Over the past week, there have been several news stories discussing the Big East Conference’s attempt to add additional football programs in order to maintain their automatic qualifying status with the Bowl Championship Series. While the conference’s current structure had been dictated primarily by geography (the “East” coast), their current efforts are focused more on the caliber of program than a program’s physical location. Their current targets would lead them to Idaho (Boise State), Colorado (Air Force) and Texas (SMU and Houston).

If these programs decide to accept their current/eventual invitations to the join the conference, it only seems logical that the conference should change it’s name to reflect their new geographic expansion. Some suggest simply creating western and eastern divisions, but even with that structure, it still seems a tad silly for the conference to use the term East when playing in Idaho and Colorado.

So, I’d like to come up with some suggestions for the Big East, “crowdsourcing” some naming options if you will. I posted the question on Twitter yesterday and got the following suggestions:

• From @TamaraJoleeTV - America Football Conference: AFC East / AFC West…
• From @SportsLoop - STSS Conference–Sea to Shining Sea
• From @NateThompson_ - Conference USA (Editor’s Note: taken for now, but it could open up if C-USA and the MWC merge)
• From @tonymagnelli - How about “The Empire” because the sun never sets on The Empire Conference.
• From @mBLASzKa - Big Country
• From @PioneerPlanner - The Big Best of the Rest (EN: I somehow think they might not like this one)

Today’s post is courtesy of guest blogger Brett Pharis.

Three More Questions About College Football Conference Realignment: From a Non-AQ Point of View

Under consideration: the current landscape of college football’s conference affiliation and the direction of realignment. Last year we saw Utah and TCU get the nod from the ‘big boys’ to come play for the lion’s share of BCS money. In addition, we saw Boise State, Nevada, Hawaii, and Fresno State make small steps toward becoming legitimate post-season contenders. While Utah and TCU have used their success in big games to make the move to BCS conferences, teams like Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, Houston, and others are still doing their best to prove themselves worthy in the BCS era. It’s unclear how conference realignment will play out, but as outsiders, Non-AQ schools face a different set of issues that are often overlooked when dissecting the BCS breakdown.

1. Do Super Conferences Provide Any More Stability to the Current CFB Landscape?

Although initial talk about conference realignment was fun and exciting, it’s quickly become one of stress and anticipation – not only for students and fans, but administrators and conference management as well. We’ve decided, as college football fans, which conferences are most powerful and in the best position to add schools to their ranks. It has been decided by ticket and merchandise sales, television viewers, and, unfortunately, the BCS system.

When coupled with Super-Conferences, these factors provide even more economic and political power to conferences that have already become staples in the college football arena. The fact is, Super Conferences do provide more stability for those conferences that already enjoy the benefits of the BCS stage. The Non-AQ schools, however, have an even more tumultuous road ahead of them. Consider the possibility of a Non-AQ school getting an at-large bid above a BCS conference that has multiple no-loss or one-loss teams – pretty unlikely, right? That doesn’t mean the Non-AQs would miss out on all potential BCS earnings, but this could dramatically decrease the slice of pie these schools have access to. You know the implication of this: less money equals further separation in program facilities and recruiting ability, etc., etc.

2. Which Non-AQ Schools Have the Opportunity to Make the Move to a BCS Conference?

This is an interesting topic – do any current Non-AQ schools deserve the chance to play in a BCS conference? Obviously, yes. Utah has already made the jump and TCU is poised to do so next season; albeit to a somewhat depleted Big East. The other obvious choice would be Boise State, but will population-base and television ratings hold Boise and other elite Non-AQ programs back?

3. Is it All About Television Viewers and Population-Base?

Yes and no. To the big conferences currently looking to add teams, television-market-size, fan-base, stadium seating, and academic standing fall in line as some of the most important considerations for conference realignment. But many of these conferences are looking past high potential, expanding, Non-AQ markets in an attempt to steal bigger fish from competing conferences. Look no further than the PAC-12, in discussion with OU and Texas for a potential conference scenario that makes no sense geographically, or economically, for current members.

