys just seem to blow in out of nowhere every 5 years to win a national title - an awesome thing to do but it doesn't provide the seemless media attention that builds brands. The last two UConn title teams, 2011 and 2014, were nothing-special also-rans in their own conferences that suddenly became unstoppable in the tournament. Amazing, but both were largely invisible in the media 90% of their winning years, again not helpful for brand-building.

We talk about "nothing matters until March", but from a brand POV this is not true. The regular season is 90% of the season, and media coverage during that time matters greatly. Look at Kentucky this year: Being #1 and unbeaten has resulted in CONSTANT media coverage the past 3 months. We are constantly bombarded by ESPN coverage of this team, speculation about who can knock them off, etc. All of their games are hyped and given good broadcast times for national exposure. Not that they need it, but even if UK bombs out in the second round of the NCAA tournament, this team has already provided the program with more brand-maintenance via media exposure than UConn's national title team - which nobody heard of until the second week of the tournament - did for UConn last year.

Also, UConn doesn't play in an iconic venue - no Carrier Dome, Rupp Arena, Cameron Indoor, etc.

All of these intangible things have mitigated the UConn brand, explain why your program isn't as famous as it should be. UConn, like Michigan State, is a "bland" program, not a glamor program.

Contrast this with your own women's program. The women's program has far more of a fame/glamor factor. Sure, the basis of that is the 8 national titles the past 20 years (or whatever ungodly number it is now), but you also have the intangibles: Geno is a colorful character, constantly quotable, he's more famous than Calhoun ever was. The womens' program has had dynasties. It has dominated regular seasons, not just exploded out of nowhere in tournaments. And it has had iconic players like Rebecca Lobo, Diana Taurasi, and Maya Moore. I couldn't care less about women's hoops, but I new those names without even having to think twice about them. Even among men's basketball fans, those names are arguably more famous than ANY UConn male players. Heck, I've already forgotten the names of the two guards who led UConn men to the title last year.

3) Once established, a brand may go on very strongly even if the success fades by comparison (e.g., Notre Dame in football, Georgetown in basketball), but it also may completely fade away (e.g., UNLV).

I agree with much of what you say. But in a national poll, if you ask the question: "Can you name a big-time college basketball program?", more people will respond with UConn than Georgetown, UCLA, Indiana, or Syracuse. The other schools (Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina) would probably come out ahead of UConn. Louisville would be a toss-up.

I think we're arguing apples and oranges. I'm arguing more on brand recognition and you're arguing more on brand value ($).

Your post is hypothetical and I'd say not true.

Your question: Can you name a big-time college basketball program?

Going on a few runs in March are awesome but the season is 5-6 months long

So what screams big time to a casual sports fan


or this


I didn't include the XL because it is a dump.

Sorry Syracuse is a bigger national brand than Connecticut in both hoops and football. You got us in ladies hoops.

I'm not so sure I agree with you on that one. Uconn seems a lot more popular in basketball right now than Syracuse.

Local attendance is a non factor in a debate of which team is more popular nationally.

(03-01-2015 11:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:35 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 10:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 09:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  "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.

You're right to some extent, perception takes a while to catch up with reality. UCLA won something like 12 championships in 13 years, but they've done almost nothing in the last 40 years and the brand is diminishing with each passing day. Conversely, it will take a while for UConn's brand to catch up with its success on the court.

Even so, I would argue that if you polled Americans nationally on naming "big time collegiate basketball programs", UConn would essentially tie all of them (within the margin of error) except for Kentucky and Duke. They'd blow out Georgetown by a mile.

Brand is a funny thing: UNLV was a national brand from the late 1970s until the mid-1990s. But not anymore, it faded away. Georgetown has been to one Final 4 in the past 30 years but is still a big-name national brand. Go figure, that's the way brand works. UConn is not a bigger brand than Georgetown, despite 4 national titles.

And yet, obviously there is a big connection between "brand" and success. Until Georgetown was successful in the 1980s, and UConn in the 1990s (and since), neither was a blip on the brand screen.

Verdicts:

1) You NEED a period of big-time success to become a national brand, nobody has become one without it.

2) But, size of brand doesn't necessarily correlate to level of success. E.g., Syracuse basketball is a bigger brand than UConn, despite much less success.

3) Other factors can help build and maintain a brand -a famous coach, a famous arena, famous players or team, a memorable mascot or fight song, etc.

FWIW, I'd say this is one reason UConn's brand isn't bigger than it is, it lacks these intangibles:

Coach: Jim Calhoun is the second-best coach since John Wooden, but he lacked the color and notoriety of coaches like Boeheim, Tark, and John Thompson, was never as famous as they were despite the bigger success.

