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:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSYYgGHrTd8

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKbYekB_TSE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=U13DaBHLzkY

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:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxHr4xplzE

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:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhnfE10B7YQ

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.

Let me throw some numbers at you: 68 (teams), 14 (years), 10.8 (billion dollars).

The NCAA announced today that the 2011 Men’s basketball tournament will expand not to 96 teams, not to 80 teams, but to 68 teams, an increase of just three over the 2010 tournament. Last Friday, during our live chat here on this site, we had an in-depth discussion about what expansion might mean to March Madness. At the time, it seemed like 96 was going to be the magic number. There was a consensus that expansion on that large a scale was a huge mistake for the NCAA.

There were many issues with that kind of expansion: watering down of the competition, the perception that the NCAA was only concerned about money, and the increase in missed class time for the student athletes were the three major ones.

By only adding three additional bids, the NCAA seems to have found a win-win situation. They sign CBS and Turner Broadcasting to a new 14-year, $10.8 billion deal, appease a couple mid-major leagues who feel they deserve multiple bids, and keep their reputation as the guardians of student-athletes. Well-played by the team in Indianapolis, and I don’t mean Butler.

Think of it this way: the NCAA increased the field by less than 5%, but their TV deal went from being worth $545.45 million per year to $771.43 million. An increase of over 41%.

For many basketball fans, the best news out of all this is the fact that every single tournament game will be show live. Through a combination of channels – CBS, TBS, TNT and truTV – everyone will get to see the games they want to see. While March Madness On Demand served me well this year, I am already excited about being able to watch my alma mater next year in HD.

All-in-all, it seems that the NCAA avoided a public relations nightmare – did anyone read the transcript of John Feinstein’s back-and-forth with the NCAAs senior VP Greg Shaheen about missed class time for the student athletes? That is just a taste of what the NCAA would have had to fight if they had expanded to 96.

But in the end, it seems that 68 is the new magic number. Who do you think will be the first 17-seed ever?

An interesting article from flipcollective.com by Paul Shirley (former NBA player) that I read earlier this week got me thinking about the differences between men’s and women’s basketball. Paul focused on the differences in athleticism and how enjoyable the games are, but I’ve been thinking more about the cold hard cash.

The men’s championship game drew 71,298 fans in an NFL stadium, while the women’s game (UConn over Stanford) drew ‘just’ 22,936 in the Alamodome. Beyond that, over 48 million people saw at least some part of Duke squeaking by Butler for their fourth national championship. According to an analysis of the 2008-09 championships, men’s basketball netted the NCAA $32 million, while the women’s championship cost over $7.5 million.

Geno Auriemma (UConn’s coach) hasn’t gotten a call from a men’s program about an open head coaching position in four years. He’s obviously coaching at a very high level: his team hasn’t lost in two years, and they are just 10 wins away from tying the hallowed wins record in all of college basketball – UCLA’s 88 in a row, yet for some reason, ADs aren’t looking at him as a candidate for their men’s teams.

So what does this mean from a business standpoint? There are obviously more fans for the men’s product then there are for the women’s, but are they all equally as invested? My gut tells me women’s fans have a stronger connection to their team… maybe not just the name on the front of the jerseys, but to the players wearing them.

This gives teams and their sponsors a unique opportunity to connect with fans. A sincere, distinctive ‘voice’ in social media goes a long way towards building a rapport with fans. Passionate fans are happy to provide feedback and ideas to those brands that ask. I wasn’t able to find an obvious Twitter account for either of the Stanford or UConn women’s basketball teams, so I’d suggest to them to capitalize on their recent success and get that started. Use players to guest tweet, guest blog, tape short videos, thank fans, and maybe show some behind the scenes footage of their trip to the Final Four.

Don’t get me wrong, the men’s teams can do these kinds of things too, but a lot of men’s Division I teams are doing just fine without those initiatives. Does anyone really think Duke’s team lost $2 million last year? Social media is an avenue where sponsors can utilize the popularity AND gender of the team they sponsor to make a better connection with fans. Better than that 3′ x 8′ banner hanging in the concourse, and better than the flyer they hand fans as they are walking out the door.

The Phoenix Mercury drew a lot of attention when they signed LifeLock as their front-of-jersey sponsor. They are the first major professional league to monetize that ad space, not counting soccer, where the practice is standard. The men’s leagues aren’t quite ready to go there… yet.

So, what do you think is the biggest opportunity out there for women’s sports? Am I wrong? Do men and women have the same opportunities here? Do their fans react to the same messages?

There’s one March Madness juggernaut that no one has been talking about on sports talk radio. It’s not Kansas, or Syracuse, or even Duke… it’s Nike. The Nike basketball Twitter account announced just hours after the selection show that 49 of the 65 tournament teams would be wearing the swoosh, with three more sporting the Jordan brand. That means more than 75% of the teams are under the Nike umbrella.

Even more striking is the fact that every single team in the West Region is a Nike team, which assures the swoosh of at least one Final Four team. Here’s the breakdown by region (courtesy of @nikebasketball):  Midwest – 10 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan; West: 16 Nike; East: 12 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan; South: 11 Nike, 1 Brand Jordan.

Nike’s contract with each university varies widely. With the millions of dollars in payments, equipment and apparel that they are paying to these schools, the national TV exposure that they’ll garner this weekend is their payback. On Thursday and Friday, Nike teams will participate in over 48 hours of basketball. Every time there is a close-up of a player diving on the floor after a loose-ball or lingers on a player getting ready to shoot a foul-shot, Nike executives will be cheering. The prolonged exposure is why those deals are signed in the first place. This weekend, Nike and Brand Jordan will reap the rewards of those strategic contracts.

Tournament Expansion
This morning I listened to a prominent NCAA basketball coach talking about the prospect of the tournament expanding to 96 teams. He was very frank in his opinion (keeping the tournament at it’s current 65 teams), but was also honest about the fact that his opinion may be tainted by the fact that every one of his teams has made the tournament. If he missed a couple in a row, his vote might change.

