Category Archives: Uncategorized
Viralheat, a social analytic platform, has created the following infographic about social media buzz around March Madness.
Are you surprised to learn Miami is getting more mentions than FGCU? Or that Kansas-UNC was the most-mentioned game?
Making it to the Sweet Sixteen isn’t the only thing the Florida Gators and Florida Gulf Coast Eagles have in common. They’re also both the recipients of great generosity by the Ben Hill Griffin family.
Gator fans will recognize Ben Hill Griffin, Jr. as the namesake of The Swamp. His son, Ben Hill Griffin III, donated the 760 acres upon which Florida Gulf Coast University now resides. He also recently made a $25,000 donation to FGCU, half of which was meant to fund the first-ever football scholarship at the school.
Ben Hill Griffin III doesn’t only donate to FGCU, however. He also recently funded approximately 50 percent of Florida’s renovated athletic training facility.
You can read more about the Griffin family’s connection to both schools on OnlyGators.com.
BusinessofCollegeSports.com is looking for a few new writers.
We’re looking for self-motivated individuals who can both generate ideas and write on a regular basis. Previous writing experience preferred.
Our site is followed by athletic department and university employees and executives across the county, and our research has been used by everyone from schools considering conference realignment to university presidents seeking to better understand the financial impact of collegiate athletics. We’ve also been linked to and referenced by every major national sports network and newspapers and other publications across the country. If you search “business of college sports” on Google, we are the first result. Bottom line: if you want exposure, you’ve come to the right place.
We only focus on the business side of college sports, and we strive to be the leader in data and analysis related to this growing industry. To fulfill that goal, we need dedicated writers with a passion for this area.
If you’re interested, please send your cover letter, resume and clips of any previous writing by email. In your cover letter, please address the types of topics you’d be interested in writing about. We will accept applications through Friday, April 5th.
Nearly a year ago, this article asked, how much is too much when it comes to spending on college football? Assuming the answer is whatever they’re spending now, the next question is how to reform it. I have a thought. What if there was a cap on the amount of money universities could spend on college athletics? Think about it. University presidents and other observers are constantly decrying the “arms race” that exists today, yet nothing is done. The reason: presidents know (or suspect) their counterparts are going to keep on spending and gaining a competitive advantage, and no president is going to risk crippling their athletic programs and alienating the alumni base.
But what if there was an NCAA rule which capped the amount of money you could spend each year? Or perhaps a luxury tax imposed on those who spend over the cap?
A policy like this would allow presidents to put athletics spending on a more sustainable path, without the risk that competitors are going to exploit it and surge past their teams on the field. It would help address the concerns faculty and other constituents have about spending at the expense of academics, including the public relations problem of increased athletic spending at a time of shrinking state appropriations and rising tuition for students. Capping spending also means more schools would have the opportunity to compete for championships. This is a big one. Our country’s most popular sport by far, the NFL, has a hard salary cap to help provide all its teams with a realistic shot at taking home the trophy. Even Major League Baseball, which doesn’t have a salary cap, has a luxury tax that teams must pay if they go over the spending threshold.
But why should the University of Texas be prevented from or penalized for spending as much on its athletic programs as its leadership and alumni please? This is America after all! Read its leaderships’ comments on this issue here. They’re going to spend as much as they can and don’t see a problem with it. But there is a problem. Texas, Ohio State and others aren’t operating independently. They are voluntary members of a conference and an association, with other institutions, upon which they depend for competition as well as the revenue they love to spend. And the large majority of these institutions can’t and shouldn’t keep up. Texas President William Powers said you don’t tell Albert Pujols he can’t hit in the 9th inning because it’s unfair to the other team; but that isn’t the analogy that applies here. More on point would be the Angels can’t stack their lineup with nine Albert Pujolses without paying a hefty luxury tax. In the NFL, you don’t get a backfield with three Adrian Petersons because you literally won’t be able to field a team and stay under the hard salary cap. In leagues of athletic teams, rules are crafted to foster competition for the betterment of the league over and above the betterment of individual members. A spending cap is precisely this type of rule.