Players: While some very good players have come through UConn and gone on to good NBA careers, they have never had any "signature" stars - nobody like a Patrick Ewing, Michael Jordan, Bill Walton, etc. I mean, Rip Hamilton was a very good NBA player, but when he retired a couple days ago, almost nobody noticed, most assumed he'd been gone a few years now.

Think about it: Bobby Hurley never played a minute in the NBA, and he's probably STILL more well-known, 20+ years after he ever played a game, than anybody who has played for or who has come out of UConn, ever. There is a fame-factor about UConn players that is lacking. Nobody ever heard of Kemba Walker before the 2011 NCAA tournament, even though he had a great senior year. He was a nationally- famous player for maybe a week his whole career. He's gone on to a very good NBA career, but almost nobody knows it. That doesn't help with the brand. In contrast, Patrick Ewing was famous for 4 years at Georgetown - not just famous within the college basketball world, he was well-known to the general sports public. That builds a brand.

Teams: Iconic teams and dynasties can help build a brand. Duke's brand was solidified by their early 90s dynasty that won back to back titles with well-known players like Grant Hill, Christian Laettner, and Bobby Hurley. Nationally, people knew that team, they were in the media spotlight for 3 full years. Georgetown's Hoya Paranoia team was also famous for three years. These teams were loved by their fans and "hated" by many others, but one way or the other, everybody in the sporting world knew them. The Fab 5 and Phi Slamma Jamma are other examples.

No UConn team has ever been famous. One reason is the nature of UConn's success. UConn has had massive success but no dynasties. UConn has never gone to the Final 4 in back to back years. Their 2011 and 2014 title teams are separated by just 3 years, but there was no continuity, it was like two entirely different teams.

UConn also lacks week in, week out consistency. This matters because it translates into media visibility. Some teams seem to live in the top 20, even though they never win anything. This translates into lots of highlight footage on Sportscenter, which tends to focus on the ranked teams. I bet Syracuse has spent more weeks in the top 20 the past 10 years than UConn, despite UConn's far greater success. At least it seems that way. UConn isn't constantly ranked, you guys just seem to blow in out of nowhere every 5 years to win a national title - an awesome thing to do but it doesn't provide the seemless media attention that builds brands. The last two UConn title teams, 2011 and 2014, were nothing-special also-rans in their own conferences that suddenly became unstoppable in the tournament. Amazing, but both were largely invisible in the media 90% of their winning years, again not helpful for brand-building.

We talk about "nothing matters until March", but from a brand POV this is not true. The regular season is 90% of the season, and media coverage during that time matters greatly. Look at Kentucky this year: Being #1 and unbeaten has resulted in CONSTANT media coverage the past 3 months. We are constantly bombarded by ESPN coverage of this team, speculation about who can knock them off, etc. All of their games are hyped and given good broadcast times for national exposure. Not that they need it, but even if UK bombs out in the second round of the NCAA tournament, this team has already provided the program with more brand-maintenance via media exposure than UConn's national title team - which nobody heard of until the second week of the tournament - did for UConn last year.

Also, UConn doesn't play in an iconic venue - no Carrier Dome, Rupp Arena, Cameron Indoor, etc.

All of these intangible things have mitigated the UConn brand, explain why your program isn't as famous as it should be. UConn, like Michigan State, is a "bland" program, not a glamor program.

Contrast this with your own women's program. The women's program has far more of a fame/glamor factor. Sure, the basis of that is the 8 national titles the past 20 years (or whatever ungodly number it is now), but you also have the intangibles: Geno is a colorful character, constantly quotable, he's more famous than Calhoun ever was. The womens' program has had dynasties. It has dominated regular seasons, not just exploded out of nowhere in tournaments. And it has had iconic players like Rebecca Lobo, Diana Taurasi, and Maya Moore. I couldn't care less about women's hoops, but I new those names without even having to think twice about them. Even among men's basketball fans, those names are arguably more famous than ANY UConn male players. Heck, I've already forgotten the names of the two guards who led UConn men to the title last year.

3) Once established, a brand may go on very strongly even if the success fades by comparison (e.g., Notre Dame in football, Georgetown in basketball), but it also may completely fade away (e.g., UNLV).

I agree with much of what you say. But in a national poll, if you ask the question: "Can you name a big-time college basketball program?", more people will respond with UConn than Georgetown, UCLA, Indiana, or Syracuse. The other schools (Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina) would probably come out ahead of UConn. Louisville would be a toss-up.

I think we're arguing apples and oranges. I'm arguing more on brand recognition and you're arguing more on brand value ($).

Your post is hypothetical and I'd say not true.

Your question: Can you name a big-time college basketball program?

Going on a few runs in March are awesome but the season is 5-6 months long

So what screams big time to a casual sports fan


or this


I didn't include the XL because it is a dump.

