Check this out:
http://tracking.si.com/2013/02/26/big-east-name-change-tv-deal-espn-realignment/?sct=uk_t2_a8
It would be great to kick off our new league brand with our old name. It's got to be part of the masterplan.
Paying for it? No thank you.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on February 26, 2013, 03:43:19 PM
Paying for it? No thank you.
If its cheap definitely buy it.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 26, 2013, 03:45:30 PM
If its cheap definitely buy it.
No thanks. I can do without a running "The Big East, well, kind of" commentary for the rest of time.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on February 26, 2013, 03:50:08 PM
No thanks. I can do without a running "The Big East, well, kind of" commentary for the rest of time.
And I can do without some crappy name like "Conference USA." That was a disaster. No thanks. The Big East name still carries weight—and is closely associated with urban hoops schools. While tarnished...it still has cache.
Who's going to rip on it? Big 10 backers??? Who gives a damn...they call themselves the Big 10 and will soon have 14 teams.
I would buy it if it were cheap...but new names and new brands can be developed. What's most important is that they play high-level, quality basketball.
I think taking the Big East name would be a huge mistake.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on February 26, 2013, 03:45:30 PM
If its cheap definitely buy it.
Raises the question--what's the right price for us. I think the brand is worth something--especially as we might be seen as "saving" it from becoming associated with a crappy all-sports conference and keeping it to its roots.
But, what is the price of that? Is it worth sacrificing any chunk of the exit fees from the other schools? NCAA tournament credits? Some other measure?
We've heard a lot about the name being for sale, but I wonder just what price tag they are putting on it.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 26, 2013, 03:56:55 PM
I would buy it if it were cheap...but new names and new brands can be developed. What's most important is that they play high-level, quality basketball.
Launching a new Brand is one of the most difficult challenges in business. Repositioning a Brand is even more difficult. Without looking at the research I would say the Big East name has considerable residual value and is worth keeping. Given the presence of so many original east coast members this is less of a repositioning than it is a rejuvenation proposition. Lots of grist to play with, in that case.
I don't care about it. But five of the seven schools do a whole lot. I'm sure if we were in the Big East for the past 25+ years we'd care more.
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 04:04:02 PM
Launching a new Brand is one of the most difficult challenges in business. Repositioning a Brand is even more difficult. Without looking at the research I would say the Big East name has considerable residual value and is worth keeping. Given the presence of so many original east coast members this is less of a repositioning than it is a rejuvenation proposition. Lots of grist to play with, in that case.
Agreed
Keep in mind that it's not a choice between the cost of the Big East name and a $0 cost to develop a new name. Choosing to create a new brand is going to incur some VERY high costs (advertising, development, market research) and also come with a bit of a lag time before it becomes 'common parlance.' If the Big East isn't being ransomed for some ridiculous sum (I won't put a number to this without more specifics) then you pay for it and save a lot of headaches.
Quote from: akmarq on February 26, 2013, 04:09:26 PM
Agreed
Keep in mind that it's not a choice between the cost of the Big East name and a $0 cost to develop a new name. Choosing to create a new brand is going to incur some VERY high costs (advertising, development, market research) and also come with a bit of a lag time before it becomes 'common parlance.' If the Big East isn't being ransomed for some ridiculous sum (I won't put a number to this without more specifics) then you pay for it and save a lot of headaches.
Excellent point.
I don't necessarily consider us a new brand. We'll be a new brand by name, but the conference will be made up of a collection of already highly regarded brands that are doing something that hasn't been done before. I'd like to see them go in fresh with a new conference name and logo and utilize the value of each school's individual brand to create the gestalt of the new conference.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on February 26, 2013, 03:57:57 PM
I think taking the Big East name would be a huge mistake.
I think the C-7 should take the old name, invite Butler and maybe Xavier to join, and believe it or not, invite UC and UConn, into the league for all sports except football. If they leave later then we cann replace them with these other schools (Creighton, Dayton, St. Louis, etc.). That would be a truly elite league. UC and UConn may leave if they get an ACC,SEC, or B1G invite but lets stick the bread in the gravy while its still hot.
Let me get this straight ... this board is populated by a lot of people that saw their head explode of going from Warrior to Gold and now you could care less about the name Big East? (For the record Gold would have been a MUCH BETTER name than Golden Eagles)
You guys underestimate the brand of the Big East, and the records, conference tourney (I assume also the MSG tourney contract) and the automatic bid. It has value where some made-up name has no value.
Buy it and pay for it. It will go a long way to establishing the C7 than calling the "The Acme Conference" or some other random made up name.
New Coke Conference
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 26, 2013, 04:13:57 PM
Let me get this straight ... this board is populated by a lot of people that saw their head explode of going from Warrior to Gold and now you could care less about the name Big East? (For the record Gold would have been a MUCH BETTER name than Golden Eagles)
Oooh ... oooh ... oooh! I can't wait to see all the folks coming out of the wordwork to agree with you on this.
Quote from: MU82 on February 26, 2013, 04:15:22 PM
Oooh ... oooh ... oooh! I can't wait to see all the folks coming out of the wordwork to agree with you on this.
Should've just changed it to the Marquette University Marquette Universities since the school basically plays down the golden eagles mascot at every opportunity. It could be like when the Thunder had been announced and nothing much was known about them other than Toby Keith was an owner and this came out.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2713924523_325af62ea0_o.jpg)
Quote from: MU82 on February 26, 2013, 04:15:22 PM
Oooh ... oooh ... oooh! I can't wait to see all the folks coming out of the wordwork to agree with you on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8
The guy at 1:35 clearly states, "I want the gold."
Quote from: tommyc6 on February 26, 2013, 04:13:23 PM
I don't necessarily consider us a new brand. We'll be a new brand by name, but the conference will be made up of a collection of already highly regarded brands that are doing something that hasn't been done before. I'd like to see them go in fresh with a new conference name and logo and utilize the value of each school's individual brand to create the gestalt of the new conference.
It would be a new brand. You don't see it as new because you already follow all these schools and have a lot of experience with their rivalries, style of play, history, etc.
When I say 'Big 10' I bet you immediately think of lots of associations (OSU-UM, slow basketball, great defense). When you say 'Catholic 7' to the average (non-Big East) fan, they don't have any associations there. When you say 'Big East' they already know what you're talking about.
Outside of Georgetown and MU (though only more recently) none of the C7 has a highly known brand outside of BE fans.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 26, 2013, 04:13:57 PM
You guys underestimate the brand of the Big East, and the records, conference tourney (I assume also the MSG tourney contract) and the automatic bid. It has value where some made-up name has no value.
I'd love to retain the Big East name. To carry on a legacy that has so much history and tradition would be an honor, and it would mean a lot to those alumni of Nova, G-town, Seton Hall, and Providence EDIT: and St. Johns (yikes, bad miss) who have been in the league for a lot longer than us.
