+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: brands (/thread-952208.html)
Pages: 1 2
brands - bullet - 08-03-2022 02:04 PM
https://twitter.com/JeremyDarlow/status/1543062856026841088/photo/1
Interesting survey. 1000 HS recruits rated P5 brands.
Not surprisingly, SEC and Big 10 dominated. Recent CFP participants high.
RE: brands - OneSockUp - 08-03-2022 02:40 PM
(08-03-2022 02:04 PM)bullet Wrote: https://twitter.com/JeremyDarlow/status/1543062856026841088/photo/1It's still the SEC vs. all y'all:
Interesting survey. 1000 HS recruits rated P5 brands.
Not surprisingly, SEC and Big 10 dominated. Recent CFP participants high.
The Big Ten only has one in the top dozen (Ohio State). The SEC-- including OUT -- has got seven above the Big Ten's second (Penn State), and fully half of the top 26.
RE: brands - GreenFreakUAB - 08-03-2022 02:41 PM
(08-03-2022 02:04 PM)bullet Wrote: https://twitter.com/JeremyDarlow/status/1543062856026841088/photo/1
Interesting survey. 1000 HS recruits rated P5 brands.
Not surprisingly, SEC and Big 10 dominated. Recent CFP participants high.
Oregon in the top 10-ish... I think they have that 'national rep' which will persist, and would make them a player in the B1G.... sorta weird they haven't already been offered, honestly - if you crunch the numbers, Oregon will be short of a lot of programs, perhaps due to location and time zone... moving to the B1G would get them that 'Eastern / Midwestern exposure' and should expand their overall brand.
RE: brands - bill dazzle - 08-03-2022 02:49 PM
North Carolina at No. 14 is a pleasant surprise.
Vanderbilt at No. 61 of 66 ... ouch.
RE: brands - DawgNBama - 08-03-2022 02:51 PM
It's a real shame that Washington State is ranked where they are. They have had a couple of good quarterbacks over the years: Drew Bledsoe and Ryan Leaf, to name a few. I get the fact that they are located in a remote area of the state of Washington; but that should help them and not hurt them, IMO. Fewer distractions, and more of a captive audience. I just look at Washington State and see unfulfilled potential, like the marketing group for WSU made a series of really bad blunders. To me, I feel like that Washington State should have at least a 40,000 seat stadium, and the fans to fill it too.
RE: brands - CliftonAve - 08-03-2022 03:24 PM
(08-03-2022 02:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: It's a real shame that Washington State is ranked where they are. They have had a couple of good quarterbacks over the years: Drew Bledsoe and Ryan Leaf, to name a few. I get the fact that they are located in a remote area of the state of Washington; but that should help them and not hurt them, IMO. Fewer distractions, and more of a captive audience. I just look at Washington State and see unfulfilled potential, like the marketing group for WSU made a series of really bad blunders. To me, I feel like that Washington State should have at least a 40,000 seat stadium, and the fans to fill it too.
As avid fans of CFB, we tend to look at things much different than these recruits and their families. These kids weren't even born before Bledsoe and Leaf were long done with FB. Many of them have parents who are younger than those two (I am seeing some parents of recruits at my alma mater who are in their mid/late 30s and early 40s-- Bledsoe is 50 and Leaf is 46). They have no clue who they are.
RE: brands - TDenverFan - 08-03-2022 03:26 PM
One thing that I think really helps the SEC is there isn't much deadweight, outside of Vanderbilt the lowest ranked program is Arkansas, at 35. They're tied with Washington, who will be the PAC 12's 2nd highest rated brand.
In the rightmost column, among the bottom 22 programs, you have the following conference breakdown:
SEC: 1
Big 10: 5
ACC: 5
BIG 12: 4
PAC 12: 7
I'm a little surprised at how low a few programs rank - Utah and UVA in particular.
RE: brands - DFW HOYA - 08-03-2022 03:34 PM
(08-03-2022 02:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: North Carolina at No. 14 is a pleasant surprise.
Vanderbilt at No. 61 of 66 ... ouch.
BC, Pitt and Syracuse continue to diminish.