I feel strongly that the tournament should NOT expand to 96 teams. How many of us out there can name 31 teams that didn’t make the tournament this year? Ok, several of us could do that, but now let’s think about 31 teams that we would want to see playing this weekend… that’s not quite as easy. Also, doesn’t it take a little bit of the cache away from making the tournament and devalue the regular season if all those the number of teams expands by almost 50%?

Brackets
Now, gambling on the NCAA tournament is illegal. Luckily, just filling out a bracket is not. Most likely I will fill out two brackets. One with my heart (with Syracuse winning), and one with my head (Kansas). Thursday and Friday are those two infamous days of the year where employers lose billions of dollars on lost productivity. While it’s not technically part of my job, I’ll be keeping an eye on the games and social media simultaneously, to see what teams and brands are activating using those platforms. So, who do you have winning your bracket?

In the midst of my usual sports business ramblings on Twitter last week, I wrote the following message:

“Come on @ispsportnetwork and @learfield. Two of the biggest college sports marketing brands – you guys can do so much more on Twitter!”

I didn’t think much of this at the time. I sent it because I noticed that these two corporate Twitter accounts had a very low number of followers, didn’t tweet much and offered little in terms of actual content. I was pleasantly surprised when a few days later, I got the following reply from@Learfield:

Learfield: @rscibetti Guilty as charged. Been working on the Grown-Ups for 3 years. How about a blog post: “10 Reasons Learfield Sports Should Tweet”

So, at the prompting of the @Learfield Twitter account, here are ten reasons why Learfield Sports should tweet (in no particular order):

1. Raise awareness for your properties – At a most basic level, Twitter gives you a popular communication channel to promote all the great things that your college teams are doing, both on and off the field.
2. Create an engagement opportunity to connect with fans and customers across your properties – Beyond promoting the schools and teams, Twitter will let you interact with the fans in those locations, building a deeper connection to the property and also providing you valuable feedback.
3. Help test and execute social media campaigns that you can share as best practices with your properties – What better way to assist your properties than by learning about Twitter yourselves, finding out what can be most effective, and then spreading best practices across your different locations.
4. Engage in conversation with other sports media and sponsorship professionals – Twitter is an incredible educational platform that gives you an easy way to learn from other industry leaders and apply those ideas to your company.
5. Leverage your network of properties to create high-value social media promotions that generate direct value for top-level sponsors – It’s one thing for a corporate partner to run a Twitter contest with one location…you can harness the power of Twitter across multiple locations to really generate a powerful campaign for a sponsor.
6. Get direct feedback about current marketing promotions that your properties are running – People on Twitter are honest and direct, which will help you learn what is and is not working.
7. Connect with future Learfield employees – There are a lot of talented individuals on Twitter that have unique skill sets that could benefit both Learfield and your properties.
8. Create more value that can help retain customers – If you are at risk of losing certain partners, perhaps developing integrated, cross-property social media campaigns as an addition to their current elements can provide more value and help retain your customers.
9. Build a stronger relationship with your properties – Some schools are running great social media campaigns, while others are well-behind the curve. If you can leverage your own Twitter presence is a way that educates and assist these schools, you provide more value and make your relationship indispensable.
10. It’s fun – I wanted this to be last, but there’s importance to it. There is a uniquely fun element to engaging with others through Twitter, and I believe that whoever at Learfield shares this responsibility will get more satisfaction out of their job, which will in turn make them a better employee.

So that is my list of 10 reasons why Learfield Sports should tweet. I hope I’ve made a strong case for it, and if anyone at Learfield would like to talk more about this, they can reach me right here!

Last spring, I wrote about an interesting promotion that Coke Zero was running in conjunction with NCAA Basketball called “Taste the Madness.” The idea was simple – fans were encouraged to submit their craziest fan videos supporting their school, and the best video would become part of a Coke Zero advertisement before the championship game.

This year, instead of another “video” contest, they are tapping into fan creativity in a different way. Every viewer has their own ideas on how they can improve their fan experience, but outside of their own circle of friends, they don’t have a large platform to share their ideas. Coke Zero is using this concept to create a “Department of Fannovation” campaign where people can share their ideas on a large scale through the website http://www.cokezero.com/ncaa (you can also click here to watch a video on how the contest works).

The top 64 ideas will get entered into a “Brain Bracket” just like the traditional NCAA basketball bracket. Fan votes will determine the winner in each match-up until one idea is the crowned champion and receives the top prize of $10,000 and a trip to the 2011 NCAA Final Four. There will also be prizes for making the bracket itself and advancing to the Sweet Sixteen and Final Four levels.

For Coca-Cola, the goal is to connect the idea of innovation back to the Coke Zero brand and the way they “innovated” a new diet beverage that still mirrors the traditional Coke flavor. Doing this through a platform like the NCAA tournament, which has a very passionate and interactive fan base, has the potential to make a deeper brand impact among this particular consumer audience (and we know that sports fans are more likely to be brand-loyal consumers).

Marquette University has taken a very creative approach to selling their season ticket and mini-plans that goes beyond a straight sales pitch. They worked with Row27 Studios to creating a new website that combines team-generated and user-generated content with both a contest and ticket sales information to create an interactive fan experience.  You can visit the site at www.marquetteminiplans.com.

The website displays a 3D rotation of different videos, including game actions clips, interviews with the team (some of which are VERY funny), and placeholders for user-generated videos. Some of the videos are grayed out and will be activated over time, giving fans reason to keep visiting the site. Everything is tied together through a contest, which you can learn about through the links at the bottom of the site. There are prizes based on accumulating points, and you can gain points by creating an account, uploading videos, finding a hidden video, sharing with friends via email or social networking (Twitter and Facebook), and purchasing a ticket package.

I’m not a Marquette fan (I’m actually an alumnus of a rival Big East school), but I’ve already visited the site multiple times to see the different types of videos that they’ve created. I’m sure that the school’s fans will really respond to this promotion. I love the interactive elements and how they encourage and reward the site visitors to share the link with others. This is a great alternative to a typical online ticket sales or marketing campaign.