That being said, I'm not sure that by retaining the name we keep the contract at MSG. Rest assure there are provisions in the contract that will void it if the make-up of the conference changes to a certain degree.
Also, we'll already have the automatic bid regardless of name.
Quote from: windyplayer on February 26, 2013, 04:22:25 PM
I'd love to retain the Big East name. To carry on a legacy that has so much history and tradition would be an honor, and it would mean a lot to those alumni of Nova, G-town, Seton Hall, and Providence EDIT: and St. Johns (yikes, bad miss) who have been in the league for a lot longer than us.
That being said, I'm not sure that by retaining the name we keep the contract at MSG. Rest assure there are provisions in the contract that will void it if the make-up of the conference changes to a certain degree.
Also, we'll already have the automatic bid regardless of name.
MSG is a space available for rent. As long as our rental checks clears, we are in. Now if we leave, or change, that gives MSG the opportunity to shop that rental to anyone else who wants that week ... be it the ACC, A-10 or a rich upper west sider that wants to throw a bar mitvah.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 26, 2013, 04:28:11 PM
MSG is a space available for rent. As long as our rental checks clears, we are in. Now if we leave, or change, that gives MSG the opportunity to shop that rental to anyone else who wants that week ... be it the ACC, A-10 or a rich upper west sider that wants to throw a bar mitvah.
That'd be one hell of a bar mitzvah.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 26, 2013, 04:28:11 PM
MSG is a space available for rent. As long as our rental checks clears, we are in. Now if we leave, or change, that gives MSG the opportunity to shop that rental to anyone else who wants that week ... be it the ACC, A-10 or a rich upper west sider that wants to throw a bar mitvah.
This is true, but it's a totally seperate issue from retaining the BE name. I'm almost certain that if the composition of the conference changes then the agreement bewteen MSG and the Big East can be/is voided.
The 'new BE' (C7+) could negioate a new contract with MSG, but whether we retain the name and whether the tournament is at MSG are totally seperate issues (unless retaining the name is a positive step toward a new contact with MSG).
Quote from: Montana Warrior on February 26, 2013, 04:13:36 PM
I think the C-7 should take the old name, invite Butler and maybe Xavier to join, and believe it or not, invite UC and UConn, into the league for all sports except football. If they leave later then we cann replace them with these other schools (Creighton, Dayton, St. Louis, etc.). That would be a truly elite league. UC and UConn may leave if they get an ACC,SEC, or B1G invite but lets stick the bread in the gravy while its still hot.
Let's try this one more time....
NO MORE FOOTBALL! >:(
Screw UConn and Cincy. They're on their own. They're both trying like hell to get into the ACC...which would continue if they were members of the C7. Who needs that? We've finally unhitched our wagon from football. Keep it that way.
Quote from: tommyc6 on February 26, 2013, 04:13:23 PM
I don't necessarily consider us a new brand. We'll be a new brand by name, but the conference will be made up of a collection of already highly regarded brands that are doing something that hasn't been done before. I'd like to see them go in fresh with a new conference name and logo and utilize the value of each school's individual brand to create the gestalt of the new conference.
What are you saying?? If we don't have the Big East name we are launching a new brand. Each school has a unique identity with its own qualities and characteristics but the Conference is the Brand.
Quote from: Montana Warrior on February 26, 2013, 04:13:36 PM
I think the C-7 should take the old name, invite Butler and maybe Xavier to join, and believe it or not, invite UC and UConn, into the league for all sports except football. If they leave later then we cann replace them with these other schools (Creighton, Dayton, St. Louis, etc.). That would be a truly elite league. UC and UConn may leave if they get an ACC,SEC, or B1G invite but lets stick the bread in the gravy while its still hot.
UC and UConn are simply not happening.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 26, 2013, 04:28:11 PM
MSG is a space available for rent. As long as our rental checks clears, we are in. Now if we leave, or change, that gives MSG the opportunity to shop that rental to anyone else who wants that week ... be it the ACC, A-10 or a rich upper west sider that wants to throw a bar mitvah.
There are apparently provisions in the contract with the BE that allow the MSG to void the contract with the BE or whomever inherits the contract.
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m76hu6qoI81qdb4cxo1_400.gif)
Quote from: akmarq on February 26, 2013, 04:09:26 PM
Agreed
Keep in mind that it's not a choice between the cost of the Big East name and a $0 cost to develop a new name. Choosing to create a new brand is going to incur some VERY high costs (advertising, development, market research) and also come with a bit of a lag time before it becomes 'common parlance.' If the Big East isn't being ransomed for some ridiculous sum (I won't put a number to this without more specifics) then you pay for it and save a lot of headaches.
I think you are overestimating the potential costs. I can't imagine, for instance, what "advertising" will need to be done that isn't done already. I would guess that it wouldn't go much into the seven figures, and I think the BE will want more than that.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 26, 2013, 04:45:32 PM
I think you are overestimating the potential costs. I can't imagine, for instance, what "advertising" will need to be done that isn't done already. I would guess that it wouldn't go much into the seven figures, and I think the BE will want more than that.
I'm not going to go look up a bunch of arbitrary 'average costs' but when I said advertising I was thinking of additional advertising to get the word out/plant the seed for the new name. I figure they would want to do a bit of a 'blitz' when the name is announced (granted, they may do this anyway as a 'rebranding' of the Big East).
I was more thinking about the cost of developing a new logo and name. They will certainly hire a brand management consultant to do this and anything with 'consultant' in the title can be pricey.
Again, not saying that the costs are 100% prohibative and I certainly think there's a price at which you pass on the BE name. I was more pointing out that deciding to do your own brand development carries not only intangible risk (how good is the new branding) but also serious financial investment.
My thinking is guided by my home city, which paid $1mil to get a new marketing campaign/advertising slogan. I have no idea where that fee fits into the scheme of things, but I think it shows that the costs could at least be non-negliable.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 26, 2013, 04:45:32 PM
I think you are overestimating the potential costs. I can't imagine, for instance, what "advertising" will need to be done that isn't done already. I would guess that it wouldn't go much into the seven figures, and I think the BE will want more than that.
The New Coke repositioning cost 9 figures. And was an abysmal failure. The SW Bell morph into the new AT&T and Esso into Exxon cost the same.
Closer to home, Li-Ning's global marketing spend for the D Wade Brand launch will exceed $40MM in the first year. And that is just above the line spend. Incremental to that is research which would approximate $4-5MM then below the line market or trade support that will easily exceed $20MM. That is more than $60MM in direct and indirect marketing spend in Year 1.
Launching a Brand is bloody difficult and extremely expensive. $60MM+ for an athletic shoe.
I say that we pay to keep "The Big East" and offer to kick in a little extra if the remaining teams agree to call themselves "The Big Least".
But is there really advertising for a collegiate conference on the same level as a shoe or perfume?