Sorry Syracuse is a bigger national brand than Connecticut in both hoops and football. You got us in ladies hoops.

I'll concede brand value and brand recognition on FB, as of now. I'm an optimist about the future for UConn FB.

In BB, brand value and brand recognition would be close. For example, I think if you asked season ticket holders at the University of New Mexico if they'd rather have Syracuse or UConn come play the Lobos,a majority would say UConn.

I love the pic of the Carrier Dome. Syracuse benefits from a lack of pro teams nearby. UConn competes with 15 pro franchises in our backyard. I wish we had your situation, although it is cool for the people of Connecticut to be within easy driving distance of NYC and Boston.

(03-01-2015 11:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:01 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:48 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Quo: You stated that "UCONN is not a bigger brand that Georgetown, despite four national titles" in your thread above.

I disagree. Gtown is still a national brand, although fading ever so much annually. However, UCONN is a much bigger national brand and it's not even close.

I guess we just have to disagree. IMO the Georgetown name still carries more cachet than UConn, at worst, it is even.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree but since you have conceded that we can agree to disagree you are also clearly showing that we are talking about opinions rather than facts, which would be correct. Your opinion is Gtown is a bigger name nationally right now than UCONN. My opinion is that you are wrong. No problem. But since we are talking opinions, you need to state that rather than posting this stuff in such a way as as to present it as fact. It is not fact.

For the record, I think if we used metrics, UCONN would factually be shown to be a bigger name, but since we don't have the metrics, that is conjecture on my part. But if I'm a betting man, I lay my money on UCONN in this one.

First, I said that GT is bigger, at worst it is even, so I am not definitively saying GT is the bigger brand. It could be even, so obviously i think it is a close call. You are definitively saying UConn is bigger, and by a big margin ("it's not even close").

Second, I have not stated my opinion as 'fact' any more than you. In your previous post, you said that UConn is bigger and "it's not even close" and was stated just as much as a fact as anything I have said. In fact, I, not you, was the first in this exchange to mention that I was giving an opinion. And I never needed to "concede" that we can agree to disagree about opinions, as that is always the case and I have never denied that.

As for metrics, we'd have to chose the right ones. E.g., if Gonzaga is #2 and UCLA is unranked, then we couldn't use this year's TV ratings to claim Gonzaga is a bigger brand, since high-ranked teams usually out-draw unranked ones regardless of brand value. We need advertising Q-scores or the like.

And also merchandising sales outside of the area over 3-5 years.

I see Georgetown gear everywhere. Now that's anecdotal, not detailed metrics. Women's basketball is an entirely different issue.

No where like it was back in the 80s and 90s though when they were the college BB version of Miami CFB. Down in Texas I see very little.

(03-01-2015 11:49 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:35 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-28-2015 10:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  You're right to some extent, perception takes a while to catch up with reality. UCLA won something like 12 championships in 13 years, but they've done almost nothing in the last 40 years and the brand is diminishing with each passing day. Conversely, it will take a while for UConn's brand to catch up with its success on the court.

Even so, I would argue that if you polled Americans nationally on naming "big time collegiate basketball programs", UConn would essentially tie all of them (within the margin of error) except for Kentucky and Duke. They'd blow out Georgetown by a mile.

Brand is a funny thing: UNLV was a national brand from the late 1970s until the mid-1990s. But not anymore, it faded away. Georgetown has been to one Final 4 in the past 30 years but is still a big-name national brand. Go figure, that's the way brand works. UConn is not a bigger brand than Georgetown, despite 4 national titles.

And yet, obviously there is a big connection between "brand" and success. Until Georgetown was successful in the 1980s, and UConn in the 1990s (and since), neither was a blip on the brand screen.

Verdicts:

1) You NEED a period of big-time success to become a national brand, nobody has become one without it.

2) But, size of brand doesn't necessarily correlate to level of success. E.g., Syracuse basketball is a bigger brand than UConn, despite much less success.

3) Other factors can help build and maintain a brand -a famous coach, a famous arena, famous players or team, a memorable mascot or fight song, etc.

FWIW, I'd say this is one reason UConn's brand isn't bigger than it is, it lacks these intangibles:

Coach: Jim Calhoun is the second-best coach since John Wooden, but he lacked the color and notoriety of coaches like Boeheim, Tark, and John Thompson, was never as famous as they were despite the bigger success.

Players: While some very good players have come through UConn and gone on to good NBA careers, they have never had any "signature" stars - nobody like a Patrick Ewing, Michael Jordan, Bill Walton, etc. I mean, Rip Hamilton was a very good NBA player, but when he retired a couple days ago, almost nobody noticed, most assumed he'd been gone a few years now.