Today’s post is courtesy of guest blogger Rob Campbell, Analyst for IEG Research Services. This article was first published on IEG’s Sponsorship Blog at Sponsorship.com.

Social Media and Sponsorship Join Forces for Marquette Basketball

This past week, Marquette University started posting from a Pepsi-sponsored Twitter account focusing on the home opener for its men’s basketball team. This development is unique in that very few (successful) forays have been made into the world of sponsored social media.

So far, the only evidence of Pepsi involvement is a Pepsi logo and the text “Pepsi Season Opener” on the Twitter page. There have been no tweets or links posted regarding Pepsi or the sponsorship and the posts have largely focused on information aimed at building excitement around opening night. If the user’s window is not maximized, the Pepsi logo and blurb receives little visibility, as it is mostly shrouded by text display.

The account has amassed just over 100 followers at the time of this post, but its posts are retweeted through the Marquette Athletics account.

I think this minimalistic approach of the lowest possible integration (no influence on tweets) is a great start. By keeping the sponsorship transparent and the content sterile, the account does not have a detrimental effort on the actual sponsorship of the athletic department and if anything, only adds to it.

If Pepsi ever does make it into the subject matter of tweets, it should not be in the form of just marketing messages. Instead, the best way to integrate the overarching Season Opener sponsorship into this sponsored Twitter page is to provide actual useful content or promotions. For example, if Pepsi were to give away tickets or create a highlight video, that would be relevant content to relay to the account’s followers. However, simply stating there is a sale on Pepsi at the local grocer would not be relevant.

Essentially, this Twitter account is just an activation extension of Pepsi’s sponsorship of Marquette Athletics and is not the sole focus of the sponsorship. I think placing the Twitter account in the supporting role of the much larger sponsorship makes the sponsored page feel much more organic than if the sponsored Twitter account were the primary focus.

It would be interesting to know if Pepsi requested the Twitter tie-in or whether Marquette’s athletic department took the initiative in its creation.

(Editor’s Note: I love to see experimentation like this in the social media space. I believe the first sports-related Twitter sponsor to get involved was Tissot on Danica Patrick’s page. Social media allows for a wide array of value-added activation, which is so important now as companies look to gain more value from their sponsorships without increasing their spend.)

In honor of NCAA President and former Indiana University President Myles Brand, who passed away on Wednesday at the age of 67, I’d like to share links and quotes from five articles related to Mr. Brand’s accomplishments and hard work throughout his distinguished career.

1.  Brand timeline: Key career, life moments – IndyStar.com, 9/16/09

2.  A Man of Action and Integrity: IU President Emeritus Myles Brand – Speech from IU President Michael A. McRobbie, 3/29/09 – “During his tenure at IU, Myles’ strong leadership also extended to intercollegiate athletics, and that has continued in his role as president of the NCAA. As in all other areas, Myles’ actions in relation to athletics have been driven by his integrity and his dedication to the best values at the heart of American higher education.”

3.  Brand brought just the right touch – Pat Forde, ESPN.com, 4/2/09 – “The sources I spoke with described Brand’s biggest initiatives as championing the student-athlete and reaching out more to the schools — their presidents, athletic directors, coaches and athletes.”

4.  Brand focused on classroom, basketball during his tenure atop NCAA – Mike DeCourcy, Sporting News, 9/16/2009 – “He might have been the most visionary executive ever to head the NCAA. College athletics lost a great friend with Brand’s passing because he was willing to examine and champion concepts designed to improve the athletes’ opportunities and experience.”

5.  NCAA’s Brand was the strongest figure in college sports – Christine Brennan, USA Today, 9/16/09 – “This soft-spoken, cerebral man became the toughest guy in college sports. He fired Bob Knight. He stood up to President George W. Bush when his administration tried to weaken Title IX. He told schools to stop using Native American nicknames that were considered offensive. He looked men’s college coaches around the country in the eye and told them they had to do a better job of graduating their student-athletes, or else.”

In the past few days, I’ve seen a couple of great promotions from schools in the Pac-10 that I’d like to share:

Arizona State – You Are ASU: The Sun Devils created a couple of life-sized ASU trading card cutouts that can be found in prime locations around the Tempe area.  They’re encouraging fans to get their picture taken in the card cutout and send a Twitpic to their official Twitter account (@SparkyArizonaSt), and the picture that shows “the most Sun Devil Pride” will win free lower level tickets.  Great way to combine offline and online marketing.

Cal – SFGate.com Takeover: If you visited the San Francisco Chronicle website (sfgate.com/sports) in the past couple of days, you would have seen the entire site done up with full Cal spirit, from background imagery to advertisements and content. Since this is one of the most popular sites for sports content in the Bay Area, this is a great tactic to make a strong, concentrated impact.  Here’s a picture of what the site looked like during the takeover (thanks to @CalAthletics sending this along).

Arizona – Free Wildcats Ringtone: This offer is prominently displayed on the Arizona Wildcats athletics home page, encouraging fans to show their school spirit and download the official Wildcats ringtone. While getting the ringtone distributed among the school’s fans is great, the more valuable part of this promotion is the data collection opportunity that it provides.

Washington – Go Purple. Be Gold: The Huskies website starts you off with a nice new video, produced by row27 Studios. Last year wasn’t a great season for Washington, so the video appropriately focuses on hard work, practice and improvement, and ends with a call-to-action promoting their new 4-game plan.

New Tier B-Line: Multiple Pac-10 schools, including Stanford and Washington State, are offering a desktop product from New Tier Communications called the “B-Line.” It’s a new version of their desktop communicator that lets the schools push content out directly to the users’ computers, such as news alerts, video and special ticket offers.

Today’s post is courtesy of guest blogger Amanda M. Miller, a current Sports Business/Marketing MBA student at Arizona State and summer intern for Navigate Marketing.

In the last three months, the NCAA has come under attack on multiple fronts. First, lawsuits were filed (separately) by former Rutgers football player Ryan Hart and former Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller against Electronic Arts (aka EA Sports) and the NCAA for essentially using the likeness of collegiate athletes without compensating them. Then, former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon filed a lawsuit against the NCAA for the use of former players’ likenesses without compensation.