It's not like they're trying to get you to buy Big East high-tops or a full line of smartphone accessories. It's the name of the conference 10-12 teams are playing in. The name/advertising will sort of take care of itself after the initial announcement, will it not? It'll be all over every sports news outlet for months and months and then once bball season starts up again, it'll be in constant mention due to the games being on and everyone talking about the conference.
But maybe I'm wrong and it is as big an undertaking.
I like " The Conference" , let's go BIG!
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 05:03:04 PM
The New Coke repositioning cost 9 figures. And was an abysmal failure. The SW Bell morph into the new AT&T and Esso into Exxon cost the same.
Closer to home, Li-Ning's global marketing spend for the D Wade Brand launch will exceed $40MM in the first year. And that is just above the line spend. Incremental to that is research which would approximate $4-5MM then below the line market or trade support that will easily exceed $20MM. That is more than $60MM in direct and indirect marketing spend in Year 1.
Launching a Brand is bloody difficult and extremely expensive. $60MM+ for an athletic shoe.
The difference here is:
- that while the conference name is new, the entities that make up the conference are well-established "products" with built-in customer bases. They aren't creating a new soft drink or shoe in need of a marketplace. They aren't creating something out of whole cloth. They're putting a new name on a product already established in the marketplace.
- the new conference already will have a multibillion entity - likely Fox Broadcasting Company - performing the lion's share of marketing on its behalf. The new conference won't have to find a way to get into people's homes and consciousness, Fox largely will do it for them, and do it far more effectively across a wide spectrum of media platforms than the conference ever could itself.
Think about it:
NFL on Fox
Fox News
Fox Business
FX
American Idol
Daytona 500
College Football on Fox
UFC
These and many more platforms can and will be used to promote the new conference, and all not costing the conference members a penny.
Quote from: klyrish on February 26, 2013, 05:12:55 PM
But is there really advertising for a collegiate conference on the same level as a shoe or perfume?
It's not like they're trying to get you to buy Big East high-tops or a full line of smartphone accessories. It's the name of the conference 10-12 teams are playing in. The name/advertising will sort of take care of itself after the initial announcement, will it not? It'll be all over every sports news outlet for months and months and then once bball season starts up again, it'll be in constant mention due to the games being on and everyone talking about the conference.
But maybe I'm wrong and it is as big an undertaking.
This is an umbrella brand positioning. Each school under the umbrella sells tees, jerseys, mugs, shot glasses, dog cushions, tickets, local broadcast rights, etc... Building the Conference Brand and vesting value in its equity is crucial to all of this. Think about it this way:
Painted on the Al Court were the words "Conference USA."
Those words were changed to "Big East."
Which did you feel better about? And did you feel a lot better about it? Brands are powerful mechanisms for making you feel good and want to be a part of it. See all those people getting up off their wallets to buy NFL licensed merchandise? It works. But it costs money.
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 05:03:04 PM
The New Coke repositioning cost 9 figures. And was an abysmal failure. The SW Bell morph into the new AT&T and Esso into Exxon cost the same.
Closer to home, Li-Ning's global marketing spend for the D Wade Brand launch will exceed $40MM in the first year. And that is just above the line spend. Incremental to that is research which would approximate $4-5MM then below the line market or trade support that will easily exceed $20MM. That is more than $60MM in direct and indirect marketing spend in Year 1.
Launching a Brand is bloody difficult and extremely expensive. $60MM+ for an athletic shoe.
It would be absolutely nothing like that. We have done pretty extensive branding initiatives here, with focus groups, message development, graphics, etc. for low six figures. This would obviously be more extensive than that, but since they aren't going to launch an extensive external advertising campaign, the costs are going to be held in check.
I mean really, you come up with a catchy name...a catchy logo...and the branding of that conference is done through success on the court. Yeah, you have to do some advertising, but it is likely advertising that you do already.
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 05:19:34 PM
This is an umbrella brand positioning. Each school under the umbrella sells tees, jerseys, mugs, shot glasses, dog cushions, tickets, local broadcast rights, etc... Building the Conference Brand and vesting value in its equity is crucial to all of this. Think about it this way:
Painted on the Al Court were the words "Conference USA."
Those words were changed to "Big East."
Which did you feel better about? And did you feel a lot better about it? Brands are powerful mechanisms for making you feel good and want to be a part of it. See all those people getting up off their wallets to buy NFL licensed merchandise? It works. But it costs money.
Right. Brand equity. But really how much is that worth?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 26, 2013, 05:21:49 PM
It would be absolutely nothing like that. We have done pretty extensive branding initiatives here, with focus groups, message development, graphics, etc. for low six figures. This would obviously be more extensive than that, but since they aren't going to launch an extensive external advertising campaign, the costs are going to be held in check.
I mean really, you come up with a catchy name...a catchy logo...and the branding of that conference is done through success on the court. Yeah, you have to do some advertising, but it is likely advertising that you do already.
You make it sound so easy. The fact is, it isn't. Look at the debacle the Big 10 had with just naming their divisions. I'm sure they did their due diligence and market research and it still turned out that everyone hated it. The biggest risk here is you find something that is divisive or unpopular (same issue with finding a new mascot). Look at how much time and effort MU put into that over the past 20 years.
If you have something that is well-liked and popular, you keep it. And you pay for it. This should be a no brainer. Pay for the Big East name.
Also, I think a lot of people here are overestimating the brand equity of each of the C-7 schools. Seton Hall, Providence, etc. don't carry much weight with people who aren't already Big East fans. Hell, there's still a lot of people out there who think Marquette is located in Michigan. Besides maybe Georgetown, we don't have a school that carries instant recognition with the general population in our group (Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Notre Dame and West Virginia are those kinds of schools, the C-7 just aren't) But people know the Big East. If its something that people can recognize quickly and associate with elite college basketball, that is worth the cost.
Quote from: MU82 on February 26, 2013, 04:15:22 PM
Oooh ... oooh ... oooh! I can't wait to see all the folks coming out of the wordwork to agree with you on this.
I agree.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 26, 2013, 05:26:26 PM
You make it sound so easy. The fact is, it isn't. Look at the debacle the Big 10 had with just naming their divisions. I'm sure they did their due diligence and market research and it still turned out that everyone hated it. The biggest risk here is you find something that is divisive or unpopular (same issue with finding a new mascot). Look at how much time and effort MU put into that over the past 20 years.
If you have something that is well-liked and popular, you keep it. And you pay for it. This should be a no brainer. Pay for the Big East name.
You make it sound so easy. What value do you place on it? What price is too high?
It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.
How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 26, 2013, 05:33:34 PM
It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.
How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.
+1
It is not issue of paying for the Big East name or paying nothing. The new conference either shells out bucks for the the Big East name or bucks to develop a new name.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 26, 2013, 05:33:34 PM
It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.
How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.