Think about it: Bobby Hurley never played a minute in the NBA, and he's probably STILL more well-known, 20+ years after he ever played a game, than anybody who has played for or who has come out of UConn, ever. There is a fame-factor about UConn players that is lacking. Nobody ever heard of Kemba Walker before the 2011 NCAA tournament, even though he had a great senior year. He was a nationally- famous player for maybe a week his whole career. He's gone on to a very good NBA career, but almost nobody knows it. That doesn't help with the brand. In contrast, Patrick Ewing was famous for 4 years at Georgetown - not just famous within the college basketball world, he was well-known to the general sports public. That builds a brand.

Teams: Iconic teams and dynasties can help build a brand. Duke's brand was solidified by their early 90s dynasty that won back to back titles with well-known players like Grant Hill, Christian Laettner, and Bobby Hurley. Nationally, people knew that team, they were in the media spotlight for 3 full years. Georgetown's Hoya Paranoia team was also famous for three years. These teams were loved by their fans and "hated" by many others, but one way or the other, everybody in the sporting world knew them. The Fab 5 and Phi Slamma Jamma are other examples.

No UConn team has ever been famous. One reason is the nature of UConn's success. UConn has had massive success but no dynasties. UConn has never gone to the Final 4 in back to back years. Their 2011 and 2014 title teams are separated by just 3 years, but there was no continuity, it was like two entirely different teams.

UConn also lacks week in, week out consistency. This matters because it translates into media visibility. Some teams seem to live in the top 20, even though they never win anything. This translates into lots of highlight footage on Sportscenter, which tends to focus on the ranked teams. I bet Syracuse has spent more weeks in the top 20 the past 10 years than UConn, despite UConn's far greater success. At least it seems that way. UConn isn't constantly ranked, you guys just seem to blow in out of nowhere every 5 years to win a national title - an awesome thing to do but it doesn't provide the seemless media attention that builds brands. The last two UConn title teams, 2011 and 2014, were nothing-special also-rans in their own conferences that suddenly became unstoppable in the tournament. Amazing, but both were largely invisible in the media 90% of their winning years, again not helpful for brand-building.

We talk about "nothing matters until March", but from a brand POV this is not true. The regular season is 90% of the season, and media coverage during that time matters greatly. Look at Kentucky this year: Being #1 and unbeaten has resulted in CONSTANT media coverage the past 3 months. We are constantly bombarded by ESPN coverage of this team, speculation about who can knock them off, etc. All of their games are hyped and given good broadcast times for national exposure. Not that they need it, but even if UK bombs out in the second round of the NCAA tournament, this team has already provided the program with more brand-maintenance via media exposure than UConn's national title team - which nobody heard of until the second week of the tournament - did for UConn last year.

Also, UConn doesn't play in an iconic venue - no Carrier Dome, Rupp Arena, Cameron Indoor, etc.

All of these intangible things have mitigated the UConn brand, explain why your program isn't as famous as it should be. UConn, like Michigan State, is a "bland" program, not a glamor program.

Contrast this with your own women's program. The women's program has far more of a fame/glamor factor. Sure, the basis of that is the 8 national titles the past 20 years (or whatever ungodly number it is now), but you also have the intangibles: Geno is a colorful character, constantly quotable, he's more famous than Calhoun ever was. The womens' program has had dynasties. It has dominated regular seasons, not just exploded out of nowhere in tournaments. And it has had iconic players like Rebecca Lobo, Diana Taurasi, and Maya Moore. I couldn't care less about women's hoops, but I new those names without even having to think twice about them. Even among men's basketball fans, those names are arguably more famous than ANY UConn male players. Heck, I've already forgotten the names of the two guards who led UConn men to the title last year.

3) Once established, a brand may go on very strongly even if the success fades by comparison (e.g., Notre Dame in football, Georgetown in basketball), but it also may completely fade away (e.g., UNLV).

I agree with much of what you say. But in a national poll, if you ask the question: "Can you name a big-time college basketball program?", more people will respond with UConn than Georgetown, UCLA, Indiana, or Syracuse. The other schools (Kentucky, Duke, and North Carolina) would probably come out ahead of UConn. Louisville would be a toss-up.

I think we're arguing apples and oranges. I'm arguing more on brand recognition and you're arguing more on brand value ($).

Your post is hypothetical and I'd say not true.

Your question: Can you name a big-time college basketball program?

Going on a few runs in March are awesome but the season is 5-6 months long

So what screams big time to a casual sports fan


or this


I didn't include the XL because it is a dump.

Sorry Syracuse is a bigger national brand than Connecticut in both hoops and football. You got us in ladies hoops.

I'm not so sure I agree with you on that one. Uconn seems a lot more popular in basketball right now than Syracuse.

Local attendance is a non factor in a debate of which team is more popular nationally.