An issue that would need to be resolved simultaneously with something like a spending cap or luxury tax is the Division I membership, which simply has too many schools which cannot compete at the highest levels. I would not advocate for a system which tried to bring Texas football and Louisiana-Monroe football to a similar place in the financial “middle.” In 2010 for example, Texas spent $25M on football; Louisiana-Monroe spent just under $3M. They are both playing for the same championship. That’s a joke and needs to be rectified with a split into more divisions. But certainly you could do something with the top 50 or 60 (financial) football schools. Michigan, Miami and Nebraska each spent $18M on football in 2010. You think those schools are operating on the cheap? Is there any need for those guys to spend more money? Of course not, except for the fact Texas is outspending them by nearly 40%.
Whether it’s a hard spending cap or a luxury tax, there are controls that should and could be put into place to control spending in college athletics. However, they will only happen if the presidents collectively decide it’s something they want to do. Otherwise Mr. Powers and company at Texas will continue circling the Monopoly board, collecting properties, and charging obscene rent to the rest of the college athletics world.
Follow Daniel on Twitter: @DanielHare.
Last week, the NCAA ruled that Johnny Manziel can keep damages his LLC is awarded in its trademark infringement lawsuit against the maker of t-shirts that contain the words “Keep Calm and Johnny Football.” This prompted a wave of commentary in the sports world about the ruling creating a loophole that allows college athletes to profit off of their names and likenesses. All a college athlete would need to do is find a wealthy booster willing to infringe upon the athlete’s intellectual property rights, sue the booster, and then quickly settle for a large amount of money.
Well, all of the college athletes out there can stop looking for those rich boosters (although, as the Miami case demonstrates, they may already be well acquainted). According to Andy Staples of SI.com, the NCAA told Texas A&M that the orchestrated scheme described above would be an NCAA violation. Despite the storm of recent criticism it has received, I’m sure the NCAA considered and addressed the booster loophole before deciding that Manziel could collect in his infringement lawsuit.
Although there is no get-rich-quick loophole, this shouldn’t deter college athletes from protecting their rights in slogans, nicknames, and catchphrases that play on their names or likenesses. And with all of the publicity surrounding Manziel’s lawsuit, I would expect more college athletes to follow Manziel’s lead and attempt to claim trademark rights in their nicknames. Cody Zeller is a perfect example. A quick internet search turned up a number of people online selling t-shirts that include Zeller’s nickname, “The Big Handsome,” along with his number 40. And a group of people, apparently unrelated to Zeller, have even filed a U.S. trademark application for the nickname.
But, a college athlete claiming trademark rights in a nickname or phrase is a somewhat tricky proposition. The biggest issue: in order to claim trademark rights in a phrase the phrase must be used “in commerce” by the person claiming rights in the phrase. This means that the phrase must be used on or in connection with a good that is shipped across state lines in furtherance of a sale. So, in order for a college athlete to claim trademark rights in a nickname or other phrase it must be used in connection with an item that is sold.
This presents a problem. NCAA rules explicitly prevent athletes from profiting off the use of their name or likeness. And this interplay between trademark law and NCAA rules is especially problematic when others seek to cash in on an athlete’s nickname, which is exactly what happened to Manziel (and is happening to Zeller).
So, how can a college athlete avoid violating NCAA rules to claim trademark rights in a nickname? By licensing rights in a nickname to someone else. Under U.S. law, qualifying “use” of a trademark may also be made by someone related to the owner, such as the owner’s licensee. Once a license agreement is in place, the licensee can then use the nickname on goods that are sold, or in connection with the promotion of an event. And, voila, the nickname has been used “in commerce” and the owner has trademark rights in the nickname. There is still a catch to this whole process. The trademark license has to be a free license. Otherwise, the license itself would be an NCAA violation.
Licensing the “Johnny Football” nickname to a third party is exactly what Manziel did. He licensed the trademark last year (presumably for free) and was then able to rely on the licensee’s use of the mark “in commerce” to gain trademark rights and as the basis for the recent filing of his federal trademark application. While it is not necessary to have a federally registered trademark to sue an infringer, it will make it easier for Manziel to prevail in future lawsuits.
It is unclear from the trademark application who Manziel licensed the Johnny Football nickname to, but it appears one of the entities may have been Texas A&M. Manziel’s application specifies that he is relying on Texas A&M’s use of “Johnny Football” in several videos posted to A&M Athletics’ YouTube channel to establish the requisite use in commerce.
As mentioned above, I anticipate other college athletes with marketable nicknames will follow Manziel’s lead and seek trademark protection for those nicknames. It will be interesting to see how the NCAA deals with this issue going forward. College athletes seeking trademark protection for their nicknames is likely not something the NCAA ever envisioned.