And keep in mind that if they sell, the conference leftovers are going to have to come up with a name and a brand for themselves. There is no way they are going to sell their old brand for less than what it will cost them to develop a new one.
If the C-7 end up having to change conference names, Marquette University should be designated to lead the transition based on how smoothly and quickly they managed the transition from Warriors to whatever it is today.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 26, 2013, 05:33:34 PM
It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.
How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.
Its not an issue of working or not working. Its a matter of liking or disliking. The product under the umbrella is what ultimately matters in this context.
Pay whatever it takes, within reason, to keep the Big East name. It is extremely valuable.
Quote from: Spaniel with a Short Tail on February 26, 2013, 06:43:08 PM
If the C-7 end up having to change conference names, Marquette University should be designated to lead the transition based on how smoothly and quickly they managed the transition from Warriors to whatever it is today.
Unless they bring back the Warriors nickname for the new conference? Get some donors to cough up enough cash to pay for the Big East name? Think about it...=)
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 26, 2013, 05:21:49 PM
It would be absolutely nothing like that. We have done pretty extensive branding initiatives here, with focus groups, message development, graphics, etc. for low six figures. This would obviously be more extensive than that, but since they aren't going to launch an extensive external advertising campaign, the costs are going to be held in check.
I mean really, you come up with a catchy name...a catchy logo...and the branding of that conference is done through success on the court. Yeah, you have to do some advertising, but it is likely advertising that you do already.
Wow. It's that simple, huh? Catchy name, cool logo? Branding is done through success on the court? Is that right?
I guess Michael Porter was wrong when he said never, ever confuse product with brand. Like you just did.
Quote from: Norm on February 26, 2013, 09:06:42 PM
Unless they bring back the Warriors nickname for the new conference? Get some donors to cough up enough cash to pay for the Big East name? Think about it...=)
Bring back the Warriors!!!!!
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 09:14:27 PM
Wow. It's that simple, huh? Catchy name, cool logo? Branding is done through success on the court? Is that right?
I guess Michael Porter was wrong when he said never, ever confuse product with brand. Like you just did.
What are we really selling with this branding effort? It's not like the teams' fan bases are going to increase or decrease based on the branding. No one is going to gush about our new slogan and say, "you know what, I will watch that DePaul-Seton Hall game." However, if both are playing well they will. Porter is obviously a marketing guru, but not sure this unusual product and branding effort fall under his mantra. People may complain about the branding effort, but ultimately the success of the new conference hinges solely on product performance.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 26, 2013, 05:33:34 PM
It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.
How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.
Vic, you are 110% correct. Creating a new brand is the toughest challenge in business. That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Number one, he doesn't know the difference between Brand & Product.
I don't have a feel for the baseline numbers but there is likely considerable residual value in the Big East brand. It is a lot harder and far more expensive to successfully launch any new brand. And there is no guarantee of success.
Another issue for a Branding play is that an athletic conference is much closer to an LLP than a publicly traded Brand Management Corp. Each Partner has a significant interest in protecting their own vested interests - in effect sub brands that have stand alone equity. In a company like P&G there is an ExCo that ultimately makes the hard decisions. Companies like P&G have three dimensional coverage of consumer categories, which is why P&G has four different laundry detergents - Tide, Cheer, Era, Gain - each with its own unique selling prop designed to attract a specific target demographic within prescribed channels of distribution. The brand managers are effectively running an independent business. And each brand has manager has a portfolio of line extensions designed to leverage any of a number of fixed costs while driving incremental revenue. When there is contention between brands, say on distribution strategy or pricing, then successive layers of management decide between the brands.
In a partnership model like the BE you effectively have 16 CEOs, each religiously protecting its interests but subordinating their product to the strictures of the Umbrella Brand. At P&G the Brand Manager for Tide can't take that brand and walk. But the Brand Manager of Syracuse and Pitt could and did. And that is why Texas started their own network, much to the chagrin of their Conference. But each member realizes that subordinating their brand to that of the Conference Umbrella makes them more competitive and generates a higher return than would being independent.
Here are some financials for the University of Wisconsin's Athletic Dept 2011 P&L
Big 10 Media Revenue
ABC/CBS/ESPN $ 8,709,710
Big 10 Network $ 7,894,078
Olympic Sport BTN $ 5,193,765
Campus Cut BTN $ 2,772,546
Total Media Revenue $ 24,570,099
Less Brand Support $ 6,293,061
Net Big 10 Media Rev $ 18,277,038
By participating in the Big 10 Wisconsin enjoys total media revenues of $24.6MM. But they had to pay $6.3MM each year to the Big 10 for Brand support - that is those monies used to support the Big 10 Brand. The annual cost of managing the Big 10 Brand approximates $76MM each year. So when people here say it isn't that much they are ignorant of the true costs of managing a brand.
There is an HBS case titled Mugga Joe. It's about the repositioning of Marlboro. Launched as a "woman's cigarette" PM realized they were limiting themselves to an artificially small market. When they realized most new joiners were not women but men they chose to reposition as a man's smoke. For their thematic they adopted the cowboy (the iconic Marlboro Man), the mountains, & rugged independence. Their communication was a powerful 60 second tv spot that had zero dialogue and absolutely no mention of the product. A group of cowboys are gathered around the campfire at dawn. All you hear is the crackling fire, birds chirping. As one cowboy pours out the coffee another holds a pack of Marlboros out to each cowboy, now redesigned to include the iconic Marlboro Mountain on the packaging. They then drink their coffee and smoke their Marlboros. That's it. But it effectively repositioned a woman's cigarette into a man's smoke. And Marlboro dominated the global cigarette market.
Launching a new brand is expensive. And it is very, very difficult. Keep the Big East name.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 26, 2013, 08:53:52 PM
Pay whatever it takes, within reason, to keep the Big East name. It is extremely valuable.
Figure the cost to build a brand from scratch, because either we have to do it if we do not get the BE name or the current BE members have to do it. Then figure what the odds that name will be a successful brand. If it is 50%, then pay double that amount. If it is 33%, pay triple that amount, and so on. Add in a premium to make them feel like they got a deal (the smaller the better).
Wild guess ... $5 to $7 million.
Thoughts?
Quote from: windyplayer on February 26, 2013, 09:42:44 PM
What are we really selling with this branding effort? It's not like the teams' fan bases are going to increase or decrease based on the branding. No one is going to gush about our new slogan and say, "you know what, I will watch that DePaul-Seton Hall game." However, if both are playing well they will. Porter is obviously a marketing guru, but not sure this unusual product and branding effort fall under his mantra. People may complain about the branding effort, but ultimately the success of the new conference hinges solely on product performance.
It is all about Branding. And if J Michael Porter were here he would tell you that conference realignment is entirely a branding play. But Porter isn't here so we'll have to rely on Chicos to tell us that all of this realignment is being driven by distribution to impose predictability on an irrational marketplace from its current chaotic structure to a more predictable stable of four power brands.