National Brand isn't one year. The crowd pictures draw an image for a fan on TV. Duke can pull off a 9-10k seat arena but mass is a good visual on TV...look at the SEC on TV for Football.

(03-01-2015 11:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  If Miami has a good year, everybody watches them. And a lot more would watch them than Oregon. Nobody would watch Oregon if they were 6-6.

Yep, that's the difference between enduring brand value and "fly by night" status.

(03-01-2015 11:24 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  My goodness, does Quo have to turn every thread into an anti AAC rant?

I have to admit, it's kind of impressive. He seems to know everything about everyone in the AAC. Of course, it's never positive.

(03-01-2015 02:35 PM)tnzazz Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:24 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  My goodness, does Quo have to turn every thread into an anti AAC rant?

I have to admit, it's kind of impressive. He seems to know everything about everyone in the AAC. Of course, it's never positive.

Exactly what have i said that constitutes an "anti-AAC rant"? Have I even mentioned the AAC at all?

FWIW, I think people here are getting lost in the weeds regarding what a true "national brand" is at it applies to colleges and universities.

I don't believe it is about sports, although that can play a role; nor is it about merchandising sales (which can be driven by heavy sales within a region), or national recruiting, etc.

It is important to remember that slightly less than half of the country follow sports regularly. Even less follow a specific collegiate sport. IMO, a university with a "true" national brand transcends sports. That institution is immediately recognized by just about everybody in the country. Five schools that I think meet this threshold would be Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Notre Dame. These schools have name recognition and panache that transcend sports.

Of course, others may believe, with justification, that others should be included. Indeed, this list is by no means complete.

Many other schools have brands centered around what they are best known for. Alabama, Ohio State and others, for example, are high profile brands in FB. Duke, Uconn, Kentucky, and others have high profile basketball brands. Boston College and Georgetown are considered two of the leading Jesuit institutions in the country. Boston College is know as the last Jesuit college to be playing "big time" football (with some recognition as an elite hockey program). All of these are just examples and others could, and should, be added. These programs, however (and the others which could easily be added), don't have the same "brand status" as the schools I listed initially, who I believe have instant recognition with most Americans nationally, regardless of whether or not they follow sports.

Just my two cents.

(03-01-2015 11:10 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 09:48 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Quo: You stated that "UCONN is not a bigger brand that Georgetown, despite four national titles" in your thread above.

I disagree. Gtown is still a national brand, although fading ever so much annually. However, UCONN is a much bigger national brand and it's not even close.

Ask 100 basketball fans across the nation from random states would you rather have UCONN or Gtown in your conference for basketball I'm going to say 80 to 90 of 100 would take UCONN.

Throw in women's hoops with the men and it's probably 95 out of 100.

The average male sports fan just give a crap about women's hoop. I agree Georgetown's brand is fading...but it was built on a strong base in the late 70s, 80s and 90s. I'd say with fans over 40...Georgetown is stronger and fans under 40 UConn is stronger. Quo nailed his post on everything else.

I think that the point regarding age is very apt here. Yes, it's purely anecdotal, but I believe this is absolutely accurate that Georgetown's brand would be much stronger than UConn's among older people. With older people, I think that UConn is likely to be seen more (fairly or not, and I agree that it is not) as being somewhat overshadowed by the old Big East brand rather than shining on their own. Similarly, I think that while Texas A&M benefits from its new association with the SEC brand, that part of their identity is perhaps stronger than their own brand - I think many non-Texans would more quickly recognize Texas with their iconic longhorn logo than Texas A&M.

It's also been mentioned that persistence is a key element, and that's something with which I would strongly agree. While it's also a generational thing, brands like Nebraska are often stronger than those of schools with a shorter history of success. I do also think it helped (again, with older people who were around for it) that certain major brands like Ohio State, Nebraska, et al were on TV a lot in the era when there weren't nearly as many games on as there are now. When there aren't many timeslots to be had and one team is on 4,5,6 or more times a year and another is on once or twice, that makes a difference in perception beyond a given school's fanbase.

Finally, I think that some brands are likely to be able to recover from a down period better than others. Alabama, for instance, had some time in the wilderness, and Oklahoma under Gibbs and Blake didn't set the world afire, but with Saban and Stoops those places bounced back quickly. In part they can thrive because they can still attract quality coaches, and it also doesn't take long for them to rebound in public opinion. But, even strong brands can take a quick hit and not recover - such as St. Johns or DePaul in hoops. While KU is a strong hoops brand, we are very lucky that Larry Brown put us back on the map, Roy Williams set us up on a long run of consistent success, and that Bill Self has sustained that and (despite some early exits) also garnered another tournament title. I think that UConn was in real danger of a post-Calhoun letdown - Ollie's ability to win a tournament quickly makes a big difference for them, and will help to sustain them as a strong brand assuming that he continues to be successful (even if not quite to that level).

