Why would UNC and Virginia end up in the B1G?
You keep pushing brand value. They do not have it in regard to athletics.
UNC sits behind Az St, Utah and Stanford (which is who they are supposedly looking to get away from)
Virginia is even lower and would be in bottom half of B1G brands and behind Colorado and Arizona
More importantly for the media: TV viewership
UNC is behind Tech, Washington St, and Utah,
Virginia even lower behind UH (AAC version) and Kansas St
Answer: because a) both are AAU, and as such, academically they are B1G qualified, b) for that same reason, their schoolsâ institutional profiles better match those of most B1G schools than they do those of many ACC schools like Wake Forest, BC, SMU, Cuse, c) they are a big enough sports brand (in UNCâs case) such that they will be valuable to a P2 like the B1G; even UVA would be a darned good sports brand, and most importantly, d) MONEY!!!
I would estimate the annual media payout for a B1G team would be TWICE that of an ACC team in a conference without FSU and Clemson.
NO school would turn that down, except maybe ND (and thatâs borderline incomprehensible on their part).
If this latest round of realignment didnât teach us anything else, it taught us the following: NO SCHOOL OTHER THAN ND EVER REFUSES A CHANCE TO BOLT TO THE P2.
Donât put money on UNC or UVA being the other one.
I can tell you that UH and TCU almost certainly wouldnât turn down such an opportunity, if it ever presented itself.
Never said anyone would turn down an invite.
I simply gave higher rated schools (which are also AAU by the way) including Stanford (which is also better research $$$$) that would be better takes for the B1G than UNC or Virginia based upon your guidelines of brand and AAU.
(to add: I left TCU off the lists because they are not AAU or even R1 yet, but are listed as a higher brand and higher viewership than both)
Stanford may be a better ACADEMIC brand, but as a sports brand, they would lag way behind UNC.
Just compare average football and basketball attendance. Stanford would only be ahead of Northwestern in average football attendance, and would rank DEAD LAST by a wide margin in average basketball attendance, were they in the B1G.
The key to getting a B1G invite is to be BOTH a big sports brand, AND AAU. UNC and even UVa meet that criteria nicely.
Stanford does not. Its athletic strength is mostly in sports that nobody cares about and which donât generate any revenue.
Thatâs why the Big 12 didnât want 'emâŠand the ACC only wanted them at reduced shares.
It also helps if you are a state flagship or co-flagship, since most B1G schools are (as are UNC and UVA). StanfordâŠwellâŠ
The link I provided in my post before shows Stanford is a bigger brand than UNC and way more than Virginia. It uses factors to develop a true brand value over just making things up.
Now if you are changing your argument to just attendance, that is a different discussion as no one cares about attendance only. The only school that benefits from just attendance is the home school, not the others or the conference or the media.
Ya need to look at attendance, as I said.
Stanford isnât close to any B1G school in menâs basketball, and would only rank ahead of Northwestern in football.
Too small a brand for even the ACC to take them at full shares.
No, I donât need to.
Only you are setting attendance as any sort of single value. No one else.
Are you saying you know better than all the other metrics out there including companies that are geared around evaluating values? Rhetorical question. Attendance alone is not brand,
The best indication of how low Stanfordâs value is the fact that NO power conference was willing to pay them full shares, neither the B1G nor the Big 12 considered them valuable enough to offer at any shares, and the ACC only thought that their value was enough to pay them 1/4 shares.
THAT is the measure of their value. OBVIOUSLYâŠNOT B1G worthyâŠonly ACC worthy at a HUGE discount.
That should tell you that any metric that shows Stanfordâs brand as larger than the teams you mentionedâŠis a BAD metric that shouldnât be relied upon. Given that, any metric that says anything to that effect can be safely disregarded/rejected.
Just like RPI with respect to basketball, sometimes youâve been known to use the WRONG metric. NET was a better metric for conference/team strength in basketball, as I argued, and I was vindicated on that in the tournament.
Same deal here.
Attendance is the best measure of brand size because that shows, better than anything else, the size of the programâs FAN BASE, and that affects everything else, including merchandising, streaming media hits, etc.
Stanfordâs attendance, and as such, its brand size, is nowhere close to being B1G worthy.
UNC (especially), and UVA are both better in that regard.
Because you said so? Funny.
Show a source that validates that attendance is the only metric that matters for brand. Your word is not valid.
You also said the B1G would not take Washington and Oregon because they didnât when they took USC/UCLA.
Oh well off to take care of some stuff.
Go back and see how RPI served you in the past.
