It’s ok to admit that maybe this chart is not a great reflection of “brand” value.
3 Likes
I don’t have any reason to believe that it’s inaccurate.
The WSJ is usually a pretty reliable source for business information.
Exactly my point. I was metaphorically speaking, they have nothing there but Husker FB
Your chart brand value brings no explanation on how this writer came up with these numbers.
Anybody can write anything/everything they want. Does it make it true?
WSJ is a pretty reliable source for business info.
Kansas brand is more attractive to b10 than unc and uva.
Brand is all caps important. These are football brand values (or else duke is wrong). Football is driving things. I guess pivot to academics of uva and unc is more b10. Also Mizzouri.
1 Like
Kansas’ football brand may have money value…but it’s a really SUCKY brand.
The B1G already has lots of sucky football brands (Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Purdue, etc). The last thing they want to do is add another one.
That’s why Kansas won’t appeal to the B1G, even as a Midwestern AAU school, and despite their basketball blue blood status.
NOBODY wants to take on a football brand with THAT poor of a reputation, especially a conference like the B1G that is trying to put its own football brand on par with the SEC’s.
Wash St football brand 2x byu? I don’t know if anyone would trade byu in b12 for wsu.
I’m guessing that not having a Power conference TV contract holds BYU’s value back. Pretty hard to get good TV money as an independent unless you are ND.
It’ll skyrocket now that they are P5.
In attendance…were BYU a member of the PAC, they’d be #2 behind (barely) only Washington.
so Kansas brand has higher $ value, but it’s suckier? It’s ok for this chart to be wrong
Also, so unc and uva not on b10 radar
Yes. Their football brand has dollar value, mostly because they are in a P5 conference, and they get P5 TV money. That’s why ours is so low (among other reasons): because we were relegated to the G5 and don’t have the TV money to make our brand more valuable. Doesn’t matter that our football history is way better than Kansas’. They’ve always been P5, so they have P5 money to bolster their brand value.
Same problem with BYU…no P5…no P5 TV money…lower brand value, despite their far greater history of success.
That said, despite Kansas’ brand value, their football brand QUALITY sucks. Reputationally and historically…it’s in the GUTTER.
The B1G…which is trying to keep up with the SEC in football … is NOT going to take on a school which will only put it further behind. The B1G wants to improve its football reputation…not sully it.
1 Like
And last year’s rumored UH + 3 b12 to pac would have further stabilized pac vs what would have been b12 / aac. We can see from this chart that it would have been the better move? Imagine posters here criticizing those in favor of that rumored move.
1 Like
As for UNC and UVA, they are on the B1G radar, but for somewhat different reasons. Has to do as much with institutional fit as football brand value.
Both schools are AAU state flagships, which means they fit the most common “profile” for a B1G school…indeed…they fit the B1G profile better than they do the SEC.
The SEC will make a play too. After all, North Carolina is the most populous state not represented in either the B1G or SEC, and NC is geographically close.
But I am guessing that for academic reasons, if given a choice between the B1G and SEC, UNC will choose the B1G.
We’ll see just how the ACC falls apart. It’s going to be interesting to watch!
According to this chart the University of Washington (an AAU school) brand is worth a full 50% more than UCLA’s and over 33% more than USC’s.
The University of Oregon’s brand is worth also worth more than both USC and UCLA
So to recap:
WSJ "Brand Value:
1.Washington ($440m) -AAU
2. Oregon ($348m) -AAU (for now)
3. USC ($326m) -AAU
4. UCLA ($302m) -AAU
Schools the Big Ten took
3. USC ($326m)
4. UCLA ($302m)
Schools not worth enough for the Big Ten to take, reportedly because they lack sufficient value:
- Washington ($440m)
- Oregon ($348m)
That doesn’t seem to make sense EXCEPT…for the fact that the LA market is also WAAAAAY bigger and more valuable than either the Portland or Seattle markets.
Getting those LA schools gives the B1G a football monopoly over the West Coast’s biggest market.
Well there you have it!
Dude…you denied any realistic possibility of ANY of the PAC schools EVER going to the B1G 10.
You gave a million reasons why it would NOT happen
1 Like
Their worth and what they bring in the TV market are two difference things. There was an article that said the two of them did not have a TV value of 70 mil. The would bring in more like 50-60 mil.
I did.
I was proven wrong.
You also thought it would be better for UH to go to the PAC than the Big 12, and that the Big 12 was most unstable conference.
That’s a laugh. The Big 12 was a better, more stable landing spot, as we’ve seen in recent weeks.
I would not be shocked at all if Kansas ends up in the B1G 10 when the dust settles.