A closer look at national fan-base and potential to build a conference a bit more organically might lead to a BCS conference extending an offer to a team like Boise State. Boise State, whose TV market and alumni population don’t offer much ‘wow-factor’ for BCS conference addition, do have quite an impressive national following. A recent NY Times article shows Boise State’s national following at about 500k, which is more than nearly half of the current PAC-12 members can claim. In addition, the city of Boise continues to be one of the fastest growing television markets in the US. Other schools like Houston, UCF, and ECU could all make very similar arguments for inclusion. Are these numbers enough to prove worthy of a BCS conference invitation? It’s yet to be seen!

Brett is a writer for CableTV.com. He typically writes about business, entertainment, and sports. You can follow him on Twitter at @BrettDrive.

Over the past few weeks, the Arizona State Sun Devils athletic department has been releasing videos and teasers about a big announcement they had planned for April 12, 2011.  Before we actually review what happened, we should start by taking a look at what they did to create anticipation and excitement among their fans and alumni:

Clearly, something big was coming, but no official announcements were made until April 12, so fans had to wait. I love how the videos covered the full history of their athletic program, successfully mixing nostalgia and historic moments to more recent highlights and successes. This allowed the videos to resonate with a wide age range of fans, which is very important when you have alumni from age 22 to 102.

When the time came, we finally learned that the Sun Devils were undergoing a complete rebranding, transitioning away from the traditional “Sparky” logo to a new pitchfork-based logo and updating their official colors and fonts. Here is the official “Time to Fear the Fork” video that went along with the announcement:

Behind the scenes, Nike was working with Arizona State for over a year on the rebranding process, which involved changes to all the colors and marks across all sports at the school.  The logo itself was the most significant change, but the introduction of black as an important color for the school’s brand was also very important. For more on Nike’s role in the process, check out this video:

Here is an official statement on the new brand from the school’s weekly “Devil’s Insider” email newsletter:

“The rebranding of Sun Devil Athletics includes adding two colors to the athletics color palette: copper, for its prominence in Arizona history, and black, a long-anticipated return to the Sun Devil attitude. This fall will not be the first time our Arizona State football squads have worn black helmets, as we previously wore black helmets in the 1950s.  We now have a custom athletic font exclusive to Sun Devil Athletics. The font, called Sun Devil Bold, incorporates unique characteristics intended to represent my horns or my pitchfork. Speaking of pitchforks, the official logo of Sun Devil Athletics is now the pitchfork… This exclusive and contemporary mark will be used consistently across all of our Sun Devil teams. Anytime someone sees this logo, they will instantly recognize it as Sun Devil Athletics.”

Putting aside that I’m a bit biased when it comes to Arizona State (I went there for my MBA and worked in the athletic department), I think this is a great move for them. While Sparky has a long history at the school, it wasn’t the greatest logo to build the brand around. They wanted to have a strong, intense brand, but at the same time, Sparky was also their mascot and was very family friendly, which created a conflicting message in their brand. Now, they can continue to use Sparky in the mascot role, where he’s always been a great fit, but their athletic program can be better marketed under the new colors and pitchfork logo. This change should contribute to improvements in merchandise sales, brand awareness,  ticket sales and hopefully alumni contributions.

The decision to rebrand any sports organization is very complicated, as the decision makers need to balance the affinity that their fans have to the current brand against the long-term value of what the new brand could represent. It seems like the Sun Devils really used their time productively not only to decide on what the new brand will be, but in how to create excitement about it and communicate the changes to their fans.

On Saturday night, we were treated to two excellent Final Four games. The first game, Butler vs. VCU, featured underdog vs. underdog, two team that all college basketball fans could get behind. The second game, UConn vs. Kentucky, was on the other end of the spectrum, featuring two perennial juggernauts, even if each of them was “only” a 3 or 4 seed. Both games featured tremendous athletes, talented coaches and great storylines.

According to this morning’s Sports Business Daily, Saturday’s pair of games was the highest rated Final Four since 2005. If you look at each game separately, the Butler/VCU game, which ran from 6-8:30PM, had an 8.3 rating with 14.2 million viewers, while the Kentucky/UConn game, which ran from 8:45-11:15PM, had a 9.5 rating with 16.7 million viewers. So, this leads me to ask, why did the 2nd game do so much better? There are several factors that impact ratings, so let’s see if we can figure this out.