It is therefore imperative that our new conference brand themselves properly because it is the power brands that will carve out the biggest slices of the pie. There is considerable irrational exuberance on the demand side right now as new joiners/line extenders take on the world wide leader which is why we, on the supply side, are being gifted by Fox. That won't last forever and as the supply/demand rationalize those available monies will contract - all the more reason to have the strongest possible brand.
The guys in NYC and LA don't sit around and say "we need UNC" or "we need Michigan." They say we need to be the home of the SEC. I put Wisconsin's share of Big 10 Media Revenues in a different note. In order to continue vesting value in the Big 10 Brand each member school gives back millions of dollars in Brand support payments; these payments are used exclusively by the Big 10 for the Big 10. And don't confuse Brand Support monies with OpEx. That is already stripped out of the monies paid to Wisconsin.
If you are familiar with corporate P&L's there are expenses paid below the line from an IBU P&L back to the corporation. At both GE and PepsiCo operating units are taxed below the line for Corporate overhead (Jack Welch's salary and staff and corporate jets) as well as brand management expenses.
In my role in Corp Strategy at T Mobile I managed the Wall Street industry analyst relationships (with our Deutsch Telekom parent's team in NYC) as well as the VC community for emerging and incipient technology plays. My team's budget was funded by that Corp Overheads line item in each and every P&L. When people would jokingly bitch about it and ask what they got I would gently point out that part of their comp was tied to DT ADR performance on Wall Street so they better play nice. And in dealing with the Street analysts I talked numbers but I was spinning the Branding Story of T Mobile as the Challenger Brand that kept the industry innovative, responsive, and vital in terms of evolving life style.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 26, 2013, 10:20:40 PM
Figure the cost to build a brand from scratch, because either we have to do it if we do not get the BE name or the current BE members have to do it. Then figure what the odds that name will be a successful brand. If it is 50%, then pay double that amount. If it is 33%, pay triple that amount, and so on. Add in a premium to make them feel like they got a deal (the smaller the better).
Wild guess ... $5 to $7 million.
Thoughts?
I just cited that in 2011 the Big 10 invested $76MM in maintaining, growing, improving their brand. They do that every year.
Launching a brand for $5-7MM?? One Big 10 school spends that annually in a mature brand. You cannot launch a national brand for $7MM.
I think this deal cries out to be done because the Big East brand has more value to the C-7 than it does to what's left of the BE. The Value comes from its association to success in Basketball not Football and the new BE wants to be primarily a football league. That's why we are breaking up in the first place. The new BE may even find that the Big East name impedes their ability to form a nationwide conference like they seem to want to do. The C-7 on the other hand need that tie back to the Big East of old to avoid a drop off in casual fan interest and recruiting stature. Given the disparity in which the 2 groups view the name I think a deal gets done in exchange for leaving behind some exit fees or NCAA credits. Well worth the deal.
"Big Priest" or bust
Buy it and five of the "original" members will lend credence to the conference name.
Or don't and just laugh at a conference consisting if only one original member.
Quote from: muhoosier260 on February 27, 2013, 12:40:25 AM
"Big Priest" or bust
Uh, you may want to rephrase that...if you know what I mean
This seems like a real no-brainer to me. Do what it takes to keep the BE name. After listening to Keefe I am more convinced than ever that whatever we pay will be money better spent than what we will pay to come up with something new. To be honest, I thought C-USA was about as good as it gets for what that conference was and look what good that did. And in addition to all the reasons others have given for keeping the BE name, I think we can add one more: it will be easier for Buzz to recruit with the BE name. It's just one thing less that he will have to explain to recruits.
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 10:39:57 PM
I just cited that in 2011 the Big 10 invested $76MM in maintaining, growing, improving their brand. They do that every year.
Correct. But that is money they use to advertise, etc. The BE does something similar, but again, that is something they would do anyway regardless if they have a new name or an old one. The fact is that a conference isn't like a consumer product.
Let me put it this way, the C7 pull off this deal if:
Amount BE wants for name < new branding costs + current BE brand equity
The amount the BE wants will be known by all parties. The new branding costs are likely going to be obvious as the C7 does more research, but I think you are throwing figures out there that are not apples and oranges comparisons.
The real issue is how much brand equity does the current BE brand have? That is more of an unknown.
Quote from: MU82 on February 26, 2013, 04:15:22 PM
Oooh ... oooh ... oooh! I can't wait to see all the folks coming out of the wordwork to agree with you on this.
I've always said it was better than Golden Eagles
WWFD...what would FOX do?
Big East = Hellava Brand
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on February 27, 2013, 05:43:32 AM
I've always said it was better than Golden Eagles
What nickname isn't better than Golden Eagles? Golden Eagles is the stupidest nickname in sports.
Also, bricky!
Honestly, the BoT could have come up with the most brilliant and unique nickname ever, and it would have never been given a fair chance. I think everyone thought that they would cave and bring back "Warriors," and when they didn't, all hell broke loose.
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 10:36:50 PM
The guys in NYC and LA don't sit around and say "we need UNC" or "we need Michigan." They say we need to be the home of the SEC.
True. But they ultimately base their decisions on the number of viewers for each team and take a total viewership per conference to determine that conference's value. And viewership is determined by and large by the branding efforts of each school. No one decides to watch a game based on branding of a conference--either you or you know someone that went to the school, the school is exceptionally good, or you live in the area. The branding effort for a conference just seems to have a low threshold for success--meaning it's fairly easy to not botch it--given the established brands within the conference. In my opinion, the brand for a basketball conference becomes unique when its teams enjoy prolonged success in the NCAA Tournament and to a lesser degree in the regular season, but that doesn't necessarily increase its monetary value. That would be mistaken cause and effect. The value of each team in that conference increases due to increased viewership based on success, which in turn, increases the value of the conference at the bargaining table. Ultimately, the branding of the league is going to be shaped by extensive media coverage--see ESPN, CBS, Fox, etc.--for better or worse. You control the brand by winning.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 27, 2013, 08:27:07 AM
Honestly, the BoT could have come up with the most brilliant and unique nickname ever, and it would have never been given a fair chance. I think everyone thought that they would cave and bring back "Warriors," and when they didn't, all hell broke loose.
You mean like Gold. While I prefer Warriors too, Gold is actually a good name.
What schools have a color only as their nickname? Stanford Cardinal (not the bird, the color), Harvard Crimson, Cornell Big Red, Dartmouth Big Green, Syracuse Orange.
I much prefer a nickname that associates MU with these schools as opposed to Southern Mississippi and Tennessee State (both are Golden Eagles).
In fact, given the changing in conferences if MU wants to use this opportunity to dump Golden Eagles for Gold, I would favor that (recognizing that Warriors is never coming back). Going back to Hilltoppers (the name before Warriors) also works too.
Anything but Golden Eagles!