RE: brands - YNot - 08-03-2022 03:35 PM
(08-03-2022 02:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: It's a real shame that Washington State is ranked where they are. They have had a couple of good quarterbacks over the years: Drew Bledsoe and Ryan Leaf, to name a few. I get the fact that they are located in a remote area of the state of Washington; but that should help them and not hurt them, IMO. Fewer distractions, and more of a captive audience. I just look at Washington State and see unfulfilled potential, like the marketing group for WSU made a series of really bad blunders. To me, I feel like that Washington State should have at least a 40,000 seat stadium, and the fans to fill it too.
Wazzu would need literally 40-50% of the population within a one-hour drive of campus to attend their games to fill a 40K-seat stadium. Seriously, like fewer than 100K people in that radius. It's really sparsely populated.
Yeah, it's within a couple hours' drive from Spokane and Tri-Cities, but those aren't really major areas. Very different from being situated in a 'small' 100K town within a couple hours' drive of a LARGE metro area.
RE: brands - OrangeDude - 08-03-2022 04:42 PM
(08-03-2022 03:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:(08-03-2022 02:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: North Carolina at No. 14 is a pleasant surprise.
Vanderbilt at No. 61 of 66 ... ouch.
BC, Pitt and Syracuse continue to diminish.
Perhaps. But if I am interpreting the last column correctly each has gone up from the previous poll. Pitt +8, SYR +7, and BC +4. All still in the lower half but doing better or have benefited from others dropping much worse.
I was more concerned by Louisville dropping -20 (so they might have been upper half in the last poll) and VT dropping -10
.
Again assuming I am interpreting the final column correctly.
Overall, it's an interesting poll but not one I would put a lot of emphasis or priority into. Especially knowing NIL and bags of $$$ are now apparently "legal" or won't be enforced.
This poll is great for fans of the PAC, B12, and ACC to try and come up with a fantasy 20 team conference that would get to at least a $70-$75M per program annually as the Leftovers Conference that the Super 2 can point to and say "See, we are being inclusive".
Cheers,
Neil
RE: brands - jimrtex - 08-05-2022 05:45 PM
(08-03-2022 03:26 PM)TDenverFan Wrote: One thing that I think really helps the SEC is there isn't much deadweight, outside of Vanderbilt the lowest ranked program is Arkansas, at 35. They're tied with Washington, who will be the PAC 12's 2nd highest rated brand.This is their methodology:
In the rightmost column, among the bottom 22 programs, you have the following conference breakdown:
SEC: 1
Big 10: 5
ACC: 5
BIG 12: 4
PAC 12: 7
I'm a little surprised at how low a few programs rank - Utah and UVA in particular.
https://officialvisit.com/blog/2022-college-football-brand-study
This has some interesting graphs showing correlation between these ratings and recruiting success, wins, revenue, etc.
They used the Top 500 recruits from 247 as the basis for sampling 1000 HS football players (not the top recruits themself). They then asked the football players to imagine that if they were the #1 recruit in the country and received an offer from these 66 schools (P5 + ND + BYU) how likely (on a scale of 1 to 10) were they likely to choose each school.
If you are from Alabama, you would probably give Alabama and Auburn a 10, and Georgia and Florida and FSU and Tennessee, etc. But you might give WSU a zero or a very low score.
The lowest score was 5.43 for BYU, which means the average player gave them a 5 or 6.
Alabama got a 7.91. Rather than everyone giving them an eight, likely most gave them a 10, and then it trailed off from there.
215 of the 500 top recruits on 247 are from the SEC footprint, so 43% of those quizzed are familiar with SEC football. Add in Texas and Oklahoma, and you are over 60%.
The B1G footprint is around 20%. The Pac 12 15%.
So SEC schools got higher ratings based on familiarity from a bulk of the players surveyed.
Looking at where California recruits in the 247 Top 500 committed to, 20 went to Pac 12 schools (weirdly Arizona ended up first with UCLA second).
12 went to national brands: Georgia, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma. 4 went to others: Michigan State, Colorado State, Boston College, and Harvard.
Alabama recruits: 16 to SEC schools, including Alabama 7, and Auburn 3. The other four went to Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Cincinnati.
RE: brands - jimrtex - 08-05-2022 05:49 PM
(08-03-2022 04:42 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:The survey was based on preception/awareness by HS football players. Pitt and Wake would have improved based on the ACC championship.(08-03-2022 03:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:(08-03-2022 02:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: North Carolina at No. 14 is a pleasant surprise.