The NCAA is a multi-million dollar business. Revenues in 2008 were over $660 million (see the NCAA 2008-09 budget) and a negative resolution to these lawsuits would seriously jeopardize the largest chunk of that income. When you consider that 89% of last year’s revenue came from “Television and Marketing Rights Fees,” it becomes obvious that this is going to be a contentious fight.

EA Sports and the NCAA will throw everything but the kitchen sink into this lawsuit to protect their interests. I think what it comes down to is the question of whether major college sports (basketball and football mainly, baseball to a certain extent) have lost their amateurism.

The NCAA has always stood behind the ‘contract’ all collegiate players sign that allows the NCAA the use of their name and likeness. O’Bannon is contending that that very contract is only in effect while the player is competing for an NCAA institution. Once the player leaves college, they regain the rights to their image. Classic games are often re-run and there is a solid argument that the players in those games should get royalties each time it is re-aired. Championship DVDs and replica jerseys with former players’ names on them are sold on a daily basis, with the revenue going straight to the NCAA.

With respect to the EA Sports case, NCAA bylaws prohibit the use of the names and likenesses of athletes for commercial purposes. Does the fact that the University of Florida is quarterbacked by a 6′ 3″ left-handed player wearing the number 15 in EA’s NCAA Football 2009 mean they are ‘using’ the likeness of Tim Tebow? Keller contends that in the 2005 edition, Arizona State’s quarterback showed an unmistakable resemblance to him: same jersey number, same height and weight, hair color and home state. It’s this uncanny similarity that prompted him to file the lawsuit.

Now, I feel slightly differently when it comes to paying collegiate athletes outright for competing. Many of them get scholarships and, if you look at it like the summer internship that I’m participating in, for a reduced (or no) salary, the player (intern) gets the opportunity to learn on the fly, impress possible future employers (NBA or Navigate Marketing as the case may be) and network with those in their chosen career field. So I could argue pretty heavily that the NCAA players do get ‘paid’ just not with a paycheck every two weeks.

These lawsuits are a different story though. In one case, the NCAA is profiting from the very athletes that they are no longer paying. A simple solution to the O’Bannon lawsuit would be to give former players a royalty for each game re-aired, DVD or jersey sold, but only after that player is no longer actively competing in NCAA competition. Once the player cashes one of those royalty checks, any remaining eligibility they have would be erased.

The EA Sports lawsuit is a more slippery slope. How close of a resemblance does a CGI figure have to have to a living person before it’s considered his/her ‘likeness’? Many in the college ranks, and even those in the professional realm, should pay attention to these cases. Their resolutions will have reverberations in marketing deals for years to come.

Billboards are a common part of the marketing mix for most sports organizations. You’ll see them promoting season tickets, partial plans, special packages and even single-game tickets.  They tend to be a little brand focused, since they are going after people while they’re driving (not the most ideal time to buy something), but they almost include an easy-to-remember URL or phone number.  Hopefully, if you pass by the billboard enough times, you’ll decide to call and inquire about those tickets.

Up until recently, the biggest technological development in billboards has been digital billboards, which can be updated regularly and sometimes feature a rotation of different advertisers. From a sports perspective, these can be valuable because they can always show the most current promotion or the next game’s opponent. However, down in Kentucky, there’s been another “advancement”  in billboard technology – the singing billboard!

There are nine different singing billboards throughout Kentucky, each featuring one line of the University of Kentucky fight song.  If you pass by one of these special billboards, you can tune your radio to a specific station (either 1630AM or 1640 AM, depending on your location) and hear the U of K fight song.  Also, fans that submit pictures of all nine billboards will have a chance to win free tickets and other prizes.  Finally, the school has tied this campaign into a special website at www.ukfightsong.com, which includes audio, video clips, information on the contest and social networking integration with Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

I think this is a fun, innovative approach to what is generally viewed as a traditional marketing element.  They’ve found a way to tun the static message of a billboard into an engaging, interactive experience.

Arizona State Football just released a new interactive marketing piece called the “Arizona State Football Experience.” It’s framed as a message from Coach Dennis Erickson, and the video does a great job of taking you from the practice field to the Hall of Fame at Sun Devil Stadium and up to the coach’s office, interacting with the players, Sparky and then Coach Erickson himself.  All throughout the video, your name is integrated into various parts of the footage. The “experience” is capped off by a phone call from the coach, from which you have the option to connect directly to the ASU sales office to buy your tickets.  Finally, there is an option at the end of the video to forward it on to friends, and the page features links to the major social networking sites to encourage viral distribution.

The thing I like most about this one is that the personality of the participants comes through, particularly in the elevator scene.  That part of the clip may seem somewhat silly, but to me it helped create a more genuine connection to the athlete and the football program.  Click on the image below to experience the “experience” for yourself.

These types of interactive elements have gained a lot of popularity over the past few months.  It started with Gonzaga’s women’s basketball campaign, and I’ve seen similar campaigns recently from the Miami Dolphins and the Philadelphia Flyers.  Clearly these integrated, experiential videos seem to be more effective in engaging the viewer, which should in turn help convert these viewers into buyers.

I have to share this commercial with everyone, not just because it’s really funny but also because there are some good takeaways from it:

Beyond the humor, here are some valuable insights:

• College coaches, especially notable ones like Knight, Williams, Krzyzewski and Pitino, can be very marketable, which is particularly important since you cannot use current college players to sell your product.
• Music and sports can often connect with the same audience.  Guitar Hero has tapped into this fact twice now, first with their original commercial for World Tour that featured Tony Hawk, A-Rod, Michael Phelps and Kobe Bryant and now with their “coaches” version of the ad.
• Timing is everything. What better time to release a commercial featuring these coaches then during March Madness, particulary with three of the four actually coaching in the tournament (although Williams is the only one left now). This as does not have the same effect one month earlier or one month later.