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 27, 2013, 09:15:00 AM
You mean like Gold. While I prefer Warriors too, Gold is actually a good name.
What schools have a color only as their nickname? Stanford Cardinal (not the bird, the color), Harvard Crimson, Cornell Big Red, Dartmouth Big Green, Syracuse Orange.
I much prefer a nickname that associates MU with these schools as opposed to Southern Mississippi and Tennessee State (both are Golden Eagles).
In fact, given the changing in conferences if MU wants to use this opportunity to dump Golden Eagles for Gold, I would favor that (recognizing that Warriors is never coming back). Going back to Hilltoppers (the name before Warriors) also works too.
Anything but Golden Eagles!
Considering the name-change to Gold resulted in a PR nightmare, I can't see MU officials revisiting that anytime soon.
Quote from: MarquetteNation on February 27, 2013, 06:31:13 AM
WWFD...what would FOX do?
My offer (if I were Rupert):
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VlmHNP9So5Y/SbZxlD7ChNI/AAAAAAAAA_0/0DXvoIe6OrA/s400/TradingPlaces_2.jpg)
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 27, 2013, 09:15:00 AM
You mean like Gold. While I prefer Warriors too, Gold is actually a good name.
What schools have a color only as their nickname? Stanford Cardinal (not the bird, the color), Harvard Crimson, Cornell Big Red, Dartmouth Big Green, Syracuse Orange.
I much prefer a nickname that associates MU with these schools as opposed to Southern Mississippi and Tennessee State (both are Golden Eagles).
In fact, given the changing in conferences if MU wants to use this opportunity to dump Golden Eagles for Gold, I would favor that (recognizing that Warriors is never coming back). Going back to Hilltoppers (the name before Warriors) also works too.
Anything but Golden Eagles!
Gold is a horrible name under any circumstance.
Quote from: Benny B on February 27, 2013, 09:21:24 AM
My offer (if I were Rupert):
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VlmHNP9So5Y/SbZxlD7ChNI/AAAAAAAAA_0/0DXvoIe6OrA/s400/TradingPlaces_2.jpg)
Oh, see, I made Louis a bet here. See, Louis bet me that we couldn't both get rich and destroy the Big East as a BCS conference at the same time. He didn't think we could do it. I won.
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 10:39:57 PM
I just cited that in 2011 the Big 10 invested $76MM in maintaining, growing, improving their brand. They do that every year.
Launching a brand for $5-7MM?? One Big 10 school spends that annually in a mature brand. You cannot launch a national brand for $7MM.
Reports say C7 schools are going to split $500 million for 12 years, or $41 million year for the entire conference. Using your numbers showing Wisconsin make $25 million x 14 schools means the BIG makes $350 million a conference (Only Texas and ND make more, about $40 million). Or, the B1G makes 8.5 times the proposed C7.
Lazy marketing brand managers say you need zillions and zillions to build a brand. Like lazy Baseball GMs think the way to win the world series is to have a $250 million payroll.
$5 to $7 million is all the C7 has. They don't have $76 million a year because the conference does not even make that much money. The C7 does not have football, its own TV network or 4 million alumni (no typo!).
The C7 is 5 Guys, the B1G is McDonalds, they are not the same even though they both sell hamburgers.
Quote from: hairyworthen on February 27, 2013, 09:22:44 AM
Gold is a horrible name under any circumstance.
Golden Eagles is worse
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 27, 2013, 08:27:07 AM
Honestly, the BoT could have come up with the most brilliant and unique nickname ever, and it would have never been given a fair chance. I think everyone thought that they would cave and bring back "Warriors," and when they didn't, all hell broke loose.
This is why they should have just gone back to "hilltoppers" and hid behind "It's the original name." It's hard to argue with that logic.
The opportunity is lost now, but it seems painfully simple to me.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on February 27, 2013, 09:30:19 AM
This is why they should have just gone back to "hilltoppers" and hid behind "It's the original name." It's hard to argue with that logic.
The opportunity is lost now, but it seems painfully simple to me.
Yes. Good call. I would have preferred that, or Golden Avalanche, any day. (And yeah, I know that Golden Avalanche was not an official nickname.)
My suggestion: "The Big Priest"
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on February 27, 2013, 09:30:19 AM
This is why they should have just gone back to "hilltoppers" and hid behind "It's the original name." It's hard to argue with that logic.
Big Red would-na ain't-n been too happy 'bout that.
(http://thatfan.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/bigred.jpg?w=450&h=297)
Quote from: Benny B on February 27, 2013, 09:41:33 AM
Big Red would-na ain't-n been too happy 'bout that.
(http://thatfan.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/bigred.jpg?w=450&h=297)
Any day where I see Big Red is a good day.
Quote from: keefe on February 27, 2013, 01:17:43 AM
Uh, you may want to rephrase that...if you know what I mean
hahaha good call
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 27, 2013, 09:37:21 AM
Yes. Good call. I would have preferred that, or Golden Avalanche, any day. (And yeah, I know that Golden Avalanche was not an official nickname.)
Isn't that "yellow snow"?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 27, 2013, 05:33:07 AM
Correct. But that is money they use to advertise, etc. The BE does something similar, but again, that is something they would do anyway regardless if they have a new name or an old one. The fact is that a conference isn't like a consumer product.
Let me put it this way, the C7 pull off this deal if:
Amount BE wants for name < new branding costs + current BE brand equity
The amount the BE wants will be known by all parties. The new branding costs are likely going to be obvious as the C7 does more research, but I think you are throwing figures out there that are not apples and oranges comparisons.
The real issue is how much brand equity does the current BE brand have? That is more of an unknown.
The brand equity of BE is absolutely the lynch pin in all this. IMHO, over the last 12 months the brand has been dragged through the mud, with teams slashing their own wrists to get out, bringing sub-par teams, being referred to by ESPN(who has the media contract no less) as a shell of it's former self.
Keefe, I can't go through a refute all your numbers, but keep in mind things like advertising costs are already baked into the C7+ spending so largely the brand starting expense that is new spending is creating the name, logo, and associated collateral(mission statement, graphics, etc). I think you could do this for $10mil pretty handily.
Put me squarely in the camp of I don't care if they offer to pay us to take the BE name, I don't want it. Just call it something like Heartland Atheletic Conference and get it over with. The Fox contract/promotion will handle the majority of the brand development and recognition.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 27, 2013, 12:20:16 PM
Put me squarely in the camp of I don't care if they offer to pay us to take the BE name, I don't want it. Just call it something like Heartland Atheletic Conference and get it over with. The Fox contract/promotion will handle the majority of the brand development and recognition.
Wow. Really? I don't think people realize the value of the conference brand. This is going to be on our jerseys, our court, and all of our merchandise. Our coaches and players will be honored with "Coach of the Year" and "MVP" and "1st team" with the conference label attached to each. I'd actually argue that the conference brand we collectively maintain is just as important, if not more important than our individual mascots and nicknames.
