Brand Value Rankings

[DuckTownHusker]

Good grief people. Take a little time to read the metrics used for this ranking:

As an answer to this question on the collegiate side of the business, Navigate created the Brand Value Index by taking into account three primary variables:

1. Revenue per Fan – Total revenue reported by the athletic department divided up between the estimated number of fans across the country. This variable is used to take into account the passion levels of fans, especially when it comes to spending money to support their teams.
2. Fan Base – Estimated number of fans across the country. Overall popularity is the main driver of this variable, which alone is a great indicator of brand equity as the reach is a result of the power of the brand over a long period of time.
3. Fan Percent of State Population – Estimated number of fans divided by the total population of the state where the athletic department is located. The ability of a property to become the most popular in its own state and beyond proves the saturation level of the brand in the community.

Yep.

#1 and #3 work very much in Nebraska's favor. And also West Virginia.

It's obviously a very subjective calculation.

I'd suggest Notre Dame has fairly high brand value. But the metrics chosen by the author don't support that.

College football programs who are the only team in their state - or the only "major" team in their state - benefit greatly from this. Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin and West Virginia are obvious choices, but the same logic would apply to Wyoming or even Boise State.

Notre Dame suffers here because the population of Indiana is split three ways - Notre Dame, Indiana and Purdue. Compare that to Iowa, where it's just split between two teams (Hawkeyes and Cyclones), or Nebraska where The Cornhusker State and The Cornhusker Football team are basically a 1-to-1 overlap.

I would argue that Metric #2 (national fanbase) and Metric #3 (local/state fanbase) should somehow be weighted differently. You really can't make the assertion that all ten of the teams shown are a more "valuable" brand than Notre Dame. I'll grant you an argument for teams like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama or LSU, but there's no way Iowa carries more prestige than the Irish.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

College football programs who are the only team in their state - or the only "major" team in their state - benefit greatly from this. Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin and West Virginia are obvious choices, but the same logic would apply to Wyoming or even Boise State.

Notre Dame suffers here because the population of Indiana is split three ways - Notre Dame, Indiana and Purdue. Compare that to Iowa, where it's just split between two teams (Hawkeyes and Cyclones), or Nebraska where The Cornhusker State and The Cornhusker Football team are basically a 1-to-1 overlap.

I would argue that Metric #2 (national fanbase) and Metric #3 (local/state fanbase) should somehow be weighted differently. You really can't make the assertion that all ten of the teams shown are a more "valuable" brand than Notre Dame. I'll grant you an argument for teams like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama or LSU, but there's no way Iowa carries more prestige than the Irish.

We have to separate value of brand vs potential of brand here.
Because E$PN spends the big bucks for us to play, thats a national sale, not a local sale, and while they usually go hand in hand, it doesnt align with local sometimes at all.
I think the criteria in the chart hit most of that of what is pertinent, but I didnt seethe weight of each and how its applied

 

[DuckTownHusker]

We have to separate value of brand vs potential of brand here.
Because E$PN spends the big bucks for us to play, thats a national sale, not a local sale, and while they usually go hand in hand, it doesnt align with local sometimes at all.
I think the criteria in the chart hit most of that of what is pertinent, but I didnt seethe weight of each and how its applied

Yeah, I don't really dispute the rankings per se. I like the methodology. But if anyone saw this and claimed that Oregon was a better brand than Notre Dame, I'd have to wonder if they know anything about college football.

There are a couple of outliers (Irish) but they're the exception, not the rule.

It's kind of like Nebraska losing AAU membership in the B1G, or if Oklahoma (not-AAU) decided to join the Big Ten. You kind of just roll up your sleeves and take that exception because it makes good business sense.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

Yeah, I don't really dispute the rankings per se. I like the methodology. But if anyone saw this and claimed that Oregon was a better brand than Notre Dame, I'd have to wonder if they know anything about college football.

There are a couple of outliers (Irish) but they're the exception, not the rule.

It's kind of like Nebraska losing AAU membership in the B1G, or if Oklahoma (not-AAU) decided to join the Big Ten. You kind of just roll up your sleeves and take that exception because it makes good business sense.

