https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...rall-list/



Pretty straight forward, a couple of surprises on it. I don't have a whole lot to say on it except that it led me to further delve into the studies they did on each conference. I will continue with that down below.

The SEC was rated the top conference of value during this study, no surprise right? The Big Ten was ranked a close second, once again, no surprise.

https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...t-alabama/



https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...re-on-top/



The rest of those rankings can be found here.
https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...-football/



That last ranking surprised me so I looked at the ACC rankings of it's schools and that surprised me a lot. There were more surprises in this listing alone than in the SEC and Big Ten rankings combined.

https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...n-the-acc/



Syracuse and Pitt are the big surprises. Makes it able to see why they were judged as good adds. Networks use these same kind of metrics I'm sure. Florida State and Miami are the big surprises.

Maryland ranks extremely low but the writers make a pretty fair assessment of this and why the Big Ten would still be interested. If you go into the ACC portion of the blog, you will see Maryland is ranked 3rd in basketball value within the conference.


Back to the rankings and to the conference that really made me want to put this together.

The PAC

The PAC was so screwy for these guys to rank in terms of the business model of these schools that they ended up using the same kind of ranking system for PAC football that these guys use for the basketball rankings for every conference. They used the three tier system of ranking.

https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...fan-bases/



Now as you can see, it is very eye opening. You really have to read the article for their explanations. For me though this was just further proof of my analysis that the PAC was not in a position to truly pull off what it was trying to do earlier and now it was even more difficult that the other conference may be looking at some of the same programs.

Washington as your top equitable brand? Eye opener. Arizona State ranked up there with them? Not too surprising, I can fairly assess they are a pretty big deal in their market area, which is quite a considerable market. Colorado????? Damn....there goes the argument that they were a bad pick up for the PAC. The Utah one, well even they say they aren't quite sure yet but there must be some good value there for them to be put into tier 1 above the likes who didn't.

Well, the rest is obviously eye opening and Stanford with that low of a rating. The PAC just doesn't operate in the same manner as their contemporaries.

If you took Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State and put them in that listing then I bet you would see them in the top and middle tiers. That wouldn't be the case for them in the SEC or Big Ten.


I am sure some folks will question these findings and understandably so but Emory would be about as unbiased as it will get and their study seems to be as thorough and focused on actual quantifiable statistics as is possible.

Anyways, fun stats, can lead to many different conversations all at once. Especially for those that dig a little deeper in that site in order to look at all the pieces done on each conference. Good stuff!

bored?

(08-20-2013 06:09 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:   bored?

Some people are just good at doing such things. Obviously you aren't.

The reason so many of the rankings were a "surprise" is that this analysis was useless. If you have a crappy team that spends no money and you get anyone to show up, you'll rank ahead of the great team that spends money and has solid attendance.

(08-20-2013 07:02 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The reason so many of the rankings were a "surprise" is that this analysis was useless. If you have a crappy team that spends no money and you get anyone to show up, you'll rank ahead of the great team that spends money and has solid attendance.

Not really. What programs are you even alluding to? Syracuse/Pitt vs FSU/Miami?

This was posted on the ACC boards a week or so ago.

Some of the rankings make sense, but others are so obviously messed up that the entire project is called into question.

(08-20-2013 07:08 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This was posted on the ACC boards a week or so ago.

Some of the rankings make sense, but others are so obviously messed up that the entire project is called into question.

Why? Because they do not fit into the common perception among folks towards these programs?

I do still find the ACC findings questionable but at the same time, the ACC is a much different entity than the other conferences. The amount of fan following is much lower.

The point was that Syracuse hasn't been doing well for quite some time and yet their fan following hasn't gone down. I find the Pitt result even more questionable but sticking to Syracuse vs FSU and Miami....both of those schools have experienced very obvious downtrends in fan following due to less than stellar results in the past.

Hell, FSU has had some great seasons lately but there always seems to be some issue found with them by their fan following. Syracuse fans just keep on following and supporting.

I think that there are probably some other metrics to be added to this for a fuller picture but its not a bad picture just because it questions the status quo of thinking.

(08-20-2013 07:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:02 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The reason so many of the rankings were a "surprise" is that this analysis was useless. If you have a crappy team that spends no money and you get anyone to show up, you'll rank ahead of the great team that spends money and has solid attendance.

Not really. What programs are you even alluding to? Syracuse/Pitt vs FSU/Miami?

That sums it up. Any ranking that puts Idaho at the top of the non AQ is pretty worthless.

They may have done statistical analysis but their entire premise is flawed.

I'd say you should include things like giving that aren't accounted for in revenue. They should be including distance from alumni base if they are going to include size of alumni base. There are major differences in the way conferences and schools count revenue and attendance so without standardizing the records you have already started with questionable data.

(08-20-2013 07:18 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:02 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The reason so many of the rankings were a "surprise" is that this analysis was useless. If you have a crappy team that spends no money and you get anyone to show up, you'll rank ahead of the great team that spends money and has solid attendance.

Not really. What programs are you even alluding to? Syracuse/Pitt vs FSU/Miami?

That sums it up. Any ranking that puts Idaho at the top of the non AQ is pretty worthless.

They may have done statistical analysis but their entire premise is flawed.

I'd say you should include things like giving that aren't accounted for in revenue. They should be including distance from alumni base if they are going to include size of alumni base. There are major differences in the way conferences and schools count revenue and attendance so without standardizing the records you have already started with questionable data.