I hope you all got a good laugh and some good thoughts out of the video.

CBSSports.com will have tens of millions of live streaming viewers during the first round of the NCAA tournament, and each year that number increases.  It doesn’t matter if people are at work or at home…they find a way to watch the games online.  Because so many people watch at work, usually against the wishes of their employer, that the viewer has a “boss button” that can be clicked to quickly bring up a fake spreadsheet.  Last year, that button was clicked 2.5 million times (CBSSports.com).

This brings me to the point of this post.  This year, the Boss Button has a sponsor…it is now the Comcast Boss Button.  This is brilliant! Who would think of sponsoring a button on a video player? I don’t know if the idea came from CBSSports.com or from Comcast, but whoever thought of it should get a lot of credit.  Beyond just putting the Comcast logo on the button, when you click on it, the fake spreadsheet contains content on NCAA tournament history as well as the Comcast family pf products, further enhancing the value of the sponsorship by connecting the excitement of the tournament with their brand.

I hope everyone enjoys today’s games, and make sure you click on the “Comcast Boss Button” to see it for yourself!

Odds are, you probably won’t even see this post today as you and the rest of America is busy watching the first round of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament right now.  If you are reading this, I won’t distract you for too long!  (Actually, if you have an extra minute, check out my post from last year about staying productive during March Madness.)

I was informed of an interesting promotion that Coke Zero is running, and I thought I’d briefly share it with you.  Coke Zero is encouraging fans to visit their “Taste the Madness” website (http://www.tastethemadness.com) and upload their craziest fan videos and pictures supporting their college team.  Here is an example from an Iowa State fan.  The best submission is going to be used as part of a Coke Zero ad that will air just before tipoff of the championship game.  This is the first time they are using fan-generated content in their direct advertising, a trend that has gotten more popular over the past two years.  I like to see creative approaches like this, where the consumers can truly engage with a brand through their passion for sports. 

OK – back to the madness – enjoy the games!

We have reached an exciting time in the sports calendar, with the NCAA tournament right around the corner.  I’d refer to it as March Madness, but the NCAA has that term trademarked, and I don’t want to get in any trouble!  And actually, my post today doesn’t have much to do with the actual tournament – it has to do with the opportunity that exists for any sports franchise to try and capitalize on the energy and buzz that college basketball creates this time of year. 

Here are a few ideas that your team can do to get in on the action:

• Support your local college team during a game.  This doesn’t need to be anything official (in fact, it might not be able to do anything officially because of NCAA regulations), but an in-game video message with current players that shows support for the local school that’s playing in the big dance is a very nice touch.
• Create your own type of bracket that has nothing to do with college basketball.  How about an online contest where you create a bracket that pairs up favorite players or famous events from your team’s past, and you let fans vote on these “pairings” each week (timing along with the actual tournament) until you crown a champion.  You can do this in-arena, online, or even via text message, and the promotion could help grow your email or text database.
• Put together a ticket package that relates to March “madness” without using the actual term.  I know some NHL teams are running a “March to the Playoffs” offer, which tries to tap into the general excitement on the season. 
• If there are games going on before or after an event in your arena, put together a viewing party in the arena lounge or bar that lets fans stay to enjoy the game.  Odds are, many of your fans are going out to a bar with friends to enjoy the game anyway…why not host them at your bar?

I’m sure there are many more creative ways you can use the NCAA tournament to your advantage in marketing, sales and the fan experience.  If you have any more ideas, either your own or what you’ve seen other teams do, please share them in the comments!

As you have probably already heard, Utah’s Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wants to see the BCS prosecuted for violating antitrust laws.  First off, I want to say that I hate when politicians decide to meddle in sports, because 99% of the time it has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with personal opinions or pandering to constituents.  In this case, since the University of Utah went undefeated and was left out of the BCS Championship game, apparently the logical next thought is that the law is being broken.  If the Utah Attorney General has nothing better to do then worry about who plays for a college football championship, then Utah must not have any real need for an attorney general.

OK, now that I have my small rant out of the way, I will take a minute to briefly consider whether there is some logic to his argument (even if his motives are completely biased).  Antitrust laws are designed to prevent companies from conspiring with one another to limit competition.  In this case, the companies are the colleges and conferences that have college football teams.  The conferences and teams that participate in the BCS all voted on and agreed to the rules that govern who plays in the championship game, including the Mountain West Conference and the University of Utah.  The BCS does nothing to prevent a school from trying to gain admission into a different conference that had a better bowl chance – that decision is up to the schools and conferences themselves.  In essence, I do not see any actions taken by the BCS that conspires to limit competition within their industry.  They merely designed a system, agreed upon by all the related parties, that best attempts to determine a college football champion. 

My apologies to the Utah AG, but I think its time for him to direct his attention elsewhere (or if he really wants to see Utah in the big game, tell them to join the Pac 10).

Normally when you wish someone a happy birthday, you call them, send them a card, or for the more Internet-focused, you send an e-card or write on their “wall.” Well, what if you have a larger-than-life public figure that hundreds and thousands of people would like to say happy birthday to? That is the perfect recipe for a massive viral campaign, and that’s exactly what’s happening right now with Joe Paterno’s 82nd birthday.

Penn State fans on Twitter created a new blog (www.joepabirthday.blogspot.com) dedicated to celebrating JoePa’s birthday, and the URL is getting passed around the Internet very fast.  The blog is encouraging fans to submit their own favorite JoePa moments and happy birthday messages, so the blog is very interactive.  They also put together an image and link that fans can post online to help spread the word even more.  Finally, some of the best submissions will win PSU merchandise (I don’t know if the University is assisting in this part, but they definitely should!).

While this was a fan-generated initiative, there is no reason why teams can start their own similar promotions based around significant events like this or help support existing fan-generated ones.  And even though there aren’t any catchy videos or new technologies involved, this is definitely a viral platform.  Great job by those who created/supported this, and of course, Happy Birthday JoePa!

Rutgers Athletic Director is Fired - The original announcement was that Rutgers AD Robert Mulcahy was resigning, but he quickly responded that this was not the case. The end result is that he has been fired, effective December 31st.