Vanderbilt at No. 61 of 66 ... ouch.
BC, Pitt and Syracuse continue to diminish.
Perhaps. But if I am interpreting the last column correctly each has gone up from the previous poll. Pitt +8, SYR +7, and BC +4. All still in the lower half but doing better or have benefited from others dropping much worse.
RE: brands - SouthEastAlaska - 08-05-2022 06:25 PM
Stuff like this always makes me laugh. This is a popularity pole and it's completely understandable. Who does the worldwide leader in sports pump more than anyone... The SEC... who does FOX pump... The B1G... I would have been more surprised if schools in the ACC, PAC, and BigXII had been higher. Kids are going to gravitate to who they hear being talked about and who is placed in featured games on television.
Speaking as a UW man their fall over the last 4 years also isn't surprising. The way the PAC handled Covid absolutely destroyed any positive thoughts these kids had about the schools and conference as a whole. Jimmy Lake was also a disaster which definitely hasn't helped us.
RE: brands - DavidSt - 08-05-2022 06:26 PM
(08-03-2022 03:35 PM)YNot Wrote:(08-03-2022 02:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: It's a real shame that Washington State is ranked where they are. They have had a couple of good quarterbacks over the years: Drew Bledsoe and Ryan Leaf, to name a few. I get the fact that they are located in a remote area of the state of Washington; but that should help them and not hurt them, IMO. Fewer distractions, and more of a captive audience. I just look at Washington State and see unfulfilled potential, like the marketing group for WSU made a series of really bad blunders. To me, I feel like that Washington State should have at least a 40,000 seat stadium, and the fans to fill it too.
Wazzu would need literally 40-50% of the population within a one-hour drive of campus to attend their games to fill a 40K-seat stadium. Seriously, like fewer than 100K people in that radius. It's really sparsely populated.
Yeah, it's within a couple hours' drive from Spokane and Tri-Cities, but those aren't really major areas. Very different from being situated in a 'small' 100K town within a couple hours' drive of a LARGE metro area.
In recent years, they have to compete with Boise State and they are losing that battle.
RE: brands - DawgNBama - 08-06-2022 12:17 AM
(08-05-2022 05:45 PM)jimrtex Wrote:(08-03-2022 03:26 PM)TDenverFan Wrote: One thing that I think really helps the SEC is there isn't much deadweight, outside of Vanderbilt the lowest ranked program is Arkansas, at 35. They're tied with Washington, who will be the PAC 12's 2nd highest rated brand.This is their methodology:
In the rightmost column, among the bottom 22 programs, you have the following conference breakdown:
SEC: 1
Big 10: 5
ACC: 5
BIG 12: 4
PAC 12: 7
I'm a little surprised at how low a few programs rank - Utah and UVA in particular.
https://officialvisit.com/blog/2022-college-football-brand-study
This has some interesting graphs showing correlation between these ratings and recruiting success, wins, revenue, etc.
They used the Top 500 recruits from 247 as the basis for sampling 1000 HS football players (not the top recruits themself). They then asked the football players to imagine that if they were the #1 recruit in the country and received an offer from these 66 schools (P5 + ND + BYU) how likely (on a scale of 1 to 10) were they likely to choose each school.
If you are from Alabama, you would probably give Alabama and Auburn a 10, and Georgia and Florida and FSU and Tennessee, etc. But you might give WSU a zero or a very low score.
The lowest score was 5.43 for BYU, which means the average player gave them a 5 or 6.
Alabama got a 7.91. Rather than everyone giving them an eight, likely most gave them a 10, and then it trailed off from there.
215 of the 500 top recruits on 247 are from the SEC footprint, so 43% of those quizzed are familiar with SEC football. Add in Texas and Oklahoma, and you are over 60%.
The B1G footprint is around 20%. The Pac 12 15%.
So SEC schools got higher ratings based on familiarity from a bulk of the players surveyed.
Looking at where California recruits in the 247 Top 500 committed to, 20 went to Pac 12 schools (weirdly Arizona ended up first with UCLA second).
12 went to national brands: Georgia, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma. 4 went to others: Michigan State, Colorado State, Boston College, and Harvard.
Alabama recruits: 16 to SEC schools, including Alabama 7, and Auburn 3. The other four went to Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Cincinnati.
