I was reading this article about Notre Dame as a "Brand"...

What does a mediocre couple of seasons in a mediocre conference do to our brand? How healthy do you think our brand is?

I think that the concerns I have about CTT are mostly rooted in my perception that he hasn't been very good for our brand; that a young up and comer would've been a better choice. I get that consistency is key and we really need that right now. I didn't say there weren't trade-offs.

And you could look at the play on the field as a "product". Are you satisfied with the product that was put on the field? I was talking to an alum the other day at a meeting we had and he took the words out of my mouth. We both agreed that if our team plays their best game and come up short then it is easier to tolerate a loss. However, when they are an undisciplined mess and lose because of a lack of focus, it reflects negatively on the coaching staff and the product is inferior.

Just some thoughts.

(11-18-2015 11:21 AM)AeroCat Wrote:  I was reading this article about Notre Dame as a "Brand"...

What does a mediocre couple of seasons in a mediocre conference do to our brand? How healthy do you think our brand is?

I think that the concerns I have about CTT are mostly rooted in my perception that he hasn't been very good for our brand; that a young up and comer would've been a better choice. I get that consistency is key and we really need that right now. I didn't say there weren't trade-offs.

And you could look at the play on the field as a "product". Are you satisfied with the product that was put on the field? I was talking to an alum the other day at a meeting we had and he took the words out of my mouth. We both agreed that if our team plays their best game and come up short then it is easier to tolerate a loss. However, when they are an undisciplined mess and lose because of a lack of focus, it reflects negatively on the coaching staff and the product is inferior.

Just some thoughts.

I sat between a UK fan and an Auburn fan (strangely rooting for Duke) last night at the State Farm Classic in Chicago. When I mentioned I went to UC, they both immediately blurted out Tuberville's name and thought it was great we had him. Their perception of the program/brand was raised because of him, not in spite of him. To me, that's the bargain we have right now for our program. Tuberville brings a national cache through his history and name and shores up recruiting while we are stuck in this awful conference. If/when we enter a P5 conference, we can then afford to go back to recruiting based on conference, TV exposure, opponents, etc. and the coach's name/history will be less important to our brand.

I think our brand is pretty strong all things considered. **** Notre Dame. It sure would be nice to make our own rules and print our own money but we don't have that luxury.

I'm inclined to agree that despite some disappointing losses, Tuberville has been of great benefit to the UC football brand. His hiring announcement sent a shockwave through the P5. It was a statement that UC intended to compete at the highest level in spite of their recent loss of BCS status. And his serving as President of the coaches' association affirms that he is a thought leader in college football.

I would argue that the "UC brand" is the strongest it has ever been both academically and athletically, With the expected success of this basketball team it's not a stretch to say combined attendance for football/basketball this cycle will exceed all previous seasons. There are other data points supporting my argument such as licensed merchandise sales which continue to climb and place UC solidly in the top 50 schools nationally, above a number of well established "P5" brands.

(11-18-2015 11:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  I'm inclined to agree that despite some disappointing losses, Tuberville has been of great benefit to the UC football brand. His hiring announcement sent a shockwave through the P5. It was a statement that UC intended to compete at the highest level in spite of their recent loss of BCS status. And his serving as President of the coaches' association affirms that he is a thought leader in college football.

I would argue that the "UC brand" is the strongest it has ever been both academically and athletically, With the expected success of this basketball team it's not a stretch to say combined attendance for football/basketball this cycle will exceed all previous seasons. There are other data points supporting my argument such as licensed merchandise sales which continue to climb and place UC solidly in the top 50 schools nationally, above a number of well established "P5" brands.

I don't think the basketball season will hit the Bob Huggins average attendance == sell out

In hiring Tuberville, UC hired a brand name. Brian Kelly became a brand name here. Dantonio did also to some extent, although he has made more a name for himself at MSU. Tuberville was the first hire that UC made where the national media said "they hired who!?" (not in the same way that UofL's rehiring of Petrino did). We are now being listed as one of the best G5 PROGRAMS, because of a lot of reasons including who we have hired. The on the field has not been what we want but our reputation has improved.

(11-18-2015 11:53 AM)MercerCo_BearCat Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  I'm inclined to agree that despite some disappointing losses, Tuberville has been of great benefit to the UC football brand. His hiring announcement sent a shockwave through the P5. It was a statement that UC intended to compete at the highest level in spite of their recent loss of BCS status. And his serving as President of the coaches' association affirms that he is a thought leader in college football.