1. Time of Day: On a Saturday night, the best ratings usually take place between 8 and 9PM. The two games straddled this time period, so this shouldn’t have affected things much.
2. Media Market Size: In general, networks love it when teams from large markets play for a title because the size of that market can dramatically impact ratings. In this case, all four schools are from relatively small markets, so none of these market would affect this.
3. Fan Base: Here’s our first difference. UConn and Kentucky have a much longer basketball history than Butler or VCU, so the size of their relative fan bases would tilt ratings towards the 2nd game.
4. Public Interest: This is another category that can go either way. The public tends to watch teams they are more familiar with, but at the same time, March Madness is driven by underdogs and Cinderella stories.
5. Lead-In Programming: This is the underrated factor in my opinion. A strong lead-in program will lead to carryover viewing, and in this case, with Butler/VCU generating so much interest, some of that had to positively impact the 2nd game’s ratings.

With all of those factors in mind, I wonder how the ratings might have been different if the games had been in the other order. Would UConn and Kentucky fans been more or less likely to stay tuned in for the Butler/VCU game? Which game truly had more public interest?

Finally, with UConn and Butler advancing to the championship game, will this match-up generate record ratings for CBS? Would Kentucky or VCU have been better? We’ll see tonight!

My first experience working in sports was with a college athletics department, working under the Assistant Athletic Director for Marketing and Revenue Generation. I was very fortunate that this school had a progressive marketing department where I was able to manage a CRM system, oversee digital and email marketing efforts, and dive in to some very interesting analytical projects and decision making. To this day, I am very thankful for that experience.

However, once I had finished up my year-long fellowship, I decided that college athletics wasn’t for me, and that was for one primary reason – development (the arm of the athletic department that handles alumni donations). I had the feeling that to really succeed within a major Division I athletic program, you needed to be involved in getting those rich alumni to donate more and more money. Budgets were always tight, and getting that donor money directly into the hands of the athletics program was crucial. This aspect of the job did not appeal to me, so I focused my efforts on professional sports opportunities.

Today, I saw a news item on ESPN that really drives home the perils of alumni development in college sports. The top donor for the University of Connecticut’s football program is apparently displeased with the hiring of their new football coach and wants their $3M donation back. This rich individual previously decided to “donate” a large sum of money to this program, and because of that, he feels he has the right to influence what decisions the program makes. Look at these quotes from the donor:

• Burton called the situation “a slap in the face and embarrassment to my family,” and said he planned “to let the correct people know that you did not listen to your number one football donor.”
• “We want our money and respect back.”
• Although he was not seeking veto power in the hiring, he “earned my voice on this subject” as the program’s top donor.
• “You are not qualified to be a Division I AD and I would have fired you a long time ago. You do not have the skills to manage and cultivate new donors.”

This person does not work for the university or the athletic program in any capacity, yet because he wrote the biggest check, he feels that he has the power to impact school decisions. In this case, he’s angry that his opinion was ignored, but I’m sure that other schools in similar situations would actually let the donor’s opinion impact their decision. The scary thing is that I don’t know which is worse. With professional sports teams, this situation doesn’t exist. If a company is paying that type of money, it’s for something very specific (suites, sponsorships, media, etc.) and that purchase does not include the ability to influence team operational decisions.

This will always be a unique aspect of college athletics, and I know that a lot of people in alumni development enjoy the challenge. It is a complicated blend of marketing, customer service, public relations and fundraising. But when I see a story like this, it reminds me about why I decided college athletics wasn’t the right spot for me.

Hopefully if you’re reading this, you are a member of The Business of Sports LinkedIn group… if not, what are you waiting for? A few days ago, Deandra Duggans (a previous guest blogger and author for www.sportsandalatte.com) shared a great article with the LinkedIn group regarding how the Pac-10 has rebranded their image (“Led by savvy commissioner Larry Scott, Pac-10 rebrands its image”, sportsillustrated.cnn.com). She picked a great topic, because a few of the other group members started a nice conversation about the conference’s efforts. I want to share that conversation with you here in case you missed it.

Dallon Christensen CMA, MBA, CPA/CITP:

Larry Scott is an absolute visionary. His idea of how to create a complete brand image of the Pac-10 is a model for any organization (not just sports organizations) looking to create a clear image in the minds of consumers. I’m sure that the Pac 10 will eventually create their own TV network, so building this integrated brand will do wonders for their image. As a Midwest native and a Big 10 fan, I see a lot of similarities between the two conferences in terms of academic and athletic balance as well as geographic spread. Scott’s efforts to capture an image are important.  I love the new logo. It reminds me a lot of the traditional shield logos I see on European soccer jerseys. It’s very catchy.