Guest author: Christian Dennie, Esq.
Following Texas A&M University’s (“A&M”) departure to the SEC, sports fans all across Texas missed out on the annual University of Texas (“Texas”) v. A&M football game. There is no certainty whether the game will be played again, at least in the near future. As a result, State Rep. Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City introduced a bill seeking to require the two universities to compete against one another. House Bill 778 does not indicate when the game would be played, but does offer penalties levied against the institution refusing to play in the annual game. The restriction recommended is the loss of athletic scholarships.
This post originally appeared on bgsfirm.com.
(This is the second installment in a series discussing the future of the NCAA. In Part I, we looked at the issue of enforcement. In Part III we will look at the various legal problems currently plaguing the NCAA and their potential impact on the future of the organization. In this post we will be looking at super-conferences and the possible separation of the BCS schools)
I hesitate to even begin writing on the topic of super-conferences, for the simple fact that by the time I’m finished it’s highly possible news will have broken that fundamentally changes the framework of the discussion. That’s how fluid the situation is. At any moment the Big Ten could gobble up two more schools in a bid to be the first to 16, which very likely leads to the Big 12 making a move, etc. It appears this scenario (or one like it) is almost inevitable. If so it will be because there is more money and stability in the super-conference model than in the model we have today. And there very well could be. Conference leaders won’t want to stand pat for fear of being left out, looking vulnerable, looking dated and behind the times, losing members to other conferences and/or losing out on television money. They like the idea of adding major media markets to their footprint, and the perceived exposure and visibility their new additions provide. And over the past two years, we’ve been rapidly moving toward super-conferences, making a u-turn hard to envision.
Having said all that, plenty of issues persist that could prevent the super-conference takeover. After all, it could have happened already, but it hasn’t. Since everything begins and ends with finances, if things break down that will be the likely cause. Every school added to a conference means dividing the television money into one more share, so look for conferences to study in depth the incremental financial impact of adding schools. If a league’s current schools would see a reduced financial distribution after expanding, that’s a tough pill to swallow regardless of the other benefits (stability, exposure, etc.). And with the recently signed television deals it’s hard to find schools that are worth the extra $15 or $20 million plus per year it would take to keep the other members’ shares at or above even.
Another reason super-conferences may not happen is a fear on the part of conferences like the SEC that the new BCS football playoff would become a matchup of the four super-conference champions (this wouldn’t have to be in the official selection rules, but could be a bias committee members could reasonably develop over time). This jeopardizes the possibility of multiple schools from the same conference qualifying for the playoff, which in many years would do the sport a massive disservice (e.g. 2011 BCS Championship Game participant LSU could have been left out). Think in college basketball terms: How nuts would it be to only have conference champions represented in the NCAA Tournament? On the other hand, can you imagine a 16 team BCS super-conference (i.e. Big Ten, Pac-16, Big 12/ACC) not claiming one football playoff spot for its champion? This is the conundrum created by limiting the playoff to four teams in the midst of expanding and consolidating BCS conferences. Oh and don’t forget the wrenches that are independent Notre Dame and potentially BYU. Super-conferences may very well happen in spite of these issues, but if they do, I believe the push toward a larger playoff would begin immediately and eventually become reality.
In addition to super-conferences, the other possible structural change being discussed is the BCS schools completely separating from the NCAA. While anything is certainly possible, I don’t see this as a realistic scenario anytime soon. What happens when the schools separate? Will there not be any rules? Of course there will be. And who writes, interprets and enforces those rules? The BCS presidents aren’t going to and neither are their ADs. No, they would have to delegate that authority to a newly created organization that is similar to the NCAA but just for the BCS schools. And what is the benefit to that? There isn’t much of one; though an argument could be made that if you think the NCAA is beyond repair, it is better to simply start over.
I think a far more likely scenario is for the BCS schools to create a new football division under the NCAA umbrella. The distinctions would be similar to those we already have between Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Football Championship Subdivision (FCS). There would be an opportunity within this model to legislate BCS football completely differently from the non-BCS FBS schools, and impose lofty standards for those schools wanting to move up into the BCS. A BCS division would mean acknowledging that the Pac-12 and SEC have little in common with the MAC and Sun Belt when it comes to football. And decisions could be made amongst the BCS leadership without having to worry about how they’re going to affect the schools in those leagues. The BCS division model (rather than complete separation) also allows schools to continue competing in all the other sports as a Division I member as they have been. Nobody wants to see two college basketball championship tournaments with Duke and North Carolina in one and Gonzaga and Butler in another.
