MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Aughnanure on August 15, 2013, 02:58:34 PM

Title: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Aughnanure on August 15, 2013, 02:58:34 PM
Marquette not in top 75. SEC dominated top 10. UT #1 for 8th straight year

Notables:
Georgetown: 59
Gonzaga: 74
Wiscy: 13
Louisville: 25
Notre Dame: 3

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: BrewCity83 on August 15, 2013, 03:03:28 PM
Football.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Atticus on August 15, 2013, 03:07:15 PM
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on August 15, 2013, 03:03:28 PM
Football.

Really? Georgetown, gonzaga...even Louisville?

No.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: BrewCity83 on August 15, 2013, 03:28:10 PM
I guarantee the top 20 are all football schools.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Coleman on August 15, 2013, 03:36:47 PM
I think this partially speaks to how hard it is to buy anything MU outside of the spirit shop. This is MU's own doing. They want the monopoly.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: ResidentBrown on August 15, 2013, 03:37:44 PM
Dude, look at the overall. You found the three that the OP highlighted, which are basketball schools. Out of the WHOLE top 75, those are three schools that made the list with basketball as their flagship revenue sport. Since there is no link, I can't check, but I assume North Carolina, Kentucky, Duke, Arizona, Kansas, Syracuse, Indiana, and UConn are probably on that list too. However the list is primarily made of football schools. Thus the SEC, Notre Dame being in the top ten. Football money > Basketball money (for the schools with financially viable football programs). I would guess that even a mid-tier football school like Ole Miss or Arkansas can out merchandize a great basketball school like Arizona or Syracuse.  

Quote from: Atticus on August 15, 2013, 03:07:15 PM
Really? Georgetown, gonzaga...even Louisville?

No.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: GooooMarquette on August 15, 2013, 03:40:06 PM
Quote from: BrewCity BallCrusher on August 15, 2013, 03:28:10 PM
I guarantee the top 20 are all football schools.

Yep.  And even among the football-basketball schools there, the only "hoops-first" schools in the top 20 are Kentucky (5) and UNC (9).  The rest of the top 20 are not only schools that have football, but schools where football clearly takes precedence over basketball.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: IL Warrior on August 15, 2013, 03:46:22 PM
Quote from: Aughnanure on August 15, 2013, 02:58:34 PM
Marquette not in top 75. SEC dominated top 10. UT #1 for 8th straight year

Notables:
Georgetown: 59
Gonzaga: 74
Wiscy: 13
Louisville: 25
Notre Dame: 3

Thoughts?
My thoughts? It doesn't mean squat. And here's why:

Here is his source: http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx

Why isn't Marquette in the top 75? Because Marquette isn't represented by the CLC, and this is a ranking of top-selling CLC clients: http://www.clc.com/Clients.aspx

A few other schools who are not on the list of CLC clients: Ohio State, Indiana, Kansas State, Michigan State, Iowa, Iowa State, USC, Creighton, Xavier, Butler, DePaul, Seton Hall, St. John's, the list goes on and on. They have about 200 clients, which leaves out almost half of Division I schools (assuming all 200 are D-I).
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: GooooMarquette on August 15, 2013, 03:51:19 PM
Quote from: IL Warrior on August 15, 2013, 03:46:22 PM
My thoughts? It doesn't mean squat. And here's why:

Here is his source: http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx

Why isn't Marquette in the top 75? Because Marquette isn't represented by the CLC, and this is a ranking of top-selling CLC clients: http://www.clc.com/Clients.aspx

A few other schools who are not on the list of CLC clients: IU, K-State, MSU, Iowa, Iowa State, USC, Creighton, Xavier, Butler, DePaul, Seton Hall, St. John's, the list goes on and on. They have about 200 clients, which leaves out almost half of Division I schools (assuming all 200 are D-I).

Good catch.  I originally missed this statement:  "These rankings represent royalties reported July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 on all collegiate merchandise sold on behalf of CLC-represented institutions."  That's a pretty big limitation, given the high-profile schools that aren't on the list.

Still, even of the schools on the list, it's pretty clear that football dwarfs basketball in terms of merchandise sales.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: forgetful on August 15, 2013, 03:58:28 PM
Quote from: IL Warrior on August 15, 2013, 03:46:22 PM
My thoughts? It doesn't mean squat. And here's why:

Here is his source: http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx

Why isn't Marquette in the top 75? Because Marquette isn't represented by the CLC, and this is a ranking of top-selling CLC clients: http://www.clc.com/Clients.aspx

A few other schools who are not on the list of CLC clients: Ohio State, Indiana, Kansas State, Michigan State, Iowa, Iowa State, USC, Creighton, Xavier, Butler, DePaul, Seton Hall, St. John's, the list goes on and on. They have about 200 clients, which leaves out almost half of Division I schools (assuming all 200 are D-I).