AJ Maestas:

The Pac-10 is going to have a tough time replicating the revenue generated by the Big 10 through media rights — even after creating its own network — because the Pac-10′s fan base, in terms of both reach and affinity, can’t quite match the Big 10. Our firm’s research suggests the Pac-10 should eventually get about $14.5 million per school per year, which is obviously short of the Big 10′s $21 million per school per year.

However, if Scott can continue generating buzz for his conference, and if he can keep alive the idea that a 16-team super conference is still a future possibility, he could very well generate a bidding war in upcoming media rights negotiations and drive that number up. There are more interested parties than ever (Fox, Turner, Comcast, etc.) and Scott could use that to his advantage.

We still don’t think the Pac-10 can reach Big 10 revenue numbers, but maybe it can approach the SEC’s $17 million per school per year, which would be remarkable considering where the Pac-10 used to be.

Alan LaFleur:

Pac-10 can certainly get there given enough time. They have markets ranging from LA to Denver and then all the way up to Seattle. That is a lot of population. The problem they will face is that their demographics are not as sport-driven as the Big 10 demographics or even the SEC demos. It will be interesting to see what the PAC-10 can do.

Kathy Deboer:

Scott’s ideas for reaching out to Asia are innovative and his conference is perfectly situated to be a leader in this area. Look at all the IMG investment in sports in Asia in the last couple of years. Obviously some of the folks in the business sector think college sports and global expansion is the next growth marketplace. Asia outreach will also be a major boost for volleyball, which the Pac 10 plays pretty well. The sport is huge in China, Japan, and Korea, in terms of both participation and media interest.

Dallon Christensen CMA, MBA, CPA/CITP:

AJ, what kind of population growth projections did you factor into your analysis? I’m curious because the American population continues to move away from the Midwest and Northeast (Big 10 country) and toward the south and west (SEC, ACC, and Pac 10 country). In fact, there were rumors flying about the Big 10 attempting to lure ACC schools like Georgia Tech and Virginia to move toward the southeast. While I agree the Pac 10 probably will not reach Big 10 or SEC revenue levels in this contract, I think the chances are high they could reach those levels in 10 years because of the population shifts in this country (same holds for the SEC).

Soccer and baseball are also very popular in the Asian countries, and the Pac-10 is extremely strong in those sports as well as volleyball. In fact, Scott’s vision in seeing the Olympic sports as a gateway to the Asian sports market is the most remarkable thing I’ve taken from this story.

This is the type of engaging sports business discussion I love to see on the blog and in the LinkedIn group. There are so many great industry professionals that are a part of the group and willing to share their opinions that all of us can benefit from their knowledge and insight. If you haven’t already, join the group today and join the discussions!

Our next SportsBiz Live Chat is scheduled for today, Thursday, June 10 at 2:00pm EDT (11:00am PDT). The chat room will open at 1:45pm so we’ll be ready to go right at 2. The topic for today’s chat is college athletics and the various conference expansion scenarios, and the chat will be hosted by Amanda Miller. Enjoy!

I have a major announcement: The Business Of Sports is going to expand to a 16 blog network, complete with a championship blog-off (presenting sponsor TBD) and a 7-year, multi-billion dollar television contract with ESPN 3.

OK, so none of that is true, but it seems like every college sports conference out there has some form of expansion (or in other cases, survival) plan being pursued. Here’s a quick reference list by conference of where everything stands (from what I’ve been able to put together, with a little opinion thrown in).  Consider this a primer for tomorrow’s hour-long SportsBiz Live Chat on the topic of college athletics and conference expansion taking place right here on the blog at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT). Users can log in up to 15 minutes before the chat starts.

ACC

• Mode:  Survive – Already has a championship game, but is a rumored target of future SEC expansion.
• Targets:  None currently, may go after “former” Big East teams if they lose teams to the Big Ten.
• Outlook:  Fairly safe – Not so strong in football, but strong east coast presence and basketball backbone insure some security.