My favorite joke of an effort to be a national brand is the University of Louisiana at Lafayette ULL the sister and companion school of the University of Louisiana at Monroe.ULM They are a lowly tier 2 academic regional institution with a very small market area stuck permanently in the Sunbelt Conference with a very small athletic annual budget. They attempt to call themselves Louisiana but LSU A&M is the flagship university of the state and Tulane is the only University of Louisiana created and named by the Louisiana legislature in the 19th century. After Paul Tulane's mega dollar and property donations Tulane was added to the front of the name,now Tulane University of Louisiana and has been the only institution converted from a public to private university.

(03-01-2015 04:38 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  FWIW, I think people here are getting lost in the weeds regarding what a true "national brand" is at it applies to colleges and universities.

I don't believe it is about sports, although that can play a role; nor is it about merchandising sales (which can be driven by heavy sales within a region), or national recruiting, etc.

It is important to remember that slightly less than half of the country follow sports regularly. Even less follow a specific collegiate sport. IMO, a university with a "true" national brand transcends sports. That institution is immediately recognized by just about everybody in the country. Five schools that I think meet this threshold would be Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Notre Dame. These schools have name recognition and panache that transcend sports.

Of course, others may believe, with justification, that others should be included. Indeed, this list is by no means complete.

Many other schools have brands centered around what they are best known for. Alabama, Ohio State and others, for example, are high profile brands in FB. Duke, Uconn, Kentucky, and others have high profile basketball brands. Boston College and Georgetown are considered two of the leading Jesuit institutions in the country. Boston College is know as the last Jesuit college to be playing "big time" football (with some recognition as an elite hockey program). All of these are just examples and others could, and should, be added. These programs, however (and the others which could easily be added), don't have the same "brand status" as the schools I listed initially, who I believe have instant recognition with most Americans nationally, regardless of whether or not they follow sports.

Just my two cents.

You are right in regards to the Academic choices but...I don't think anyone meant National Academic Brands. Those may be the most recognized but there are other "brands" that are on that level for particular Academic Departments.

In regards to the Jesuit line of discussion. You must still run with that crowd. If you asked most folks in the country what the "leading Jesuit Colleges" are, they wouldn't have a clue. From what I have seen and been told, Georgetown is The leading Jesuit University in the country. Boston College is a Jesuit school for sure but Georgetown is THE Jesuit school.

(03-01-2015 06:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:38 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  FWIW, I think people here are getting lost in the weeds regarding what a true "national brand" is at it applies to colleges and universities.

I don't believe it is about sports, although that can play a role; nor is it about merchandising sales (which can be driven by heavy sales within a region), or national recruiting, etc.

It is important to remember that slightly less than half of the country follow sports regularly. Even less follow a specific collegiate sport. IMO, a university with a "true" national brand transcends sports. That institution is immediately recognized by just about everybody in the country. Five schools that I think meet this threshold would be Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Notre Dame. These schools have name recognition and panache that transcend sports.

Of course, others may believe, with justification, that others should be included. Indeed, this list is by no means complete.

Many other schools have brands centered around what they are best known for. Alabama, Ohio State and others, for example, are high profile brands in FB. Duke, Uconn, Kentucky, and others have high profile basketball brands. Boston College and Georgetown are considered two of the leading Jesuit institutions in the country. Boston College is know as the last Jesuit college to be playing "big time" football (with some recognition as an elite hockey program). All of these are just examples and others could, and should, be added. These programs, however (and the others which could easily be added), don't have the same "brand status" as the schools I listed initially, who I believe have instant recognition with most Americans nationally, regardless of whether or not they follow sports.

Just my two cents.

You are right in regards to the Academic choices but...I don't think anyone meant National Academic Brands. Those may be the most recognized but there are other "brands" that are on that level for particular Academic Departments.

In regards to the Jesuit line of discussion. You must still run with that crowd. If you asked most folks in the country what the "leading Jesuit Colleges" are, they wouldn't have a clue. From what I have seen and been told, Georgetown is The leading Jesuit University in the country. Boston College is a Jesuit school for sure but Georgetown is THE Jesuit school.

You missed my point entirely. A lot of people would not know which schools are Jesuit. That's why I put BC and Georgetown in the second grouping. Of those that DO know about Jesuit schools - and there are way more than you think - BC and Georgetown are both well known. Both are especially hard to get into and pull students from all across the country, and the world.

As far as Georgetown being THE Jesuit school. I disagree. I have a frame of reference here. I am a BC grad and and a Georgetown parent (my daughter recently graduated from there). Both schools are outstanding. Georgetown sits at #21 and BC at #31 in the USN&WR ranking. Both at the very highly ranked. BC has a $2.2B endowment, Georgetown has a $1.5B endowment.