I was trying to find the bias, I noticed some missing universities also and inclusion of some that clearly aren't out earning some of the schools on your list above or even MU, for instance.

Louisianna Lafayette coming in at 70
and Texas State @ san marcos coming in at 68.

Was thinking that some may just not report completely, but your catch on it being only CLC clients is a good one.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Aughnanure on August 15, 2013, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: IL Warrior on August 15, 2013, 03:46:22 PM
My thoughts? It doesn't mean squat. And here's why:

Here is his source: http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx

Why isn't Marquette in the top 75? Because Marquette isn't represented by the CLC, and this is a ranking of top-selling CLC clients: http://www.clc.com/Clients.aspx

A few other schools who are not on the list of CLC clients: Ohio State, Indiana, Kansas State, Michigan State, Iowa, Iowa State, USC, Creighton, Xavier, Butler, DePaul, Seton Hall, St. John's, the list goes on and on. They have about 200 clients, which leaves out almost half of Division I schools (assuming all 200 are D-I).

Thanks, that's basically what I was wondering about.

As the poster said above, Marquette makes it SO freaking hard to buy anything outside of the spirit shop.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: warriorchick on August 15, 2013, 04:10:22 PM
Okay, old white lady talking.....

Aren't some of those team clothes more popular than others because they are worn by, shall I say, people with influence on popular culture?

For example, demand for clothing with the '80's era Brewer logo on it exploded when a couple of hip hop stars wore them in their videos.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: martyconlonontherun on August 15, 2013, 04:28:50 PM
Football is interesting because the jerseys look alright in public and there's also 80k fans needing then for games. Ill wear a football jersey to a sport bar but I feel like an idiot wearing a basketball one.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: RideMyBuycks on August 15, 2013, 05:13:56 PM
I'd say hockey jerseys are 1b to football jerseys in terms of public acceptance of an adult wearing one in public.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: warriorchick on August 15, 2013, 05:18:11 PM
Well, if Marquette as a University ever decides to make licensing revenue a priority, LW is the guy that should be be able to make it happen.  Sports licensing was his area of practice as a private attorney.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: MarsupialMadness on August 15, 2013, 05:28:46 PM
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on August 15, 2013, 04:28:50 PM
Football is interesting because the jerseys look alright in public and there's also 80k fans needing then for games. Ill wear a football jersey to a sport bar but I feel like an idiot wearing a basketball one.

This is the exact reason some NBA teams are beginning to experiement with sleeved jerseys.  The players might hate it, but the thought is that more people would buy it (and wear it).

(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4586862995047536&pid=1.7&w=234&h=186&c=7&rs=1&url=http%3a%2f%2fsportbuzzbusiness.fr%2fsports-us%2fadidas-lance-le-1er-maillot-a-manches-et-moulant-en-nba-avec-les-golden-state-warriors-25050)
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: 4everwarriors on August 15, 2013, 06:37:56 PM
If Marquette wanted to score some serious bread, bring back the Warriors nickname and the merchandise would explode off the shelf.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Lennys Tap on August 15, 2013, 06:52:22 PM
Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 15, 2013, 06:37:56 PM
If Marquette wanted to score some serious bread, bring back the Warriors nickname and the merchandise would explode off the shelf.

You must be reading my mind, Doc. They wouldn't even have to get creative (God forbid) - just produce new gear that mimics the stuff that made MU stand out back in the day.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: 77ncaachamps on August 15, 2013, 07:53:20 PM
Quote from: MarsupialMadness on August 15, 2013, 05:28:46 PM
This is the exact reason some NBA teams are beginning to experiement with sleeved jerseys.  The players might hate it, but the thought is that more people would buy it (and wear it).

(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4586862995047536&pid=1.7&w=234&h=186&c=7&rs=1&url=http%3a%2f%2fsportbuzzbusiness.fr%2fsports-us%2fadidas-lance-le-1er-maillot-a-manches-et-moulant-en-nba-avec-les-golden-state-warriors-25050)

No way.

Picture a beer belly under that jersey.

Fail.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: LastWarrior on August 15, 2013, 09:51:36 PM
Quote from: Atticus on August 15, 2013, 03:07:15 PM
Really? Georgetown, gonzaga...even Louisville?

No.

Ask Florida if Loserville has a football team.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: chapman on August 15, 2013, 10:19:41 PM
Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 15, 2013, 06:37:56 PM
If Marquette wanted to score some serious bread, bring back the Warriors nickname and the merchandise would explode off the shelf.