Big East

• Mode:  Survive – Already been pilfered once by ACC, currently targeted by Big Ten.
• Targets:  If they lose Rutgers, Pitt or others, they will probably try to target Conference USA or A-10 schools to fill out the gaps.
• Outlook:  Danger – Already considered the weakest of the “Big 6,” they are stuck playing the Big Ten waiting game to learn their fate.

Big Ten

• Mode:  Expand – Needs 1 team at a minimum to get a championship game, but wants to create a larger 14 or 16 team conference to generate more media revenue through the Big Ten Network.
• Targets:  Notre Dame, Texas, Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers, Pittsburgh – maybe others.
• Outlook:  Growing – The Big Ten is going to expand – the only question is who and when. It would be very hard for any school offered a spot to turn down Big Ten Network money.

Big 12

• Mode:  Survive/Merge – Facing a “hostile takeover” by the Pac-10 on one end and Big Ten expansion efforts on the other.
• Targets:  None – best bet may be to negotiate a “merger” with Pac-10 if they feel that schools will abandon ship.
• Outlook:  Unknown – The Big 12 is a strong conference, but doesn’t generate the revenue of the Big Ten or Pac-10. Will their schools chase the money?

Pac-10

• Mode:  Expand – The big newsmaker of the past week, targeting almost half of the current Big 12 schools to try and make a 16 team power conference.
• Targets:  Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado (maybe Baylor).
• Outlook:  Growing – The Pac-10 has taken the reigns in the expansion charge. They could be the biggest conference player in college sports from this.

SEC

• Mode:  Status Quo – For now, the SEC is sitting back and waiting. They have their 12 team conference with championship game. After the Pac-10 and Big Ten finish, they may decide to pluck 4 schools from the ACC or Big East.
• Targets:  None at this time. Potential future targets (if the Pac-10 and Big Ten do expand) would include any southeast ACC or Big East schools.
• Outlook:  Safe – The SEC is already the most powerful football conference in college sports. Whether that changes will depend on the Pac-10 and Big Ten.

MWC

• Mode:  Sit and Wait – Conference will survive, now that the Pac-10 has moved on to target Big 12 schools instead of Utah, Air Force and TCU.
• Targets:  None for now – Previously targeted Boise State when discussing their own expansion, which has been at least temporarily dismissed.
• Outlook:  Safe – The MWC looks to be fine, but if the power shifts even further to the top 4 or 6 conferences, they could have long term problems.

Conference USA

• Mode:  Survive – Not exactly a strong conference to start, they’ve already had one round of their top schools taken by the last Big East expansion.
• Targets:  None – A small chance they could bring in leftover schools from another conference that loses some, but its unlikely.
• Outlook:  Danger – While they may seem ok in the short term, they’re strongest schools could easily be plucked in a 2nd round of expansion.

In case you missed it, there was a big story last week about the University of Kansas box office ticket scalping scandal. As the story goes, some number of staff members sold at least $1 million worth of “comped” tickets secretly to local donors and ticket brokers, pocketing the money for themselves and not recording any revenue in the school’s ticketing system. A full audit of their sales records is taking place, with the belief that the scam could have involved up to $3 million worth of tickets.

This story is a wake-up call for any ticket selling organization. There are so many lessons to learn from the situation they went through.

Most importantly, a thorough, multi-tiered series of checks and balances is needed when it comes to managing comped tickets, and I mean more that just “my boss said it was ok.” Comped tickets may not seem like a big deal, but depending on how they’re being used, you can end up devaluing or even competing with your own product. These tickets are a valuable asset and should only be used for specific business purposes. Some examples include:

• To assist a salesperson in closing a larger deal
• Providing value to a current or potential sponsor
• Rewards for employees
• Giving back to the surrounding community

Regardless of which way they are being used, all comped tickets should be explicitly approved by a manager electronically or in writing (for record keeping purposes). Most CRM systems have easy-to-build manager approval workflows that can be used to streamline this process. Now in the case of Kansas, there was a manager involved in the scandal, so this wouldn’t have been enough. That is why, on a regular basis (weekly or bi-weekly), a game-by-game comped ticket report should go one or two steps further up the ladder to senior staff (Vice-President or Athletic Director level).  Again, CRM or ticketing system reports should make this a simple process, and any irregularities or unusual quantities of comped ticket usage will need to be justified, hopefully in a way that shows how those tickets have generated results (increased revenue, sponsor satisfaction, etc.).

