bill dazzle
Craft beer and urban living enthusiast
Posts: 10,608
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 970
I Root For: Vandy/Memphis/DePaul/UNC
Location: Nashville
|
RE: What G5's have a "decent" chance of getting an all-sports invite to a P5...
(06-24-2022 08:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-24-2022 08:08 AM)bill dazzle Wrote: (06-24-2022 07:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-23-2022 07:47 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: My fumble. I thought Quo was referencing brands in general and not for football specifically. That would change to thinking regarding BYU. As a general brand (academics and all sports), the BYU brand is very strong.
BYU, while clearly they have very good "brand name recognition" - every college football fan has heard of them - and they are a high quality academic school as well, IMO they are overrated by many on this forum as a school that brings a lot of value to a conference. To me, the proof of that is where BYU has resided in the college firmament all these years. They've always been in either a "G-level" conference, or an independent. And as an independent, their national profile was IMO fading, not growing. The last 10 years have IMO been rough ones for BYU, they were seemingly better off in the old 2000s MW then they were as an independent. They seem to have thought they'd have more brand appeal as an independent than they actually did. They were not thriving as an independent, their brand was receding not advancing, IMO.
So to me, if BYU really did have strong value, they would have been in a P-level league a long time ago, rather than being desperation-backfill for the weakest power league only after that league lost its "powerful" leaders.
Your points are well made. Perhaps a distinction should be made when we define "brands." There are "conventional brands," which tend to be large public universities with all-around athletics/academics (Michigan, Florida, Texas, Ohio State, UCLA, Alabama, etc.), with a few private universities (Stanford, Miami and USC, for example) included in that group. Then there are what I consider five "unconventional brands": the three military academies, Notre Dame and BYU. Win or lose, fans know of these five. And even if they dislike them ... they respect them. The brand for those five is defined as much by distinctiveness as it is by success.
So even though, as you note, BYU has faced its challenges (and failures) the last few years, that does not mean, IMO, it now lacks a strong brand. I feel the BYU brand remains visible — and still a bit controversial (which is not a bad thing).
As to the future Big 12 and your often posting it will not be "power" in the true sense, I would constructively criticize you, Quo, by noting you should be specific and refer to football. You clearly know the future Big 12 will be a "fully power" in men's hoops. For you to not make this distinction in your posts suggests you are either 1. clueless (which you are not) or 2. are taking some odd pleasure in indirectly jabbing at the future Big 12 (which I'm sure many on the board believe to be the case).
Well, two things pop to mind.
1) I like your reference to the military academies and BYU, because I agree they are similar. But I draw a different conclusion there as well - IMO many around here overstate the value of military academies. Yes, they have universal name recognition, but in the past 50 years at least, to me it doesn't translate in to much value. No P5 conference has ever wanted to add a military academy, and military academies do not boost the 'power' quotient of a conference. BYU is similar, IMO, though I think it does bring more brand-heft to a conference than the militaries do.
2) By "power", I mean in a brand sense, which to me is the sense that matters. I think the new B12 will be power-level in terms of performance in both hoops and football. But I don't think that means it will be regarded as a full-power, because it lacks brand tentpoles.
To me, the instructive case here is that of the 2005-2012 Big East, after Miami, VT and BC left. On the field and on the court, it produced fully Power-level results. But it was never regarded as a 'true' power by fans and media, because it lacked brand value. I think the nB12 will be similar.
I essentially agree with you regarding the fB12 ("f" for "future") — and the comparison to the Big East of 2005-12 is accurate. The main challenge the fB12 in football will have is a lack of a blueblood. That will harm public perception.
We simply disagree on the academies and BYU. Though unconventional brands, I feel they are brands with a sufficient and respectable level of national heft. As a Memphis fan, I was hoping the AAC could have landed Air Force. The "value" with the militaries is intangible and distinctive. Admittedly, many disagree with me on that brand value for the academies.
I've long contended on the board that Memphis men's basketball is a national brand, to an extent, due to the decent level of clout it carries with African-American fans. But, and again, I realize I look at the "brand" topic differently than most posters.
On this theme, I think Liberty can become a brand of sorts (it actually likely already is).
|
|