Really? That is your proof? The only proof that this is is that they did not do a very thorough statistical analysis of non-BCS programs. There are a whole lot more than that.

They only did 5. Of those five, Idaho placed fourth. That is very kind of you to be Marshall's defender but that brand has only gone down as regionalism has become less and less important in college football.

Now they wont even be playing West Virginia

(08-20-2013 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They only did 5. Of those five, Idaho placed fourth. That is very kind of you to be Marshall's defender but that brand has only gone down as regionalism has become less and less important in college football.

They didn't only do 5. They spent 2 paragraphs talking about Boise State and how poorly they did in their analysis because they don't sell out their stadium.

So according to their methodology, Idaho is way better than Boise State.


https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...ualifying/

(08-20-2013 07:51 PM)TomThumb Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They only did 5. Of those five, Idaho placed fourth. That is very kind of you to be Marshall's defender but that brand has only gone down as regionalism has become less and less important in college football.

They didn't only do 5. They spent 2 paragraphs talking about Boise State and how poorly they did in their analysis because they don't sell out their stadium.

So according to their methodology, Idaho is way better than Boise State.


https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...ualifying/

The methodology is flawed and tripathi admits that here: https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/...-measures/

He also is quoted as " We use a statistical model that predicts team revenues as a function of the team’s performance, as measured by winning rates and postseason success. The key insight is that when a team achieves revenues that greatly exceed what would be expected based on team performance, it is an indication of significant brand equity.”

You can see the apparent problems with this.

(08-20-2013 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:18 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:02 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The reason so many of the rankings were a "surprise" is that this analysis was useless. If you have a crappy team that spends no money and you get anyone to show up, you'll rank ahead of the great team that spends money and has solid attendance.

Not really. What programs are you even alluding to? Syracuse/Pitt vs FSU/Miami?

That sums it up. Any ranking that puts Idaho at the top of the non AQ is pretty worthless.

They may have done statistical analysis but their entire premise is flawed.

I'd say you should include things like giving that aren't accounted for in revenue. They should be including distance from alumni base if they are going to include size of alumni base. There are major differences in the way conferences and schools count revenue and attendance so without standardizing the records you have already started with questionable data.

Really? That is your proof? The only proof that this is is that they did not do a very thorough statistical analysis of non-BCS programs. There are a whole lot more than that.

They only did 5. Of those five, Idaho placed fourth. That is very kind of you to be Marshall's defender but that brand has only gone down as regionalism has become less and less important in college football.

Now they wont even be playing West Virginia

They did them ALL. Those were their top 5. You can keep wasting time defending this "analysis" if you wish.

Most people would agree their approach was severely flawed.

(08-20-2013 08:23 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:18 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:05 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 07:02 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The reason so many of the rankings were a "surprise" is that this analysis was useless. If you have a crappy team that spends no money and you get anyone to show up, you'll rank ahead of the great team that spends money and has solid attendance.

Not really. What programs are you even alluding to? Syracuse/Pitt vs FSU/Miami?

That sums it up. Any ranking that puts Idaho at the top of the non AQ is pretty worthless.

They may have done statistical analysis but their entire premise is flawed.

I'd say you should include things like giving that aren't accounted for in revenue. They should be including distance from alumni base if they are going to include size of alumni base. There are major differences in the way conferences and schools count revenue and attendance so without standardizing the records you have already started with questionable data.

Really? That is your proof? The only proof that this is is that they did not do a very thorough statistical analysis of non-BCS programs. There are a whole lot more than that.

They only did 5. Of those five, Idaho placed fourth. That is very kind of you to be Marshall's defender but that brand has only gone down as regionalism has become less and less important in college football.

Now they wont even be playing West Virginia

They did them ALL. Those were their top 5. You can keep wasting time defending this "analysis" if you wish.

Most people would agree their approach was severely flawed.

Nah, I went back. They did pretty badly with the non BCS stuff, that is for sure. Plenty of their other picks can be called into account too.

You can use a simple model to compare things that are so dissimilar. There is an obvious bias toward state schools in very large states. There is also a bias against the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th team within a regional market. It also helps to have your apparel selected as gang colors. Perhaps the worst error is to use the term "brand equity" when the real title for the ranking should be "real merchandise sales versus expected merchandise sales" - however the expectation has to take into account the starting place in the market, the size of the market, and the number of alums. How you can really compare the Brand Equity of Wake Forest, to Texas, to Northwestern, to Ohio State, to Baylor is beyond me. Texas and Ohio State are national brands as well as huge state brands. Ohio State has no B-5 competition in the entire State of Ohio. Winning or losing is not driving their sales.

(08-20-2013 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 06:09 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:   bored?

Some people are just good at doing such things. Obviously you aren't.

Okay bro.

(08-20-2013 09:36 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 06:09 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:   bored?

Some people are just good at doing such things. Obviously you aren't.

Okay bro.

Thanks for proving my point about you with these two marvelously put together posts of yours. Well done!

(08-21-2013 10:26 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 09:36 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 06:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-20-2013 06:09 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:   bored?

Some people are just good at doing such things. Obviously you aren't.

Okay bro.

Thanks for proving my point about you with these two marvelously put together posts of yours. Well done!

I'm not really sure what your getting defensive about. I simply read through silly and flawed statistics and wondered how bored you must have been to even post that.

But then again I don't really care.