This is big news in the NJ area (where I live), since Mulcahy gets a lot of the credit for make college sports at Rutgers relevant again. So what was the problem? While there may have been some questionable financial oversight at Rutgers, an internal committee said that Mulcahy did not technically violate any legal or ethical rules. However, there were a couple of significant events that have been negatively received. He agreed to a no-bid contract with Nelligan Sports without disclosing that the company had hired his son (a clear conflict of interest, which needs to be disclosed to avoid suspicion), and that same firm paid Rutgers Coach Greg Schiano an extra $250,000/year, which was not initially disclosed to the university (Rutgers is a state school, so the value of state employee contracts is supposed to be public record).

These instances may have both been minor, but in a state with a history of political corruption and a university that was getting heat over athletic spending, the school could not ignore these events. The moral of the story here has to be, the illusion of impropriety can be just as bad as actual impropriety, so make sure to willingly disclose any decisions that could be ethically misconstrued.

The third and final discussion panel that I attended at last Friday’s Princeton Sports Symposium was on “Sports Media & Technology.” The panelists were Steve Hellmuth (EVP of Operations and Technology, NBA Entertainment), Jon Litner (President, Comcast Sports Group), Burke Magnus (Senior VP of College Sports Programming, ESPN) and Bill Rasmussen (Founder, ESPN and Founding Partner, College Fanz Sports Network), and the moderator was Susan Briglia (VP of Branded Content, Collegiate Images).  Here are some of my notes from the discussion:

Burke Magnus on the new deal between the BCS and ESPN:

• ESPN does have the advantage of dual revenue streams (subscriber fees and advertising) compared to over-the-air stations, but they also have several other reasons to make the deal.
• College football is considered a foundation of ESPN.
• The company feels like they made a big mistake a few years ago in letting the BCS go to begin with, so there was a feeling of wanting to get back what they never should have lost.
• The decision is also based on a content-focused philosophy. ESPN has many platforms to leverage the content on, and the deal does allow them to use all these platforms, including ESPNU.  They now feel like they are well positioned in the sports from the start of the season through to the very end.

Jon Litner on the ESPN/BCS deal and competing with ESPN:

• Comcast is focused on regional rights, so they don’t feel like they compete with ESPN and that there is room for everyone (meanwhile, ESPN feels like that have more competition now than ever before).
• The BCS was created in part by ABC, and ESPN/ABC already have the rights to most of college football, so there is a good fit.
• The deal will also help the various bowls in selling title/naming rights (more exposure across the ESPN platforms).
• It is more viable now for the BCS to be on cable.  For example, the MLB League Championship Series and NBA Conference Finals are on cable.  Also, 95% of Fox’s BCS audience viewed the games via cable or satellite (not over-the-air).
• The cable migration has already occurring on a regional level (YES, NESN, etc.) so this has become the norm.

On teams/conferences creating their own networks:

• The number one challenge is distribution.  This is what the Big Ten Network has struggled most with.
• The iconic brands will succeed, but many smaller initiatives fail to get off the ground, such as attempts in Minnesota and Kansas City.
• The SEC weighed the options and went with ESPN because the didn’t want to take the distribution risk. The safer course was to take the guaranteed money from rights fees.

On sports media content:

• Networks want new ways to connect with the audience.
• The branded show, specifically SportsCenter, was the brilliant concept to put sports programming on the map.  Bill Rasmussen specifically shared a fun story on how no one believed in the SportsCenter concept when they first launched it. Bill was right, everyone else was very wrong!
• The question is, what original content do we own or can you afford to create that will resonate like SportsCenter, after considering the money spent on just the rights fees.
• Innovation can push content to new levels.  Two examples are pocket cameras for poker and PTI for talk/opinion shows.
• Two other important questions to consider are, how many people are watching and how long are they watching.  Efforts like SportsNation on ESPN try to engage the audience and keep them interested longer.
• Media companies know that there is a two-screen formula (TV + laptop/mobile), but they don’t know how to create the one-screen formula (interactive TV).

The panel members were also asked to sum up their careers in just three words:

• Bill Rasmussen:  Excitement, Enthusiasm, Energy
• Burke Magnus:  Passion, Hustle, Love
• Jon Litner:  Perseverence, Passion, Listening
• Steve Hellmuth:  Work, Innovation, Knowledge
• Susan Briglia:  Passion, Persistence, Belief

Finally, Lewis Howes sat down with Bill Rasmussen for a video interview after the panel ended.  You can check out the interview on SportsNetworker.com.  This wraps up my coverage of the Princeton Sports Symposium.  There were several other panel discussions going on in parallel to the ones I attended on topics such as the Olympics, Athlete Representation, and Professional/Amateur Sports Properties, and I’m sure those panels were just as interesting and informative.  They did an excellent job compressing a lot of information into a half-day event, and I got to network with some great people.  I look forward to attending again next year!

Wake Forest is in the midst of a seven-phase renovation project on their football stadium (BB&T Field), and one of the ways they are generating funds for the project is through a “seat rights” program.  In essence, they are selling PSLs that give the buyer the ability to lock in a seat location for a period of 10-25 years – the customer would still need to buy season tickets to take advantage of their seat rights.  PSL programs have taken a lot of heat recently, particularly with the new New York stadiums opening in the next two years.  They are very expensive and have a tendency to prevent some of the more loyal fans from being able to afford their season tickets.

Regardless of where you stand on the PSL issue, you have to give some credit to Wake Forest for coming up with a clever promotion related to their seat rights program.  They’ve announced a “Last Fan Sitting” contest.  They are giving away four “Football Seat Rights” for a 15-year period to the fan that can outlast all the other participants sitting in a specific section of BB&T Field.  Considering the value of this prize (worth about $21,000), I’m sure there will be a lot of participants, not to mention plenty of media coverage from tv, radio, and newspapers.  The school will probably sell a lot of additional seat rights packages via the publicity from this contest.  Maybe most important of all, they have the chance to generate good will from the contest itself, which is extremely valuable when dealing with a topic such as seat licenses.  Great idea by Wake Forest, and I will be interested to read about the results, including how long the winner has to sit!