By any objective measurement, both schools are outstanding. To say one is superior to the other, however, is just not correct.

(03-01-2015 07:41 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 06:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:38 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  FWIW, I think people here are getting lost in the weeds regarding what a true "national brand" is at it applies to colleges and universities.

I don't believe it is about sports, although that can play a role; nor is it about merchandising sales (which can be driven by heavy sales within a region), or national recruiting, etc.

It is important to remember that slightly less than half of the country follow sports regularly. Even less follow a specific collegiate sport. IMO, a university with a "true" national brand transcends sports. That institution is immediately recognized by just about everybody in the country. Five schools that I think meet this threshold would be Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Notre Dame. These schools have name recognition and panache that transcend sports.

Of course, others may believe, with justification, that others should be included. Indeed, this list is by no means complete.

Many other schools have brands centered around what they are best known for. Alabama, Ohio State and others, for example, are high profile brands in FB. Duke, Uconn, Kentucky, and others have high profile basketball brands. Boston College and Georgetown are considered two of the leading Jesuit institutions in the country. Boston College is know as the last Jesuit college to be playing "big time" football (with some recognition as an elite hockey program). All of these are just examples and others could, and should, be added. These programs, however (and the others which could easily be added), don't have the same "brand status" as the schools I listed initially, who I believe have instant recognition with most Americans nationally, regardless of whether or not they follow sports.

Just my two cents.

You are right in regards to the Academic choices but...I don't think anyone meant National Academic Brands. Those may be the most recognized but there are other "brands" that are on that level for particular Academic Departments.

In regards to the Jesuit line of discussion. You must still run with that crowd. If you asked most folks in the country what the "leading Jesuit Colleges" are, they wouldn't have a clue. From what I have seen and been told, Georgetown is The leading Jesuit University in the country. Boston College is a Jesuit school for sure but Georgetown is THE Jesuit school.

You missed my point entirely. A lot of people would not know which schools are Jesuit. That's why I put BC and Georgetown in the second grouping. Of those that DO know about Jesuit schools - and there are way more than you think - BC and Georgetown are both well known. Both are especially hard to get into and pull students from all across the country, and the world.

As far as Georgetown being THE Jesuit school. I disagree. I have a frame of reference here. I am a BC grad and and a Georgetown parent (my daughter recently graduated from there). Both schools are outstanding. Georgetown sits at #21 and BC at #31 in the USN&WR ranking. Both at the very highly ranked. BC has a $2.2B endowment, Georgetown has a $1.5B endowment.

By any objective measurement, both schools are outstanding. To say one is superior to the other, however, is just not correct.

I did not mean it as a personal attack nor would I even dare to step into a personal debate with you about the two schools. I am far too under equipped. All I spoke of is what I have heard from others and seen a little bit of myself. That doesn't mean I have a full picture. What I do have though, I take seriously and at their word.

While all those numbers are indeed impressive, I am not necessarily talking about the overall numbers game. It is impressive that BC has a larger endowment and it is impressive that they have such high rankings but I am talking about a very narrow spectrum of persons when I made the separation that I did. I still feel that within the "Hall of Power", Georgetown is THE Jesuit school. That isn't a slight on BC. As you point out, BC is considerable as well. It's just that the stats you list don't really have a lot to do with what I am talking about.

I could be wrong though, perhaps things have changed some.

(03-01-2015 07:41 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 06:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:38 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  FWIW, I think people here are getting lost in the weeds regarding what a true "national brand" is at it applies to colleges and universities.

I don't believe it is about sports, although that can play a role; nor is it about merchandising sales (which can be driven by heavy sales within a region), or national recruiting, etc.

It is important to remember that slightly less than half of the country follow sports regularly. Even less follow a specific collegiate sport. IMO, a university with a "true" national brand transcends sports. That institution is immediately recognized by just about everybody in the country. Five schools that I think meet this threshold would be Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Notre Dame. These schools have name recognition and panache that transcend sports.

Of course, others may believe, with justification, that others should be included. Indeed, this list is by no means complete.

Many other schools have brands centered around what they are best known for. Alabama, Ohio State and others, for example, are high profile brands in FB. Duke, Uconn, Kentucky, and others have high profile basketball brands. Boston College and Georgetown are considered two of the leading Jesuit institutions in the country. Boston College is know as the last Jesuit college to be playing "big time" football (with some recognition as an elite hockey program). All of these are just examples and others could, and should, be added. These programs, however (and the others which could easily be added), don't have the same "brand status" as the schools I listed initially, who I believe have instant recognition with most Americans nationally, regardless of whether or not they follow sports.

Just my two cents.

You are right in regards to the Academic choices but...I don't think anyone meant National Academic Brands. Those may be the most recognized but there are other "brands" that are on that level for particular Academic Departments.