Heartland Athletic Conference sounds like a D2 conference.
People who say the brand doesn't matter, its the product.... Its not a logical argument. Then we might as well have kept the Gold, as long as our basketball team was still good. Obviously, the brand matters.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 27, 2013, 12:26:07 PM
Wow. Really? I don't think people realize the value of the conference brand. This is going to be on our jerseys, our court, and all of our merchandise. I'd actually argue that the conference brand we collectively maintain is just as important, if not more important than our individual mascots and nicknames.
Heartland Athletic Conference sounds like a D2 conference.
I agree that the brand is critical, but I just don't think the Big East has any real value to it anymore. Especially if the remaining Big East teams are willing to sell it. Now they might be trying to fleece us, but I think they would just as soon start over with a new conference definition as keep Big East.
I will spend more than 30 seconds coming up with my next suggestion Vic ;)
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 27, 2013, 12:26:07 PM
Heartland Athletic Conference sounds like a D2 conference.
That is the problem with a new name ... any name invented, no matter how well research, will SOUND LIKE a mid-major (or worse D2) conference. The conference name matters. Even Big Priest sounds mid-major.
When scrolling through your list of basketball games on you TV's guide, how many actually go beyond the ESPN channels? And if you do, and you're you are not a direct fan of C7 schools, and you see way over on channel 692, miles from ESPN is "Heartland Athletic Basketball" you are going to think this is an equal version of Missouri Valley Basketball? Are you going to care? Now if it says "Big East Basketball" will that get the casual fan's attention? I say yes.
If we have the chance to get and established name like the Big East, take it. I cannot believe Fox does not care.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 27, 2013, 12:29:40 PM
I agree that the brand is critical, but I just don't think the Big East has any real value to it anymore. Especially if the remaining Big East teams are willing to sell it. Now they might be trying to fleece us, but I think they would just as soon start over with a new conference definition as keep Big East.
I will spend more than 30 seconds coming up with my next suggestion Vic ;)
The remaining Big East schools are trying to crate a Football Conference. The Big East name has little value for football.
Fair fair.
I do think they should keep the Big East and rebrand it. New logo. Redesign it to give it an urban/hoops feel.
Or even better...go back to the old school logo from the basketball only days: http://marquette.scout.com/2/735993.html
I'd rather they spend money puffing up a new conference name then pay for the Big East name. But do understand that the Big East has a lot of clout. I guess I'd be more in favor of paying for the Big East name if the Madison Square Garden conference tourney rights came with it. MSG = Big East and without it, it just seems strange.
Using the Big East name only invites discussion of how it was once the best conference and is not anymore.
The NIT was once the best tournament in basketball. What is their brand worth today?
If we keep "Big East" we might as well start playing with red, white and blue basketballs.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on February 27, 2013, 12:58:11 PM
Using the Big East name only invites discussion of how it was once the best conference and is not anymore.
The NIT was once the best tournament in basketball. What is their brand worth today?
If we keep "Big East" we might as well start playing with red, white and blue basketballs.
I get the argument, just not sure I agree. I think college basketball media will spin it as a return to the Big East's basketball-only roots. And while the name has been tarnished on the football side, I think it still has a lot of value on the basketball side. We're still looked at as one of the top 2 or 3 conferences. Plus, with Georgetown & MU potentially coming in at 1 & 2 in the last year of the conference, and MU positioned to be REALLY good in the future, we will have the high-end teams needed to sustain the reputation.
Frankly, I can't see why the new football teams would even WANT the Big East name it's so toxic for football.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 27, 2013, 12:37:14 PM
Fair fair.
I do think they should keep the Big East and rebrand it. New logo. Redesign it to give it an urban/hoops feel.
Or even better...go back to the old school logo from the basketball only days: http://marquette.scout.com/2/735993.html
I'm perfectly fine with this, assuming its a relatively low price. And if we do take Big East, I think going old school and "back to the roots" is a must. IMO, MUCH MUCH MUCH more critical is having the tourney at MSG than the Big East name.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 27, 2013, 12:29:40 PM
I agree that the brand is critical, but I just don't think the Big East has any real value to it anymore. Especially if the remaining Big East teams are willing to sell it. Now they might be trying to fleece us, but I think they would just as soon start over with a new conference definition as keep Big East.
I will spend more than 30 seconds coming up with my next suggestion Vic ;)
This.
I'm not necessarily opposed to keeping the name, but I think its value is being overstated. While the Big East is known for its glory days as a hoops conference, it's also known today as a bloated league of competing and varied interests that was picked apart and left to die by superior conferences. As much as we'd be attaching ourselves to the glory days, we'd also be attaching ourselves to the present day reality.
Also, no matter how good the new conference is, it'll always fall short of what the BE was in its glory days, so we're setting ourselves up to perpetually fail in comparison. You can bet that during many broadcasts of new BE games would we hear some variation of "I remember when the Big East included powerhouse programs like Syracuse and Connecticut."
Quote from: Pakuni on February 27, 2013, 01:12:30 PM
This.
I'm not necessarily opposed to keeping the name, but I think its value is being overstated. While the Big East is known for its glory days as a hoops conference, it's also known today as a bloated league of competing and varied interests that was picked apart and left to die by superior conferences. As much as we'd be attaching ourselves the the glory days, we'd also be attaching ourselves to the present day reality of the conference.
Also, no matter how good the new conference is, it'll always fall short of what the BE was in its glory days, so we're setting ourselves up to perpetually fail in comparison.
Agree, never compete with your own brand....see coke and new coke.
When you talk to people from other Conf's they see the Big East as a power in Basketball. I think if we can move quickly and add 3-5 strong teams we can keep it as a stong BBALL idenity. Any new name will have no identity.
Also what are people's thoughts of having Gonzaga as a 13 member in men's basketball only? I'm starting to think it might be a good idea if they are willing to do it.
Quote from: kmwtrucks on February 27, 2013, 01:49:19 PM
When you talk to people from other Conf's they see the Big East as a power in Basketball. I think if we can move quickly and add 3-5 strong teams we can keep it as a stong BBALL idenity. Any new name will have no identity.
Also what are people's thoughts of having Gonzaga as a 13 member in men's basketball only? I'm starting to think it might be a good idea if they are willing to do it.
It's been discussed here repeatedly. Who is going to take their non-basketball sports, and why would they take them?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 27, 2013, 09:37:21 AM
Yes. Good call. I would have preferred that, or Golden Avalanche, any day. (And yeah, I know that Golden Avalanche was not an official nickname.)
Hey......
If Golden Avalanche was never our official nickname, who can say we can't bring it back as an unofficial nickname?
After all, The Georgia Institute of Technology's official nickname is the Yellowjackets, but most people know them as the Rambling Wreck of Georgia Tech.