I think we’re going to see the four super-conferences finish coming together within the next five years, and an expansion of the football playoff in the next 15. It will be fascinating to see which way it goes, but let’s just hope Butler and Duke are still playing in the same basketball tournament at the end of it.
Follow Daniel on Twitter at @DanielHare.
(This is the first installment in a series of posts addressing the future of the NCAA. There are so many facets to this it wouldn’t do the topic justice to cover it all in one post. We’ll look at the idea of super-conferences and/or the complete separation of the BCS schools in a future post, as well as the impact of ongoing and possible legal troubles. Today, however, the topic is enforcement.)
The NCAA has problems, particularly when it comes to the enforcement of its rules. The problems are now so deep that John Infante in his Bylaw Blog has floated the idea of a federal government takeover of the enforcement program. Whether it be USC, Ohio State or Miami, recent investigations have been sloppy and endless, with unsatisfying results.
The crux of the issue is the NCAA has an inherent problem with its investigation and enforcement procedures, in that it does not have the same discovery tools at its disposal that an attorney would in preparing for a trial. Specifically, the NCAA does not possess the power to subpoena witnesses to testify, nor can it compel the production of documents. Worse, whatever testimony and documentation it does get doesn’t come under oath (with penalty of perjury if it’s untrue), lessening its value.
It must be unbelievably frustrating for the NCAA’s enforcement staff. Step out of athletics for a moment and imagine a typical legal situation: a guy runs a stop sign and slams into your car. In the legal system you would have the ability to compel witness testimony (under oath) both in depositions and at trial, as well as compel the production of any and all documents relevant to your case (like for example his expired drivers license!). In the NCAA system, however, you can’t compel much of anything. You’re stuck looking for people willing to talk to you and for documents people are willing to share with you. All of a sudden what seemed like an open and shut case (“he ran a stop sign and slammed into my car”) becomes a lot more challenging, and takes a whole lot longer. It was these frustrations that apparently led NCAA investigators to find a (potentially unethical) way around these cumbersome limitations in the Miami case. Perhaps more telling, an NCAA investigator defending the tactics to the Sun Sentinel raises the concern that this wasn’t one individual going rogue but rather manifestations of a much larger cultural issue.
So how can we improve the rules investigation and enforcement process? It’s true that if the federal government took over it would have all the discovery tools of the legal system and we’d avoid some of these issues. What comes with those advantages though are several major disadvantages, two of which stand out. First, as Mr. Infante noted, politics is injected into the process – never a good thing. And don’t think for a second our senators and congressmen are above getting involved in this. We saw several key political figures weigh in on conference realignment, and now the Pennsylvania governor and other legislators are trying to bully the NCAA on the Penn State case. Second, timeliness – you thought the NCAA was slow? How about the federal government. The Office of Civil Rights took 14 years investigating a Title IX complaint into USC’s rowing facilities. 14 years! (For more on this check out the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Title IX Blog.) So there’s definitely a risk that with the federal government you’d be replacing bad with worse.
I do, however, think there is real merit to the idea of outsourcing the enforcement process to an outside group. It may not have subpoena power, but at least it can operate objectively and without the natural conflicts that exist when you’re policing your own membership (I think this is something that should be looked at with individual campuses as well – outsourcing the investigation / enforcement component of the compliance function to avoid conflicts within the department). I’d also be interested in exploring the possibility of placing language in employment contracts for coaches and staff, and financial aid agreements for student-athletes, which imposes a penalty for not cooperating with investigations for some limited amount of time after they leave the institution. This could certainly be financial or for student-athletes it could be something like putting a hold on transcripts. For non-university people of interest, you could impose penalties similar to what the NCAA currently does for “boosters” found to have participated in violations: no involvement with the university’s athletic program (e.g. can’t donate, can’t sponsor) for some period of time. Further steps could include bringing the professional sport leagues into the process so that players and coaches can’t avoid cooperating by going to the next level.
The NCAA’s investigation and enforcement process is certainly broken; it will be interesting to see what, if anything, is done in the coming months and years to fix it. In the meantime, at least the NCAA can say it doesn’t take 14 years to complete an investigation.