This rankings are all baloney, IMO. By their own methodology, Memphis should have placed in this list and they did not.
RE: brands - quo vadis - 08-06-2022 01:02 AM
(08-03-2022 03:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:(08-03-2022 02:49 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: North Carolina at No. 14 is a pleasant surprise.
Vanderbilt at No. 61 of 66 ... ouch.
BC, Pitt and Syracuse continue to diminish.
These programs were better off in the Big East, IMO. That was their natural domain.
RE: brands - jimrtex - 08-06-2022 06:22 PM
(08-06-2022 12:17 AM)DawgNBama Wrote: This rankings are all baloney, IMO. By their own methodology, Memphis should have placed in this list and they did not.
They were only asked to rank the P5 schools + ND + BYU (BYU was added for this poll).
It would be interesting to see the poll results. I would have tired of ranking 66 schools on a scale of 1 to 10. Was Alabama listed first? Maybe if you could drag the teams to buckets and you could then move them around.
RE: brands - Huan - 08-06-2022 08:26 PM
(08-03-2022 03:26 PM)TDenverFan Wrote: One thing that I think really helps the SEC is there isn't much deadweight, outside of Vanderbilt the lowest ranked program is Arkansas, at 35. They're tied with Washington, who will be the PAC 12's 2nd highest rated brand.
In the rightmost column, among the bottom 22 programs, you have the following conference breakdown:
SEC: 1
Big 10: 5
ACC: 5
BIG 12: 4
PAC 12: 7
I'm a little surprised at how low a few programs rank - Utah and UVA in particular.
The 3 AAC additions to the nBig12 were not considered for ranking.
RE: brands - Lopes87 - 08-06-2022 08:41 PM
(08-03-2022 03:35 PM)YNot Wrote:(08-03-2022 02:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: It's a real shame that Washington State is ranked where they are. They have had a couple of good quarterbacks over the years: Drew Bledsoe and Ryan Leaf, to name a few. I get the fact that they are located in a remote area of the state of Washington; but that should help them and not hurt them, IMO. Fewer distractions, and more of a captive audience. I just look at Washington State and see unfulfilled potential, like the marketing group for WSU made a series of really bad blunders. To me, I feel like that Washington State should have at least a 40,000 seat stadium, and the fans to fill it too.
Wazzu would need literally 40-50% of the population within a one-hour drive of campus to attend their games to fill a 40K-seat stadium. Seriously, like fewer than 100K people in that radius. It's really sparsely populated.
Yeah, it's within a couple hours' drive from Spokane and Tri-Cities, but those aren't really major areas. Very different from being situated in a 'small' 100K town within a couple hours' drive of a LARGE metro area.
A lot of ppl fly into Spokane and drive or fly to Pullman from Seattle area if they don't take the 5 hour drive from Seattle area.
RE: brands - SouthEastAlaska - 08-06-2022 08:48 PM
(08-06-2022 08:41 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:(08-03-2022 03:35 PM)YNot Wrote:(08-03-2022 02:51 PM)DawgNBama Wrote: It's a real shame that Washington State is ranked where they are. They have had a couple of good quarterbacks over the years: Drew Bledsoe and Ryan Leaf, to name a few. I get the fact that they are located in a remote area of the state of Washington; but that should help them and not hurt them, IMO. Fewer distractions, and more of a captive audience. I just look at Washington State and see unfulfilled potential, like the marketing group for WSU made a series of really bad blunders. To me, I feel like that Washington State should have at least a 40,000 seat stadium, and the fans to fill it too.
Wazzu would need literally 40-50% of the population within a one-hour drive of campus to attend their games to fill a 40K-seat stadium. Seriously, like fewer than 100K people in that radius. It's really sparsely populated.
Yeah, it's within a couple hours' drive from Spokane and Tri-Cities, but those aren't really major areas. Very different from being situated in a 'small' 100K town within a couple hours' drive of a LARGE metro area.
A lot of ppl fly into Spokane and drive or fly to Pullman from Seattle area if they don't take the 5 hour drive from Seattle area.
I've been to many Apple cups, Pullman is a fun place to go and see a game. Lot's of drunken debauchery, Lol... I will truly be sad for the Cougs if they're not able to compete at the highest level. Although they're our rival, I view them more like our little brothers. It really sucks to see what is happening to college football.