I would argue that the "UC brand" is the strongest it has ever been both academically and athletically, With the expected success of this basketball team it's not a stretch to say combined attendance for football/basketball this cycle will exceed all previous seasons. There are other data points supporting my argument such as licensed merchandise sales which continue to climb and place UC solidly in the top 50 schools nationally, above a number of well established "P5" brands.

I don't think the basketball season will hit the Bob Huggins average attendance == sell out

That's true, but if you combine football and basketball (as I was suggesting) more people will see UC play this year than ever before. Without going back to the records for the year 5th/3rd sold out for the season, my best guess is UC averaged maybe 20,000 for football that year compared with 37,000 this year. So a handful of sold out basketball games will put this season ahead in the total number of folks present for both sports. We should all be proud of that accomplishment.

(11-18-2015 11:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  I'm inclined to agree that despite some disappointing losses, Tuberville has been of great benefit to the UC football brand. His hiring announcement sent a shockwave through the P5. It was a statement that UC intended to compete at the highest level in spite of their recent loss of BCS status. And his serving as President of the coaches' association affirms that he is a thought leader in college football.

I would argue that the "UC brand" is the strongest it has ever been both academically and athletically, With the expected success of this basketball team it's not a stretch to say combined attendance for football/basketball this cycle will exceed all previous seasons. There are other data points supporting my argument such as licensed merchandise sales which continue to climb and place UC solidly in the top 50 schools nationally, above a number of well established "P5" brands.

Agree! Tuberville may frustrate us, but he has added to the brand. Everyone know Tuberville and he has earned respect over the years. When Butch Jone was here, most people had no clue who he really was. BK was an unknown but exploded onto the scene to create a brand.

We were ranked in the sports brand value polls ( maybe done by athalon sports?) as around #45 which is very strong considering there are about 60 teams in the power conferences.

I would guess that Tubberville is good for UC's brand but there's something much more important to a teams brand than the coach ..... winning.

(11-18-2015 11:30 AM)AZBCAT Wrote:  

(11-18-2015 11:21 AM)AeroCat Wrote:  I was reading this article about Notre Dame as a "Brand"...

What does a mediocre couple of seasons in a mediocre conference do to our brand? How healthy do you think our brand is?

I think that the concerns I have about CTT are mostly rooted in my perception that he hasn't been very good for our brand; that a young up and comer would've been a better choice. I get that consistency is key and we really need that right now. I didn't say there weren't trade-offs.

And you could look at the play on the field as a "product". Are you satisfied with the product that was put on the field? I was talking to an alum the other day at a meeting we had and he took the words out of my mouth. We both agreed that if our team plays their best game and come up short then it is easier to tolerate a loss. However, when they are an undisciplined mess and lose because of a lack of focus, it reflects negatively on the coaching staff and the product is inferior.

Just some thoughts.

I sat between a UK fan and an Auburn fan (strangely rooting for Duke) last night at the State Farm Classic in Chicago. When I mentioned I went to UC, they both immediately blurted out Tuberville's name and thought it was great we had him. Their perception of the program/brand was raised because of him, not in spite of him. To me, that's the bargain we have right now for our program. Tuberville brings a national cache through his history and name and shores up recruiting while we are stuck in this awful conference. If/when we enter a P5 conference, we can then afford to go back to recruiting based on conference, TV exposure, opponents, etc. and the coach's name/history will be less important to our brand.

If you're not a TT or UC fan, I think fans of other schools generally think Tuberville is a top notch guy. I got the same glowing opinion of Tuberville from some Alabama fans I work with.

I think Tuberville still adds credibility to the UC brand, but not as much as he would if he, you know, won the AAC.

I think there are three things a program needs to be considered a brand name school:

1) A big name player with big success in the college and/or the NFL. We have had some successful guys in the league like Cole, Kelce, Celek, Barwin, etc. But yet to have that we'll know player in this programs history. Greg Cook could have been that. Barwin may end up being close to this. A highly productive college player that is well know, but little sucess in the NFL can count sometimes too (RG3, Tebow, Pat White)

2) Major bowl win. We had two cracks at this in 2008 and 2009 but came up pretty short.

3) lots of time being ranked. Other than under BK, I don't recall much action in the rankings. Maybe a little bit under Butch, but most fans from Texas or Florida aren't going to pay much attention to schools that are ranked frequently.