Finally, every ticketing organization needs to develop an internal culture that stresses responsibility and integrity. According to the ESPN article, the report described these particular employees as “ice cream store” workers who seemed to “feel free to sample the wares without paying for them.” This shows how no one in the group took their responsibility seriously. The idea that these were “just free tickets” and didn’t hurt anyone was short-sighted and showed a lack of respect for their organization. Those ideas should have been stressed from the top down as part of the organizational culture from the very beginning.

Everyone in working in sports loves to be able to help friends or family out with tickets to events here and there, but without accountability and integrity, it can be a slippery slope when it comes to comped tickets.

Today’s post is courtesy of guest blogger Jude Russo Caserta.

Originally every five years and now every ten each NCAA school must complete a self-study of their athletic department followed by an on-site visit from peer institutions to verify they are in compliance with Title IX. This hugely symbolic exercise is one of the largest time suckers known to mankind or because this author is female I should say womankind to satisfy the first prong, proportionality, of Title IX compliance. Here are the three prongs from www.ncaa.org:

The OCR’s three-part test for Title IX compliance involves the following options for providing participation opportunities:

• Male-female athletics participation that is proportional to the institution’s full-time undergraduate enrollment, or
• A history and continuing practice of expansion of athletics opportunities for the under-represented gender, or
• Accommodating the interests and abilities of the under-represented gender (Hosick, 2010)

In 2005 the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) said you only had to do internet or e-mail surveys to determine if you were accommodating interest of the under-represented gender. Easy peezy, lemon squeezy! The odds of this survey actually determining the interest were slim and the NCAA told its folks – not so fast – step away from prong three. As a result, proportionality remained the most quantitative way to comply.

I am here to say that proportionality has absolutely killed college football. Do you think this was an intended consequence when Congresswoman Patsy Mink wrote the law back in 1972? In my job as athletic business manager and as a former Senior Women’s Administrator I think of Title IX all of the time. When I build or manage budgets and work with the daily micro-transactions which support sport programs I am constantly aware of what goes to men and to women. Our athletic director supports a culture of fiscal integrity which I instill every day. We dropped football in 2002 along with Men’s and Women’s Tennis, Track & Field and Rifle. We picked up Men’s Swimming. This made an immediate impact on proportionality. Dropping sports is painful and challenges tradition.

Still, there are schools that do not apply the three prongs appropriately and do not offer the under-represented gender equal opportunity. Just last week OCR announced it is rescinding its 2005 clarification. For prong three, in addition to surveys there must be “1) unmet interest sufficient to sustain a varsity team in the sport(s) 2) sufficient ability to sustain an intercollegiate team in the sport(s) and 3) reasonable expectation of intercollegiate competition for a team in the sport(s) within the school’s normal competitive region.” (Rights, 2010) If a group of champion skiers wants to start a downhill ski team in Florida they would not be successful because of competitive region. You must fulfill all three things to start a sport.

Perhaps I should openly admit I have my job because of Title IX (actually from the 1995 time-robber self study) when it was determined our school did not actually have fiscal integrity. I was asked to write a job description which would cover all of the concerns of the peer review committee, decide how many hours it would take to complete these tasks and determine how much compensation would be appropriate. In other words, I wrote my own job description, determined my hours and decided my pay…good gig if you can get it!

Unspoken in this are the financial resources needed to sustain a sport. Do you drop a male sport to bring on a female sport? I think the greatest moral dilemma remains the balance between opportunity and what I believe are the unintended consequences of dropping sports.

I sincerely hope there is a day when girls are not aware of Title IX and just get to play.

Jude Russo Caserta is the Athletic Business Manager at Canisius College and helped the MAAC Conference create Agreed-Upon Procedures years before the NCAA. She has a B.S. in Accounting and M.S. in Sport Administration and, as president of Athletic Business Systems, wants to help institutional business offices partner with athletic departments to create a culture of fiscal integrity. You can read more from her at www.AthleticBudgetCoach.com/blog, follow her on Twitter as @JudeCaserta, or email her at judi_caserta@athleticbudgetcoach.com.