Saturday’s game between #3 Oklahoma and #11 Oklahoma State drew just over 49,000 fans to Boone Pickens Stadium.  For some places, that’s a great turnout, but the problem is that the stadium can hold about 60,000.  There was plenty of demand for these tickets, so why so many empty seats?

At the beginning of the season, Oklahoma State decided to make this game available only to season ticket buyers.  The goal was straightforward – the school needed a way to boost their season ticket holder numbers, and what better way than to use the season’s marquis game as the primary incentive.  This is a common strategy for any team, tying their most popular games into ticket packages to boost attendance at other games.  The strategy was quite effective for OSU – the game still had over 49,000 tickets sold (the majority had to be season tickets because of the policy) and the team had their best average game attendance ever.

So the week of the Oklahoma game rolls around and they have plenty of ticket to sell.  Most teams and schools in this type of situation allow any unsold inventory to finally be released to single ticket purchasers.  This way, those who bought the season ticket had locked up their guaranteed seat and the team can still fill in the open inventory.  There is sometimes a bit of backlash from season ticket buyers when this happens, but nothing extreme.  However, OSU did not do this.  Right up to the day of the game, anyone who wanted to buy tickets had to buy full season tickets – even though there was only one game left!  The cheapest tickets available from the box office were between $300 and $400.  Complicating the situation were scalpers that sold tickets for much cheaper than that.  The result was over 10,000 empty seats for the school’s biggest game and a lot of unhappy fans. 

Did the team do the right thing by sticking to their policy?  Would an extra 10,000 screaming OSU fans have helped the home field advantage (it was a close game for a while)?  Maybe they could have taken a different angle and given the option of putting a deposit on season tickets for next season.  This would still fit their strategy of leveraging this premium game and would have offered value to the ticket buyers, since there is little value of a season ticket for one game.

(Reference: Tulsa World, 11/30/2008)

The country’s current economic conditions have definitely had an effect on the sports industry.  Even though sports are often consider “recession-proof,” ticket sales and sponsorship revenue has declined this year and several teams have even had to make budget cuts and reduce staff.  There is a good article on MSNBC.com (11/11/08) discussing the recession’s impact on sports, paying particular attention to the effect on “second-tier” sports that don’t have the level of guaranteed corporate and media revenue that the major sports have. 

Speaking of media revenue, a news item just came out today from SportsBusiness Daily reporting that the BCS may move their games to ESPN.  They’ve received a large bid from ESPN (don’t know the details), while Fox has offered a 25% increase over their current contract.  That seems reasonable especially considering the economy, but the BCS wants a 50% increase!  I assume that the ESPN offer has to be around this amount, so maybe the economy for sports (at least some of them) isn’t in such bad shape.  Maybe teams will try to weather the storm on the ticket side by trying to make up the revenue on the media side.  People are still watching the games – they just can’t afford to attend them!

Gonzaga is running a campaign called “Inspired Season” which is one of the most innovative and interactive marketing campaigns that I have seen.  Before you read any further, please go to www.inspiredseason.com and enter in your name and phone number to experience it for yourself (your information is kept private and is not used for additional marketing purposes, which is actually a BIG sacrifice on their part, as they could really grow their database with this campaign).

Now that you’ve experienced the video, what did you think?  I came away very impressed and the quality of the production and the message they chose to focus on.  You, the viewer, are the center of this campaign.  You come away from the video with a closer connection to the school and the women’s basketball program.  If I lived in the Washington area, I have to believe I would be much more inclined to come out to a game after watching this.

The campaign also has great viral potential.  I know that I emailed several friends and colleagues about this, and now I’m taking the time to write about it.  They give the viewer an easy way to share the video with others through social media link and an email link.  They might want to add other social networking links (MySpace, Delicious, etc.) or provide an easy form to email the video to others (which would also let them collect names and email addresses).  Even without these elements, the campaign is so unique and engaging that it should spread virally regardless.  Great job by Gonzaga – it won’t be long until other schools and teams copy their efforts.

Update: PartnershipActivation.com also wrote about this campaign recently, and the post includes the name of the partner agency (in case you are interested in exploring this type of campaign yourself).

A friend of mine just emailed me a link to the following video, courtesy of FanIQ.com:

I’ve watched this clip several times and cannot come up with a valid explanation as to why the official did what he did.  This clip has gained a lot of coverage in the media over the past two days, which make sense in light of the Tim Donaghy scandal in the NBA.  What I couldn’t believe was how quickly the SEC just wrote off the incident altogether (see this article on ESPN.com, 10/21/08).  There is so much attention on officials that incidents like this need to be addressed openly and publicly.  I haven’t seen or heard any comment from the official in question (maybe there has been one today and I missed it) and it seems like the SEC just wants to let the incident go.  By doing that, people are going to continue to question the integrity of the official in this situation. 

Now, I’m not advocating a large-scale investigation, but there is nothing more important to the stability and success of sports than trust.  Trust between the players, fans, officials and media that the sports we love are being played honestly and fairly.  If fans lose trust in the game, everyone suffers.  Personally, I’m surprised that the NBA hasn’t had more of a backlash from their own referee scandal.

Here are my recommendations and quick picks for this week:

Book: The Business of Sports by Scott Rosner and Kenneth Shropshire - I used this book as part of a class at Arizona State, and it’s a great reference for anyone looking to learn more about sports business.  The book covers a wide range of topics, including league structures, finance, sports media, franchise valuation, Olympic and collegiate sports, stadiums, licensing, and much more.

Website: ESPN Outside the Lines – Sports and the Economy - ESPN usually stays away from the business aspects of the industry, but here they did a great job talking about the ways that troubled economy is having an impact on sports. 

Teams: BYU (#9) / Utah (#14) / Boise State (#15) / Ball State (#25) – These four non-BCS schools are all undefeated and well positioned to break into a top-tier Bowl game, maybe even the BCS Championship if things fall in place.  The pressure on these schools has to be huge, and you have to believe each school’s athletic department is excited at the potential financial windfall they would receive for breaking into the BCS party.