As I said, thatâs how we know your history of relying on bad metrics.
As for Washington and Oregon, they only got admitted at half shares, but that shows how much more valuable their brands are compared to Stanfordâs.
Youâre comparing half shares in the B1G to 1/4 shares in the ACC.
Pretty HUGE gap in valuation there.
As I saidâŠStanford simply AINâT a B1G worthy brand.
And yesâŠI know of NO better metric on college sports brand size than attendance.
How do we know that Clemson and FSU are the biggest brands in the ACC?
Simple.
Look at average football attendance.
Deficits eh?
ALL THE MORE REASON why UNC would go to the B1G.
As I saidâŠMONEY!!!
Memphis is never a âgood addâ because you have to take school along with the team and no p4 schools want to be associated with Memphis.
What history of bad metrics? More like bad reading comprehension on your part.
A poster said the MWC was ranked 4th in RPI.
You said it was wrong.
I posted the link to RPI that showed the MWC was 4th as was stated.
That was a simple fact.
You not liking RPI was irrelevant to the MWC being 4th at the time.
It has nothing to do with my valuing the strength of a basketball conference. As I stated, I do not watch college basketball and have no thought as to which conference is first, second, third, etc⊠I simply posted a fact and you did not like being wrong. It was not an evaluation of the value of RPI, simply the MWC was 4th.
And yet both have higher attendance than UNC and Virginia, and they are only half with higher attendance.
Donât forget you spent the last couple years posting how football is the driving factor and basketball does not matter.
Did not compare. Simply put out that Stanford is ranked as a higher brand value than UNC based upon an outside source.
Yes, the âI KNOWâ
You really need to drop the references to having attended two AAU schools as you show zero knowledge of actual statistics or valid research. What you know is irrelevant. Put out verified sources that attendance is the only metric that matters. That is something I would be interested in reading.
Guess this has run its course as we are back to the all-knowing version which leads to zero discussion.
If Washington County is paying out more than 38 cents a year to him, the citizens are being ripped off.
Then take it up with the County Commissioners who are definitely paying me more than that!
As for your âoutside source,â it is worthless.
Your âoutside sourceâ would have us believe that Stanford, a team making only 1/4 shares in the ACC, is as valuable as or more valuable than UNC, a team making FULL shares in the same conference, and which, unlike Stanford, is often mentioned as a P2 candidate (the P2 and Big 12, for that matter, already said no to Stanford, precisely because of its brand value).
As for attendance as a brand evaluator, consider the average football attendance per school in 2023:
Clemson: 81.3K per game
Florida State: 78.7K per game
UNC: 50.1K per game
Stanford: 33.2K per game
Are youâŠOR your âoutside sourceâ REALLY going to tell us with a straight face that Stanfordâs football brand is bigger than UNCâs in the face of those numbers?
Really?
Come on now. Donât make us laugh, and donât insult our intelligence.
And when it comes to basketball attendanceâŠWHOA NELLIE!!! Hereâs the average menâs basketball attendance for 2023-2024 season.
UNC: 20,593
Stanford: 3,538
And those are the only two ârevenueâ sports that matter to the money people.
Please now. Donât be a FOOL and tell us that Stanford is a bigger athletic brand in the face of those numbers.
As I saidâŠif some source is telling you thatâŠthen itâs a BAD SOURCE that should be dismissed outright.
Dang, curiosity got the better of me.
First a one year average is not an average. You need to do better than comparing a year when Stanford had 3 wins to UNC with 8. Big factor⊠that you leave out.
On to my curiosity questionâŠ
How does the media, which is the one footing the bill here profit off of in stadium attendance?
Next:
TV viewership has Stanford higher than UNC in both of these multi-year averages:
How is a media company which makes money off of TV making more out of those in the stadium than those watching on TV?
PS. I like how you claim a bad source but can still provide no sources of your own.
OK, Now try to bow out, but still read if there is a real reply that can explain how the media makes their money.
I think UH can improve from 52 to a head of TCU and Baylor soon as we recover our winning ways. 27 is right about his analogy UH is a growth stock with great potential for appreciation.
My attendance numbers are from the schoolsâ own websites.
If those arenât authoritative sources, then nothing would be.
Again, donât be a fool and tell us that a school with Stanfordâs attendance is a bigger sports brand than a school with UNCâs attendance.
That would be like saying that a school with UHâs attendance is as big a sports brand as a school with SEC (other than Vandy) attendance.
Sorry, but that dog doesnât hunt. It barely barks and might squeal, but it doesnât hunt.
©Copyright 2017 Coogfans.com