In regards to the Jesuit line of discussion. You must still run with that crowd. If you asked most folks in the country what the "leading Jesuit Colleges" are, they wouldn't have a clue. From what I have seen and been told, Georgetown is The leading Jesuit University in the country. Boston College is a Jesuit school for sure but Georgetown is THE Jesuit school.

You missed my point entirely. A lot of people would not know which schools are Jesuit. That's why I put BC and Georgetown in the second grouping. Of those that DO know about Jesuit schools - and there are way more than you think - BC and Georgetown are both well known. Both are especially hard to get into and pull students from all across the country, and the world.

As far as Georgetown being THE Jesuit school. I disagree. I have a frame of reference here. I am a BC grad and and a Georgetown parent (my daughter recently graduated from there). Both schools are outstanding. Georgetown sits at #21 and BC at #31 in the USN&WR ranking. Both at the very highly ranked. BC has a $2.2B endowment, Georgetown has a $1.5B endowment.

By any objective measurement, both schools are outstanding. To say one is superior to the other, however, is just not correct.

You're partially correct. Georgetown is not THE Jesuit school, as that implies that Georgetown is far above, heads and shoulders, ahead of any other Jesuit school, and that isn't so.

But Georgetown is the #1 Jesuit school. It's not by a massive margin, but they are #1, with BC #2. It is incorrect to say they are regarded as equals.

Bottom-line .... "national brand" is possible to define several different ways. And even if two people were to agree on a single definition, they could argue until the cows come home about which schools would qualify and how they would rank.

(03-01-2015 07:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 07:41 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 06:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 04:38 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  FWIW, I think people here are getting lost in the weeds regarding what a true "national brand" is at it applies to colleges and universities.

I don't believe it is about sports, although that can play a role; nor is it about merchandising sales (which can be driven by heavy sales within a region), or national recruiting, etc.

It is important to remember that slightly less than half of the country follow sports regularly. Even less follow a specific collegiate sport. IMO, a university with a "true" national brand transcends sports. That institution is immediately recognized by just about everybody in the country. Five schools that I think meet this threshold would be Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Notre Dame. These schools have name recognition and panache that transcend sports.

Of course, others may believe, with justification, that others should be included. Indeed, this list is by no means complete.

Many other schools have brands centered around what they are best known for. Alabama, Ohio State and others, for example, are high profile brands in FB. Duke, Uconn, Kentucky, and others have high profile basketball brands. Boston College and Georgetown are considered two of the leading Jesuit institutions in the country. Boston College is know as the last Jesuit college to be playing "big time" football (with some recognition as an elite hockey program). All of these are just examples and others could, and should, be added. These programs, however (and the others which could easily be added), don't have the same "brand status" as the schools I listed initially, who I believe have instant recognition with most Americans nationally, regardless of whether or not they follow sports.

Just my two cents.

You are right in regards to the Academic choices but...I don't think anyone meant National Academic Brands. Those may be the most recognized but there are other "brands" that are on that level for particular Academic Departments.

In regards to the Jesuit line of discussion. You must still run with that crowd. If you asked most folks in the country what the "leading Jesuit Colleges" are, they wouldn't have a clue. From what I have seen and been told, Georgetown is The leading Jesuit University in the country. Boston College is a Jesuit school for sure but Georgetown is THE Jesuit school.

You missed my point entirely. A lot of people would not know which schools are Jesuit. That's why I put BC and Georgetown in the second grouping. Of those that DO know about Jesuit schools - and there are way more than you think - BC and Georgetown are both well known. Both are especially hard to get into and pull students from all across the country, and the world.

As far as Georgetown being THE Jesuit school. I disagree. I have a frame of reference here. I am a BC grad and and a Georgetown parent (my daughter recently graduated from there). Both schools are outstanding. Georgetown sits at #21 and BC at #31 in the USN&WR ranking. Both at the very highly ranked. BC has a $2.2B endowment, Georgetown has a $1.5B endowment.

By any objective measurement, both schools are outstanding. To say one is superior to the other, however, is just not correct.

You're partially correct. Georgetown is not THE Jesuit school, as that implies that Georgetown is far above, heads and shoulders, ahead of any other Jesuit school, and that isn't so.

But Georgetown is the #1 Jesuit school. It's not by a massive margin, but they are #1, with BC #2. It is incorrect to say they are regarded as equals.

I knew BC and Georgetown were Jesuit. I assumed ND was also. Very few non-Catholics know much about these matters.

(03-01-2015 08:03 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Bottom-line .... "national brand" is possible to define several different ways. And even if two people were to agree on a single definition, they could argue until the cows come home about which schools would qualify and how they would rank.

Good thing CSNBBS cows never come home then...