Can't believe it took this long for someone to say, but yeah.  It's a nice way of limiting revenue potential when you can't put your nickname or mascot on any merchandise because it won't sell.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: boyonthedock on August 15, 2013, 11:58:29 PM
And I don't like the new mascot logo at all. The angular bird one from before was much better in my opinion. However, our MU is a pretty darn good looking logo.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Avenue Commons on August 16, 2013, 09:47:10 AM
Quote from: 4everwarriors on August 15, 2013, 06:37:56 PM
If Marquette wanted to score some serious bread, bring back the Warriors nickname and the merchandise would explode off the shelf.

I think you'd be surprised how few people under 35 care about the Warriors nickname. And that the demographic that buys sports clothing.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Archie on August 16, 2013, 10:35:07 AM
The Spirit Shop selection is pathetic online, and especially in person. Whoever is selecting/designing the items is doing a terrible job. When there about a year ago I was talking to a coupe student clerks and they agreed that the selection was horrible.

I do not live in the Midwest. I try to carry the flag in my part of the country for MU through my wardrobe but boy, do they make it difficult. Out of style, limited selection and just plain ugly stuff.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2013, 10:54:02 AM
Quote from: Avenue Commons on August 16, 2013, 09:47:10 AM
I think you'd be surprised how few people under 35 care about the Warriors nickname. And that the demographic that buys sports clothing.

Well, by the numbers that demographic is currently avoiding Marquette's Golden Eagle merchandise like the plague. Maybe Warrior gear that incorporates some of the awesome uniform design that was part of that era falls equally flat, but I doubt it.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: bilsu on August 16, 2013, 11:09:59 AM
Quote from: forgetful on August 15, 2013, 03:58:28 PM
I was trying to find the bias, I noticed some missing universities also and inclusion of some that clearly aren't out earning some of the schools on your list above or even MU, for instance.

Louisianna Lafayette coming in at 70
and Texas State @ san marcos coming in at 68.

Was thinking that some may just not report completely, but your catch on it being only CLC clients is a good one.
First of all I agree it is hard to fund stuff for sale anywhere besides MU or Bradley Center.

Other factors:
Size of university (# of Students and alumni)
Color of jersey's. In my opinion gold looks good on brunettes, but red looks good on blondes and brunettes.  A girl will not buy a color that does not look good on her. Marquette emphasising blue instead of gold would have been better in my opinion.

I am not sure how this fits in as it might or might not be reflected in sales, but MU gives away free t-shirts to anyone who attended MU Madness. Free means you do not have to buy it. Of course other schools probably do the same thing.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: WellsstreetWanderer on August 16, 2013, 11:12:38 AM
A group of us recently went to the Spirit Shop during Reunion weekend and were appalled at the selection. First off, everybody said they wouldn't wear an Eagle and ,secondly, nothing appealed to anybody. Spent our money at Sobleman's on Bloody Marys
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Avenue Commons on August 16, 2013, 12:29:18 PM
Quote from: Lennys Tap on August 16, 2013, 10:54:02 AM
Well, by the numbers that demographic is currently avoiding Marquette's Golden Eagle merchandise like the plague. Maybe Warrior gear that incorporates some of the awesome uniform design that was part of that era falls equally flat, but I doubt it.

But the interlocking MU logo is very popular as are the new uniforms and color schemes. Marquette doesnt use the GE logo much. I'd be willing to bet sales of Marquette merchandise are the highest they've ever been.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: GooooMarquette on August 16, 2013, 12:40:27 PM
Quote from: bilsu on August 16, 2013, 11:09:59 AM
First of all I agree it is hard to fund stuff for sale anywhere besides MU or Bradley Center.

Other factors:
Size of university (# of Students and alumni)
Color of jersey's. In my opinion gold looks good on brunettes, but red looks good on blondes and brunettes.  A girl will not buy a color that does not look good on her. Marquette emphasising blue instead of gold would have been better in my opinion.

I am not sure how this fits in as it might or might not be reflected in sales, but MU gives away free t-shirts to anyone who attended MU Madness. Free means you do not have to buy it. Of course other schools probably do the same thing.

No idea about the color thing...but the size of university argument doesn't seem to hurt Gonzaga much....
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: StillAWarrior on August 16, 2013, 01:26:02 PM
Quote from: GooooMarquette on August 16, 2013, 12:40:27 PM
No idea about the color thing...but the size of university argument doesn't seem to hurt Gonzaga much....

Gonzaga is an outlier.  When they became the back-to-back-to-back Cinderella in the 1999-2001, they became media darlings and picked up a national following.  They've made the most of it.  I can still find Gonzaga stuff in stores in Ohio, but generally can't find Marquette stuff.

I think the two biggest factors for merchandise sales are 1) state university with massive student body and alumni following; and 2) football.  There are exceptions to this, of course, but these are the two driving forces.  And, it would probably be fair to say that they are really two sides of the same coin.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: PuertoRicanNightmare on August 16, 2013, 02:05:37 PM
The Spirit Shop is hit or miss. I generally am looking for stuff for kids, but last time I went in there the kids selection was beyond bad. They had better stuff in the U Store back in the day. I just don't understand why they have about 100 adult sized jerseys out...not to mention those blue and yellow striped big overalls...but nothing but "I'm a Little Eagle" kids shirts.

