forums

College Football Top Brands Article

anandris

anandris

Recruit
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
835
http://picksixpreviews.com/how_to_win_in_recruiting.html

Pretty interesting article. These guys polled “224 recruits to grade their interest and desire in each program as if they were the number 1 recruit in the country(ie they had offers from every school)” We’re at number 7 which surprised me a little given how the last 15 years have gone and the fact that these kids have basically only seen Shannon and Golden coached Canes teams. I thought we’d be in the 10-15 range. The rest of the list is pretty interesting and the order is kinda surprising(like bama at 19) but it’s coming from the recruits themselves so it’s as legit as it gets.
 
Advertisement
That was very interesting, including this:

How do these brand rankings get translated to signing day results? Since the beginning of the recruiting service era (1999-2000), every national champion has had at least one recruiting class on its roster with multiple five star recruits. On average, there are only 7.7 teams—never less than five or more than nine—each year with multiple five star players.
 
Very interesting article. Check this piece:

How do these brand rankings get translated to signing day results? Since the beginning of the recruiting service era (1999-2000), every national champion has had at least one recruiting class on its roster with multiple five star recruits. On average, there are only 7.7 teams—never less than five or more than nine—each year with multiple five star players.

For all of the posters who race to write "I stopped reading at...." Grow up and read the whole thing. That's the point.
 
Pretty much what I expected except I would have thought Bama would be much higher.
It probably would be more indicative of reality if it were done over a few years because it ebbs and flows based on whose in the playoffs and whose out there recruiting hard. But that still doesn't explain Bama being so low
 
We're talking "brands".
Bama is not a cool brand.
They're style of play and uni's are boring.
They don't even have a hand thing.
 
canesupremacy said:
And texas at 20? Oregon at 5?
Click to expand...

I can see it. Oregon was the "it" school for about 5 years and played the most exciting football to watch. Miami and USC jerseys make lots of appearances in rap music. A lot of black artists come out of Atlanta and they rock UGA. No rappers are coming out of Alabama or Texas. I think the OSU thing might have a lot to do with LeBron. Clemson has a fun coach with a loud personality and he took down a giant (a little bit like Miami of old) so they are hot. I can't explain PSU other than NAMBLA buys a lot of Penn State merchandise.
 
Advertisement
Oregon was never the “it” school. They never recruited at an elite level.

That article is also lulz worthy for saying that Miami doesn’t have the history or mystique of Penn State. Maybe if mystique means Your risk for getting raped in a shower. We have more than twice the natl titles of that publicly funded cult institution.

There are maybe eight schools to me that have a distinct brand. Meaning they stand out among peers, due to history, location, or what have you. The rest are just variations on a theme.

Usc
Miami
Alabama
Ohio state
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Michigan
Notre dame
 
Tony Perps said:
Oregon was never the “it” school. They never recruited at an elite level.

That article is also lulz worthy for saying that Miami doesn’t have the history or mystique of Penn State. Maybe if mystique means Your risk for getting raped in a shower. We have more than twice the natl titles of that publicly funded cult institution.

There are maybe eight schools to me that have a distinct brand. Meaning they stand out among peers, due to history, location, or what have you. The rest are just variations on a theme.

Usc
Miami
Alabama
Ohio state
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Michigan
Notre dame
Click to expand...

Wrong about Oregon. You are missing the point of the article. Not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue or if you just want to win an argument no one else is having. It's about brand recognition, not recruiting rankings.

Oregon did a masterful job branding itself. For a while Ducks football was must-watch TV, so it was the "it" school. Even casual football fans wanted to see a team putting up video game numbers and non stop action. Everyone is doing the fast-break offense now, which Chip Kelly used to transform a mediocre football school with zero local talent into a perennial championship contender. You might be too young to remember how much Oregon was all over the TV. The Ducks mascot is also a Disney character (the only one in football) and espn is owned by Disney, which is why even though Oregon hasn't been relevant in a few years, the Oregon Duck still shows up in every other ESPN commercial.
 
TimeB0mb said:
Wrong about Oregon. You are missing the point of the article. Not sure if it's a reading comprehension issue or if you just want to win an argument no one else is having. It's about brand recognition, not recruiting rankings.

Oregon did a masterful job branding itself. For a while Ducks football was must-watch TV, so it was the "it" school. Even casual football fans wanted to see a team putting up video game numbers and non stop action. Everyone is doing the fast-break offense now, which Chip Kelly used to transform a mediocre football school with zero local talent into a perennial championship contender. You might be too young to remember how much Oregon was all over the TV. The Ducks mascot is also a Disney character (the only one in football) and espn is owned by Disney, which is why even though Oregon hasn't been relevant in a few years, the Oregon Duck still shows up in every other ESPN commercial.
Click to expand...

Lmao. Good chance I am older than you. The whole article is about how “branding” helps you win recruiting, bub. And Oregon nevrer did it at an elite level. Oregon was never the “it” school. I’m wondering ow old you are, because Oregon didnt begin with Chip Kelly. He took the program to a new level but they were not a “mediocre football school”at all. ****, people wanted them in the championship over Nebraska in 2001.
 
Advertisement
BiltmoreCANE said:
The rankings are brand not brand + bags. Hence the disparity in rankings.
Click to expand...

Oregon got caught bagging kids and still couldn’t put together top classes even after they finally made a title game appearance.

I recall them having a few good years where they got kids like Cameron Colvin, Nagata, and Jonathan Stewart..but they’ve never consistently pulled in highly ranked talent. Because Oregon is definitely a unique brand, but it’s not really associated with winning football and NFL paychecks which is what most recruits care about.
 
MainLineCane said:
Pretty much what I expected except I would have thought Bama would be much higher.
It probably would be more indicative of reality if it were done over a few years because it ebbs and flows based on whose in the playoffs and whose out there recruiting hard. But that still doesn't explain Bama being so low
Click to expand...
Maybe this confirms that players really only go to Bama for the money. Otherwise they don't think highly of it.
 
Again, you have missed the point. Oregon under Belloti was an ok program, but the program as exciting nationally as UW or any other Pac 12 school. Chip Kelly made the Ducks a national sensation with the fast tempo offense and the crazy uniforms. Espn played it up as much as possible too. Recruits who are 16-17 now were 10-11 years old when the Ducks were a video game come to life and espn would guess what uniforms they were wearing. That's why the brand is cool. Pay attention to this: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RECRUITING RANKINGS.

It just means kids think it's a cool brand. No one outside of Tuscaloosa thinks Bama is cool. Miami is cool in the same way the Oakland Raiders are cool - they earned reputations as teams filled with larger than life players with bad intentions.
 
Back
Top