Follow Daniel on Twitter: @DanielHare
The Mountain West appears to have won a large victory with the recent additions (or not losses if that’s how you choose to look at it) of Boise State and San Diego State. That may in fact be the case. However, there is also the possibility that in its quest for stabilization and increased stature, the Mountain West endangered itself by giving away crucial member equality in order to re-acquire Boise State.
Reports indicate the Mountain West has or will (among other things): 1) re-negotiate its television contract with CBS Sports Network which will allow teams on national television (i.e. Boise State) to make more money through bonuses, 2) sell Boise State’s home games in a separate package, and 3) allocate half of BCS (and future equivalent) bowl game revenue to the participating team (i.e. Boise State) before splitting it among the remaining conference members.
From the quotes of Big East commissioner Mike Aresco, it sounds as if Boise State wanted to stay in the Big East if it would match the Mountain West’s offer. Smartly, Mr. Aresco and the remaining Big East schools’ (bonus points if you can name them) presidents said thanks, but no thanks. In a time when it must feel like everything is crashing down around them, the Big East brass found a line they wouldn’t cross. Good for them. Let’s face it, Boise State to the Big East wasn’t exactly the perfect mix of chocolate and peanut butter. So for the Big East to grant unprecedented perks to a school 2,600 miles removed from the conference office didn’t make a whole lot of sense. Navy Athletic Director Chet Gladchuck even went public with his disdain for the proposed deal, saying:
“What Boise State wanted was outrageous and unprecedented. It was not palatable to any of the other Big East institutions,” Gladchuk said. “In the final analysis, Boise wasn’t worth it. There is zero television interest in Boise along the Eastern seaboard. What it tells me is the Mountain West was desperate. Clearly, the Mountain West was willing to make whatever concessions necessary to keep Boise in the fold.”
But surely it made sense for the Mountain West to do whatever was necessary to bring Boise State back under its tent, right? Maybe, maybe not. The money grab that is conference realignment also has an undercurrent of trying to create and/or maintain stability and long-term viability. As mentioned earlier, the Mountain West seems to have stabilized at 12 members. But when gross member inequality is part of a league’s structure, there can be problems.
Example: When the Big 12 was formed in the mid-90s, its structure was similar to how the Mountain West is currently proceeding. Most notably, it did not share bowl and television revenue monies equally among the members. Rather, the participating teams were first entitled to a larger share. This obviously funneled most of the revenue toward the traditionally successful programs, and smaller amounts to everyone else. (Berry Tramel of The Oklahoman wrote about this structure in 2010.) As time passed the Big 12 and its membership experienced the difficulties of operating a conference successfully when there’s a sense that a few schools are driving the bus and collecting the checks, and the rest are just passengers along for the ride. Ultimately, that and other issues led to the departure of 1/3rd of the Big 12’s schools (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Texas A&M), and a near collapse of the conference entirely.
Whether the Big 12 leadership decided the original structure was a mistake, or that times had changed and therefore the structure needed to change with it, the powers that be agreed to a more (though not completely) equal distribution of revenue in the summer of 2011. It also put a stake in the ground on stability by having each member grant its television rights to the conference for a long period of time (initially six years, but recently extended to 13), essentially removing the largest incentive to other conferences who may wish to come poaching in the future (the importance of this “grant of rights” was well articulated by Mat Winter in a BusinessofCollegeSports.com post last month). I have not read or heard anything along the lines of Boise State or the other Mountain West schools making similar commitments.
So while the Big 12 (barely) escaped the inequality trap and the Big East has avoided it for now, the Mountain West may have fallen right in it. Sure, Utah State and San Jose State are excited to be new members in a league which just got considerably stronger. And the other Mountain West schools no doubt see the tremendous value Boise State brings to all of them. But give those non-Boise State presidents and athletic directors a few years of conference meetings looking over financials, and watching the revenue flow into the conference and out to Boise State. Give them a few years of conference meetings observing how decisions are made.
The camaraderie that exists today may not continue very long. And without a grant-of-rights or similar level of commitment, Boise State is for all intents and purposes a perpetual free agent, available to accept the next best conference offer that comes along. The Mountain West’s current and future members no doubt wanted to make decisions which ensured stability over the long-term. And while the league certainly got immediately stronger with the addition of Boise State, it may be that the deal they made guarantees the long-term will be anything but stable.
Follow Daniel on Twitter: @DanielHare
By James Maddox
It’s no secret that Facebook is far and beyond the leading platform in social media. This is true not only in college athletics but overall in the sphere of the internet. Twitter coming in right behind Facebook as the 2nd most popular social media platform might not be a surprise either. The third most popular platform, however, is what seems to surprise people.