Boise state and SD state found someone to take them. I'm sure for the right $ amount a Conf would take them or let them stay.
Lets say Zags get 1 MIL now from TV, and they would get 3 mil from Fox's. Maybe they pay the Conf 750K to take there other sports? and 250K more in travel. They are still 1 MIL up.
That would mean 9 of the 11 or 12 other schools would have to make 1 trip out west per year.
I think if we really want to compete with ACC, BIG TEN, SEC, BIG 12, PAC 12, Bringing in ZAGS would help Bridge the gap way more then Dayton or Richmond.
Anyone have any info about the creation/development of the Mountain West brand--that has to be the closest comparator that we have in recent history of the creation of a new brand. Any case studies out there on it? What is it worth?
In my opinion, I'd say it is only in recent years that the MWC has been able to raise its brand to the point of being recognized as probably the top conference outside of the power 6. And that is a good decade after the conference was created--and in conference that benefitted from brand recognition during both the basketball and football seasons.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 27, 2013, 01:11:00 PM
I'm perfectly fine with this, assuming its a relatively low price. And if we do take Big East, I think going old school and "back to the roots" is a must. IMO, MUCH MUCH MUCH more critical is having the tourney at MSG than the Big East name.
I completely agree whole-heartedly. Only bad thing is that it doesn't look like you will see Jay Bilas on the sidelines announcing the tourney. And he loves Marquette. He's been big on Marquette since Tom Crean first came there. Also hope that Bill Raftery will be able to get the color commentating job for a few "Catholic 7" games...tourney or regular season.
It pisses me off the need to buy it but think it might be right move. I have been told on here how few people outside of MU fans know Buzz is our coach and if true keeping name makes sense. Name recognition is big. Heard on ESPN during Sat. game that seeding is still somewhat biased in favor of blueblood schools and think conference bias is there as well. It will not be same BE but if it fools enough people probably worth the investment to buy it.
Quote from: GoldenEagle2002 on February 27, 2013, 02:32:01 PM
I completely agree whole-heartedly. Only bad thing is that it doesn't look like you will see Jay Bilas on the sidelines announcing the tourney. And he loves Marquette. He's been big on Marquette since Tom Crean first came there. Also hope that Bill Raftery will be able to get the color commentating job for a few "Catholic 7" games...tourney or regular season.
Ah, but we get Gus Johnson which for the casual fan I think is a great trade off. I love Jay Bilas, I think he is the best color guy in the business and Raferty/McDonough/Bilas is the best crew in basketball, but a color guy isn't as critical to the uninformed masses. Gus Johnson will put butts in seats for Podunk U vs Multi-Directional State College.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 27, 2013, 02:44:29 PM
Ah, but we get Gus Johnson which for the casual fan I think is a great trade off. I love Jay Bilas, I think he is the best color guy in the business and Raferty/McDonough/Bilas is the best crew in basketball, but a color guy isn't as critical to the uninformed masses. Gus Johnson will put butts in seats for Podunk U vs Multi-Directional State College.
Good point. Gus is great too! Maybe Bilas leaves ESPN and joins Gus? yeah right!
Quote from: GoldenEagle2002 on February 27, 2013, 02:32:01 PM
I completely agree whole-heartedly. Only bad thing is that it doesn't look like you will see Jay Bilas on the sidelines announcing the tourney. And he loves Marquette. He's been big on Marquette since Tom Crean first came there. Also hope that Bill Raftery will be able to get the color commentating job for a few "Catholic 7" games...tourney or regular season.
Well, Jay isn't indentured to ESPN. He has a contract and it'll expire one of these days. Fox being Fox, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they make every effort to pull some big names from ESPN (a la Erin Andrews) and elsewhere when Fox 1 launches in an effort to lend it quick credibility. Bilas could be one of those guys.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 27, 2013, 02:51:08 PM
Well, Jay isn't indentured to ESPN. He has a contract and it'll expire one of these days. Fox being Fox, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they make every effort to pull some big names from ESPN (a la Erin Andrews) and elsewhere when Fox 1 launches in an effort to lend it quick credibility. Bilas could be one of those guys.
One can hope. Gus Johnson, Bill Raftery, Jay Bilas on Fox...nice ;D
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on February 27, 2013, 12:58:11 PM
The NIT was once the best tournament in basketball. What is their brand worth today?
I love the NIT!
NIT, is now watered down because the ncaa field is 68 schools.
"ESPN president John Skipper recently told SI.com that he also believes Fox Sports will get the Catholic 7 deal, but Skipper said ESPN would be interested in sub-licensing some games."
The above is from the ESPN article talking about the Big East TV deal. Maybe Bilas & Co. will get some Catholic 7 games after all.
Quote from: GoldenEagle2002 on February 27, 2013, 03:22:09 PM
"ESPN president John Skipper recently told SI.com that he also believes Fox Sports will get the Catholic 7 deal, but Skipper said ESPN would be interested in sub-licensing some games."
The above is from the ESPN article talking about the Big East TV deal. Maybe Bilas & Co. will get some Catholic 7 games after all.
I'm wondering if sub-licensing means out-of-conference games or conference vs conference matchups, i.e. C7 vs Big 12 challenge or something of the sort.
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5326#more-5326
Big East, Catholic 7 continue "exit" talks
February 26, 2013 – 2:19 pm
[Big East commissioner Mike] Aresco wants to move forward with his new look league, presumably with the Big East name. It will be a trimmed down, more cohesive group. consisting of 10 teams in football for next season and either 11 or 12 teams in football and basketball by the start of the 2014 season.
Is Aresco serious he wants to keep the name or is it a negotiating gambit?
Quote from: Pakuni on February 27, 2013, 03:38:25 PM
C7 vs Big 12 challenge or something of the sort.
Catholics v. Thugs challenge? This is exactly why Cincy cannot join the conference. Football is a minor detail.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 27, 2013, 04:02:11 PM
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=5326#more-5326
Big East, Catholic 7 continue "exit" talks
February 26, 2013 – 2:19 pm
[Big East commissioner Mike] Aresco wants to move forward with his new look league, presumably with the Big East name. It will be a trimmed down, more cohesive group. consisting of 10 teams in football for next season and either 11 or 12 teams in football and basketball by the start of the 2014 season.
Is Aresco serious he wants to keep the name or is it a negotiating gambit?
Okay, I've had it....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6l1QljpMo
Quote from: mu03eng on February 27, 2013, 02:44:29 PM
Ah, but we get Gus Johnson which for the casual fan I think is a great trade off. I love Jay Bilas, I think he is the best color guy in the business and Raferty/McDonough/Bilas is the best crew in basketball, but a color guy isn't as critical to the uninformed masses. Gus Johnson will put butts in seats for Podunk U vs Multi-Directional State College.
Would love to have Gus call some games for the new conference - he was 2 years ahead of me in high school and was a great guy. I think he is actually calling some soccer games these days too.