Other: 14th Annual Mike Haynes Golf Classic - This is an annual fundraising event that the W.P. Carey Sports Business MBA Program at Arizona State puts on every year.  It’s a great event and helps raise money for Haynes Scholarship, which is awarded every year to two students from under-represented groups.  If you are in the Tempe area, I would encourage you to attend!

Do you have a good “pick of the week?” Use the Contact Us link at the top of the page and send me your picks!

Here are my recommendations and quick picks for this week:

Book:  Money Players: The Amazing Rise and Fall of Bob Goodenow and the NHL Players Association by Bruce Dowbiggin - This book was recommended to me by a former classmate of mine in the ASU Sports Business program, and it’s a must read for anyone who has ever been interested in hockey.  Dowbiggin does a great job going through the history of the relationship between the league and the players, the development of the players association, and the final conflict between them that led to the 2005 lockout. 

Website: Forbes Business - SportsMoney (www.forbes.com/business/sportsmoney) – I can’t believe that I didn’t know this site existed.  There are some great articles from Forbes about a wide variety of sports business topics, including naming rights, team valuation, and more.  Most of the articles focus on economics, finance, and revenue, which makes sense since it is from Forbes.

Team: Tampa Bay Rays – For the first time in their franchise history, the Rays will play in October.  From a business perspective, it will be interesting to see what the response is from the Tampa community.  The team has always had trouble selling tickets, so will they be able to sell out their playoff games?  The assumption is that playoff games always sell, but the Diamondbacks had trouble with this last year, so there is no guarantee.  Also, what will the local and national television audience be like?  You can be sure that MLB will be watching this.  (Edit: I’m a bit late on this one – ESPN.com reported earlier this week that the first two games have sold out already.  I hope they can keep this up and sustain the interest into next season (they were 12 out of 14 in the AL in attendance this season, even with one of the best records in MLB).

Other: The BCS – With USC’s loss to Oregon State, people are already talking about all the situations that will complicate this year’s BCS Championship Game.  Beyond the traditional arguments over which teams deserve to play, there will be plenty of discussion about the system itself again this year, and more people calling for an actual playoff system.  The bowls will resist any significant changes, but I have to believe that ultimately the system will change.  The negotiations between all the parties involved (conferences, bowls, colleges, television stations) will be interesting to follow.

Syracuse University is currently building a new practice facility which should be completed in September of next year (Syracuse.com, 9/25/08).  The name of the new building – The Carmelo Center!  Now there is quite an established history of naming buildings on college campuses after famous alumni, particularly those who are willing to donate large amounts of money back to the university.  I assume that Carmelo Anthony is doing just that to have his name appear on the building, and I truly believe that his intentions are genuine in helping his alma mater.

My concern is on the side of Syracuse University.  What type of statement does it make about the school’s priorities in naming the building after Carmelo, an athlete who never had any intention of staying and graduating from the school?  I know that collegiate athletics is big business, and that every school’s athletic department needs to walk that fine line between pursuit of athletic success and maintaining a high level of academic integrity.  But to me, featuring an alumnus (actually, is he even considered an alumnus?) whose only purpose at the university was athletics, is sending the wrong public message.  I’m curious to know what the Syracuse faculty and alumni think of this.  I guess the ones who follow college basketball won’t mind, but the Dean of the English department might object.

Just a quick list of interesting links today:

• The Partnership Activation Newsletter – This is a great blog for anyone on the sponsorship side, and he just started putting out a monthly newsletter, so I suggest signing up.
• Getting Engagement out of Sports- From Pat Coyle’s blog (Pat runs www.SportsMarketing20.com).  Most organizations are looking for ways to generate revenue, but too often skip over the idea of engagement.  Without first engaging a fans interest and attention, they could easily block out attempts to drive purchasing behavior, and there is higher potential for engagement in sports compared to almost any other industry.
• A Longer Season for the NFL? – The NFL already has the largest television contract in sports and sell out almost every game across the country.  How much more revenue will they generate by adding a 17th or 18th game?  Is there any downside to this idea?  How will the players and league negotiate this change in the next CBA?
• Fantasy Football at the NCAA Level – The business potential is HUGE to expand the fantasy realm into collegiate sports, but where is the line?  How can you use the names and statistics of amateur athletes when their own colleges can’t use that information in a similar way?

With the start of the NCAA tournament comes the inevitable distraction of those having to work while the games are on.  Many will watch the first two rounds online for free, courtesy of CBSSports.com, which will cause a significant drop-off in employee productivity today and tomorrow.  Some estimate that the games today and tomorrow will generate up to $1.7B in lost productivity (courtesy of Newsweek, 3/20/08).

Some companies will attempt to counter this by blocking web access to the CBS Sports website.  Now while I will not try to argue that showing the games online will distract employees, I want to propose the idea that this corporate move to block the online video feed will ultimately have a worse effect than simply allowing the employees to watch.  By preventing access to the website:

• More employees will simply call out sick to watch the game, possibly forcing companies to hire temporary workers or pay others overtime to make up for lost productivity.
• Employees will have a negative reaction to their employer’s “Big Brother”-style of monitoring their behavior, generating a cultural trickle-down effect that could hurt productivity for weeks afterwards.
• Some employees could be so turned off to their employer’s decision that they may pursue an different job altogether, generating additional costs for seeking and training a new, replacement employee.
• Finally, some employees may spend significant additional time trying to find a way around the site being blocked, which will just increase the amount of lost productivity from that employee.

So, rather than blocking the site, why not embrace this once-a-year situation!  Run a morale-building company event on Thursday or Friday, based around the “March Madness” theme.  Allow for flex-time hours to let people finish their work before or after the games.  Set specific goals to accomplish, and tell employees that they can watch the game as long as X, Y, and Z still happen.  An event like the NCAA Tournament should present an opportunity to a company, if they can look at it with the right perspective!