According to Experian’s “2012 Digital Market: Benchmark and Trend Report,” released last year, Pinterest received over 104 million views in March 2012. This number was big enough to surpass the social media likes of Linkedin, Google+, and MySpace. It seems obvious that this presents an excellent opportunity for college athletic programs to expand their horizons outside of Facebook and Twitter to reach their audience in a unique manner. Unfortunately, there are only a handful of programs actually taking advantage.
The challenge college athletics programs are facing is one of the biggest conundrums in sports marketing today: how do you take a female-dominated social media platform such as Pinterest and use that platform to market a male-dominated form of entertainment such as sports? The successful college programs on Pinterest have already figured out the solution. According to a Forbes article published in late-2011, one-third of the audiences for large US sporting events are women.
This data clearly indicates that a not insignificant portion of sports fans are women. The Pinterest page of the University of Texas does an excellent job appealing to women. They have a board dedicated to arguably the most popular women’s sport at the school (volleyball) as well as a board for the official team shop, which can appeal to both men and women.
However, what makes the University of Texas stand out compared to other Pinterest pages are the individual boards for each football game. There’s no doubt Texas is a football school and is most likely the sport fans will want to see when they visit the Pinterest page. This unique approach gives fans the chance to go through each board and experience the games all over again. Although the university recently launched their Pinterest page, they have already attracted more than 800 followers.
While some programs are discovering ways to use Pinterest to draw women’s attention to their sports, others are attempting to discover ways to use their sports to draw men’s attention to Pinterest. According to an article on econsultancy.com, 19% of women that are online use Pinterest compared to 5% of men.
Similar to women, men are interested in boards that are both innovative and creative. The University of Louisville and the University of Oregon do a great job of fulfilling both.
Despite a somewhat weak Pinterest presence (298 followers) UofL has done an excellent job of being innovative. UofL’s biggest strength is finding ways to intertwine their Pinterest page with their other social media pages. For example, the university has five boards titled with Twitter hashtags at the beginning. ‘#FrameitFriday’ for instance consists of photos that UofL has taken using social media website and phone app Instagram. This particular venture invites fans to go to UofL’s twitter page and add a caption to the photo they post, engaging followers in a unique social media experience. They also have a board solely dedicated to the football team titled ‘@UofLFootball’, the twitter handle for the official UofL football team page.
As mentioned earlier the number of followers doesn’t always reflect the quality of the page. However there is at least one exception for a school that is considered one of the most creative and perhaps overall best Pinterest pages among college athletics: the University of Oregon.
Oregon is one of the few college programs that is consistent with updates and is always posting fresh and interesting content and does so in a creative manner. They have a ‘What’s Hot – Top 10 Items’ board that is updated when needed as well as a ‘Just Ducky’ board highlighting interesting Oregon Ducks mementos, interesting Duck-themed foods, and more.
The board that stood out to me and gave me the feeling that Oregon’s page was well-rounded and universal was the board titled ‘Where We Work & Play’. In this unique board you will find locations both on campus and through the city of Eugene, giving the very real sense of community that takes place at the University of Oregon.
The sad truth is that there are not many more ‘Pinterest titans’ in college athletics. The Pinterest page for the SEC, South Carolina, and Virginia Tech are all pages that could be considered among the likes of Texas, Louisville, and Oregon. College athletics pages on Pinterest are saturated with programs that don’t regularly update their pages or programs that created their official pages and completely gave up due to lack of faith in Pinterest being a legitimate social media platform.
There is no denying the benefits reaped from having an extraordinary Pinterest and general social media presence online; the impact of social media on ticket sales is highlighted in a recent article published on businessofcollegesports.com. However, it’s also a great opportunity for fans to gain exposure to other lesser-followed sports, to interact with followers, and to cross-platform with other social media platforms and the university’s athletics website.
It’s an easy and free way to increase a university’s social media presence. It’s simply a matter of time before college athletics program jump on the Pinterest bandwagon.
For those that are curious here is a list of the top 5 NCAA Division I college athletics programs from BCS conferences on Pinterest with the most followers (as of 1/19/2013):
- Oregon Ducks – 2,847 followers
- Texas Tech Red Raiders – 1,632 followers
- Washington Huskies – 1,379 followers
- Tennessee Volunteers – 1,070 followers
- Virginia Tech – 975 followers