If they don't get some goddamned Davante Gardner stuff in kid sizes soon I'm going in there with a pitchfork.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: oldwarrior81 on August 16, 2013, 02:40:07 PM
.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: ChicosBailBonds on August 17, 2013, 12:58:18 PM
Quote from: chapman on August 15, 2013, 10:19:41 PM
Can't believe it took this long for someone to say, but yeah.  It's a nice way of limiting revenue potential when you can't put your nickname or mascot on any merchandise because it won't sell.

MU is making that decision on their own. Nothing to stop them from selling Warrior gear (or Hilltopper gear) if they wished...I believe they still own the trademarks and such (someone correct me if I am wrong).  They won't do it because it will be an implied or tacit endorsement of the name.

Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: ChicosBailBonds on August 17, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
Quote from: Avenue Commons on August 16, 2013, 09:47:10 AM
I think you'd be surprised how few people under 35 care about the Warriors nickname. And that the demographic that buys sports clothing.

There are a lot of things that folks under 35 do today that colors me incredibly unimpressed.

As for the money, its not just jerseys but people buy sweatshirts, hats, etc that appeal to all age demographics, including those that have a few more dollars to spend than those under 35.  A lot more dollars, in fact. 

The MU bookstore for decades has taken this tact to mark up the costs of their gear more than it is worth and to hang on to the vast selection of merchandise at one location where they reap the monetary benefits.  This was the case when I was in the athletic department and the policy was loud and clear.  I don't think much has changed.  They do have a few items (or did) that were part of the CLC, but typically cheap, inexpensive stuff.

From a branding standpoint, you want to get your stuff out there to the masses with a good selection of merch.  In doing so, however, you will sacrifice profit margins and traffic in your store, which is what they want to avoid.  That's MU's decision...pros and cons to both approaches.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: MarquetteDano on August 18, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Quote from: Atticus on August 15, 2013, 03:07:15 PM
Really? Georgetown, gonzaga...even Louisville?

No.

How would you explain Duke being 34th then?  Duke has a massive following in basketball but is only ranked 34th?  One word:  football.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Aughnanure on August 18, 2013, 09:52:44 AM
Quote from: elephantraker on August 16, 2013, 11:12:38 AM
A group of us recently went to the Spirit Shop during Reunion weekend and were appalled at the selection. First off, everybody said they wouldn't wear an Eagle and ,secondly, nothing appealed to anybody. Spent our money at Sobleman's on Bloody Marys

Also, certain times of the year they just don't have everything in stock - or the sizes. They usually stock up in October and then let it dwindling by April, May, June. When I come to MKE once a year or so, it's really annoying not being able to buy a jersey or the basketball tshirts I thought would be there.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: Galway Eagle on August 19, 2013, 09:07:59 AM
Am I the only one who thinks the University would do well to have limited time only vintage selections?  Whether that be the old warrior shirts or coming out with old jersies once a year? 
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: CTWarrior on August 19, 2013, 09:26:04 AM
Quote from: elephantraker on August 16, 2013, 11:12:38 AM
A group of us recently went to the Spirit Shop during Reunion weekend and were appalled at the selection. First off, everybody said they wouldn't wear an Eagle and, secondly, nothing appealed to anybody. Spent our money at Sobleman's on Bloody Marys

I went during Reunion weekend as well.  I thought the selection was fine, but they had nothing, absolutely nothing, in my size, not even a baseball cap.  I'm a big guy but not ridculously so, (6-5 260), but they do not carry any tall sizes nor did they have larger hat sizes (7 7/8 or 8).  I've seen caps in the past and at least I have one of those.  My wife found plenty she liked and I bought a few things for my son.  As an aside, my son goes to Lehigh in PA and if I were so inclined (I am not - turd brown and white have to be the worst college colors in the country) they at least had a few things that would have fit me.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: PuertoRicanNightmare on August 19, 2013, 11:14:21 AM
Quote from: CTWarrior on August 19, 2013, 09:26:04 AM
I'm a big guy but not ridculously so, (6-5 260), but they do not carry any tall sizes nor did they have larger hat sizes (7 7/8 or 8).
Dude, you're a woolly mammoth.
Title: Re: Collegiate Merchandise Royalties Rankings
Post by: CTWarrior on August 19, 2013, 11:20:23 AM
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on August 19, 2013, 11:14:21 AM
Dude, you're a woolly mammoth.

Just a mammoth, not too woolly any more.
EhPortal 1.39.9 © 2025, WebDev