quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: AF & CSU had the MWC over a barrel - like 2013 Boise. Should they have capital...
(05-29-2022 05:11 PM)Milwaukee Wrote: (05-29-2022 04:48 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (05-29-2022 07:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote: (05-29-2022 07:39 AM)ken d Wrote: (05-29-2022 05:22 AM)Milwaukee Wrote: True, we are caught up with the language of brands, and as long as we're caught up in that language, it may be helpful to clarify that there is a difference worth noting between a (generic) "brand" and a "brand name" (see below).
For example, there are different (generic) "brands" of "football" (American football is one, soccer is another, and rugby is a third generic brand of football).
The main point is that, rather than referring (broadly) to "brands" in these discussions, we're actually referring more specifically to the schools/teams' "brand names."
Thus, to rephrase the statements above,
"Your best (brand names) are the ones that being in the most viewership and most money and this typically coincides with winning..."
"...whoever is hot in football is going to be among your top (brand names)..."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It's also interesting to note that there seem to be two definitions of a brand name in college athletics:
1) Historical legacy (dating back multiple decades; e.g., Indiana MBB), and
2) "Winning," or "whoever is hot" (e.g., Gonzaga).
1. Legacy: There are many examples of FB and BB schools/programs that have a brand name associated with a well-established legacy of success, even though they are not currently "winning" or "hot."
---For example, WKU is ranked #21st on the CBS list of the greatest college basketball programs of all time, even though they haven't appeared in the last 8 NCAA tournaments.
---Notably, a school may have a legacy in football or basketball, or both.
---Thus, in the arena of collegiate athletics, "Duke" has a brand name due in particular to its men's basketball program.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/the-greatest-college-basketball-programs-ever-ranking-the-top-teams-of-all-time/
2. "Winning:" Just as there are "legacy" programs that aren't "hot," there are "hot" programs that don't have a legacy dating back more than a decade.
---For example, most observers of the sport would agree that Appalachian State has established at least an incipient brand name for itself in college football circles (but not in basketball), due to having won an average of 10 wins per season in their 8 years as an FBS program.
.
Why the two ways of defining of "brand name" in collegiate sports matter with regard to this discussion:
1. From the standpoint of historical legacy, the AAC has had, and will continue to have a number of "brand names," including:
- Navy - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1924 Rose Bowl.
.
- SMU - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1936 Rose Bowl.
.
- Tulane - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1932 Rose Bowl.
.
- Rice - multiple major bowls & top 10 FB teams, dating back to 1938 Cotton Bowl.
.
- Memphis - ranked #34th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
.
- Temple - ranked #24th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
.
- Wichita St. - ranked #60th on CBS list of greatest MBB programs of all time.
2. In addition, recent "brand names" from the standpoint of winning have included:
- Navy - top 25 football teams in 2019 & 2015; 7 bowl games (5-2) since 2011.
.
- Memphis - top 25 FB teams in 2019, 2017, 2014, & 7 bowl games since 2011.
.
- UTSA - top 25 football team in December, 2021 AP poll.
.
- Memphis - 2022 NCAA tournament team; 2021 NIT championship team.
.
- Wichita St. - 8 NCAA tournament teams since 2011 (2012-2018 & 2021).
.
- Recent NCAA tournament teams: UAB (2022), UNT (2021), Temple (2019).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definitions of the generic term "brand" and the more specific term, "brand name:"
Generic definitions of "brand:"
": a public image, reputation, or identity conceived of as something to be marketed or promoted"
: a characteristic or distinctive kind
e.g., "a lively brand of theater"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand
Definition of "brand-name"
1: of or relating to a brand name
brand-name products
2: having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand%20name
NOTE: "Brand" may also refer to a "make" (as in manufacturer) of a product (e.g., a vehicle, such as a "Ram" truck).
Your definition and list of "brand names" isn't very exclusive. Ipana is a brand name toothpaste by your definition.
You don't even have to be very good in sports to be on it. You certainly don't have to be very valuable. Just the occasional good season will do. But being on your list won't get you an invitation to play with the big dogs.
Value is relative, the AAC remainers are worth ~$7 million per year to ESPN, and three of them are said to be on the Big 12's "short list" for their expansion round two.
.
If that was the case, it seems that the AAC wouldn't have needed to backfill to replace the departing schools. It could have just stayed at 8, and collected that $7m per school.
That's a pretty good example of a non sequitur.
Eh, in the previous post I replied to, you claimed that the AAC remainers are worth $7m a year to ESPN. But what's the basis for saying that?
Right now, with UCF/Houston/Cincy in the fold, and excluding the six schools to join in 2023, ESPN is paying the AAC a lump sum of about $76m per year for media rights. That works out to about $7m per school for the 11 football schools.
Now, if reports are correct, starting in 2023, once UCF/C/UH are gone and the six CUSA noobs are on board, ESPN will still be paying the same $76m per year to the AAC, which works out to about $5.5m per school for the 14 football schools.
Now, from what I've seen reported, the *AAC* has decided to divide that pie unequally, such that the remainers will stay at around $7m per school while the noobs will get $3.5m per school. The key being that this is an AAC determination, not an ESPN determination.
For your statement to be correct, it would have to be true that ESPN specified that of that $76m, $56m was to be divided among the remainers, while $20m is to be divided among the six noobs. That would be *ESPN* valuing the remainers at $7m per school.
But as far I've read, nobody has said that. All reports I've read indicate that the AAC itself made that determination. So the correct statement is that the *AAC* is valuing its remainers at $7m per school and its noobs at $3.5m per school. And that makes sense, as why would ESPN care how the AAC divides that money? It could care less who gets what, that's an internal issue for the AAC to decide.
Not ESPN.
Of course, if you have other information about who decided how the pie was to be divided, well, I'd love to hear it.
(This post was last modified: 05-29-2022 05:46 PM by quo vadis.)
|
|