If theyd included religion in some form with a weighted value of its own several teams would increase.
Theres other categories to add, but become political yet pertinent

 

[Bigger Ed]

I look at it more as always, a pride thing
I too dont want to get all caught up in the money thing, and yet I know and expect it to make differences in recruiting.
Theres a balance, for both fans and recruits, and even pro ballers prefer certain teams over others
Up to us to carry our part of that as fans

I'm proud of NU's history and the way a winning tradition was established. Not to put words in your mouth but when you talk of being poud of the brand, I think you probably mean you're proud of NU's reputation. A good reputation is invaluable. A good brand means others (e.g. Nike, Adidas, etc.) make money of your tradition, reputation. They corrupt the game for the almighty $. For example, look at Oregon; I'm sure they do well for Nike but they don't come close to the winning tradition of NU. They have a good brand but they don't come close to NU in winning. Style over substance. Style makes money but substance enriches the game.

 

[Bigger Ed]

I have seen a bunch of Husker fans on Twitter beating their chests over this and how it's some great accomplishment. This is the kind of thing that is embarrassing. We are so irrelevant that we cling to any sign of strength or accomplishment, as silly as they might be.

Just embrace the fact that we are irrelevant. Put our heads down and do our part until we win meaningful games again. We look pathetic when we get all stoked about dumb crap like this.

IMHO, the sell-out streak is same thing. Much ado about nothing.

 

[NorthwoodHusker]

I'm proud of NU's history and the way a winning tradition was established. Not to put words in your mouth but when you talk of being poud of the brand, I think you probably mean you're proud of NU's reputation. A good reputation is invaluable. A good brand means others (e.g. Nike, Adidas, etc.) make money of your tradition, reputation. They corrupt the game for the almighty $. For example, look at Oregon; I'm sure they do well for Nike but they don't come close to the winning tradition of NU. They have a good brand but they don't come close to NU in winning. Style over substance. Style maked money but substance enriches the game.

You are right, but selling your team to a recruit can be just look at whats available with the word sell used for inform.
Thats why for me, I separate these things.
The staff has to be by law, and us fans still have that, and the players motives for being here shouldnt change much, as long as we can offer as much as the next.
I admit I'm being somewhat simplistic here, but noone truly knows how this changes things at this point.
But I believe therell be plenty of room for the old fashioned ways,just more stuff.
And if not,its a sad day

 

[707194959725]

Iowa likes their solid mediocracy. It's who they are.

 

[EastOfEden]

Oh to be as mediocre as Iowa has been since we joined BIG

 

[Red Said Ted]

College football programs who are the only team in their state - or the only "major" team in their state - benefit greatly from this. Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin and West Virginia are obvious choices, but the same logic would apply to Wyoming or even Boise State.

Notre Dame suffers here because the population of Indiana is split three ways - Notre Dame, Indiana and Purdue. Compare that to Iowa, where it's just split between two teams (Hawkeyes and Cyclones), or Nebraska where The Cornhusker State and The Cornhusker Football team are basically a 1-to-1 overlap.

I would argue that Metric #2 (national fanbase) and Metric #3 (local/state fanbase) should somehow be weighted differently. You really can't make the assertion that all ten of the teams shown are a more "valuable" brand than Notre Dame. I'll grant you an argument for teams like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama or LSU, but there's no way Iowa carries more prestige than the Irish.

One might argue that this is a better measure of ‘passion’ than value. Although the level of passion from a fan base certainly contributes to the brands ‘value’.

 

[AlaskaCorn]

I believe it. Our following is huge (even still).

 

[Mr.Bennett]

Love DONU - but this ranking needs one of two things, either a new label (highest Q rating within the home state?) or a different methodology. Iowa is not more valuable than USC. Wisconsin is not more valuable than Texas. And there are probably 60 schools more valuable than West Virginia (if they were really #7 they'd already be in the SEC)

No idea how to rank brand value, but this is not it.

 

[TFrazier]

Love DONU - but this ranking needs one of two things, either a new label (highest Q rating within the home state?) or a different methodology. Iowa is not more valuable than USC. Wisconsin is not more valuable than Texas. And there are probably 60 schools more valuable than West Virginia (if they were really #7 they'd already be in the SEC)

No idea how to rank brand value, but this is not it.

I think they used one of these to come up with the rankings.