|
Post by grayman on Mar 13, 2024 17:59:31 GMT -8
Let's see, Mastrov, the Cavinder twins, Paige Bueckers, Livvy Dunne (LSU gymnastics) are among the college women with the biggest social media followings in recent years. Can we figure out the commonality?
edit--I think Van Lith can also be grouped in with these others
Yes, I think most of us understand what you mean by the commonality. While there is some truth to that, the fact that they are all Division 1 athletes and most that are high on the overall list are at or close to the top of their sports is the main commonality, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Mar 13, 2024 18:31:16 GMT -8
The Cavinders had already built a big following while they were at Fresno St., which had nearly zero visibility on TV and no success as a program nationally. I'm sure some on the list don't go the same route, but the Cavinders and Dunne very much use their sex appeal to build their brand. While they are also competitive athletes, that is not what's driving clicks on their social media platforms. I think most of the content for the Cavinders is them dancing in bikinis.
I think both Shaylee Gonzalez and Paisley Harding (Johnson) built fairly big social media followings while they were at BYU. Gonzalez has been at Texas the last 2 years but Harding was at BYU for the duration of her career. BYU would be similar to Fresno St., not a nationally prominent or highly visible program.
Any Pac 12 athlete that has built a big following isn't because of tv appearances, because as we all know much of the country has not had availability of the Pac 12 Network pretty much for the entirety of its existence. And as noted above Mastrov barely plays on a team that has not been good in recent years and has not been anywhere near the NCAA Tourney at any time during her career.
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Mar 13, 2024 18:42:29 GMT -8
There are several listings of top NIL players in women's basketball. You will find little correlation with amount of TV time. Social media fame is #1. People you have (or at least me) have never heard of are way up there. Mastrov at U Cal? Whaaaaaa? I would disagree for the most part because I believe that TV exposure, particularly gained through success in the NCAA tournament, is one of the biggest factors in building social media popularity for the players. Yes, there are exceptions like Mastrov, Haley Cavinder and Sedona Prince, though I would argue that basketball exposure was still a significant factor for Cavinder and Prince being able to build a big social media following. Shelomi Sanders is part of a famous family of athletes and benefits highly from Prime Time being her father. But Clark is the best player in the nation and No. 5 Paige Bueckers of UConn is right up there. No. 2 Angel Reese is a top player who led LSU to the national title last season. No. 3 Flau'jae Johnson plays for LSU as does No. 6 Hailey Van Lith, who was definitely a player who grabbed attention during the NCAA tournament last year with Louisville. Juju Watkins and Cameron Brink are two of the best players in the Pac-12 and nationally. Deja Kelly is one of the best players in the ACC. The bottom line is, yes, a run of the mill women's basketball player can build a big social media following but it's much easier and more common for the top players on the top teams to get that national exposure and the social media growth that goes along with it. HVL was #1 in followers before she arrived at Louisville, Bueckers was #2 before she arrived at UConn etc. And Clark didn't become who she is because of Iowa, Iowa became what it is because of Clark. You have to have some sort of schtick to make it in social media such as success at basketball. But just getting your face on TV does nothing for you. There are lots of really good players who've gotten nothing in NLI except what the school has arranged (usually not much). While many who aren't that good have all kinds of NIL moola.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Mar 13, 2024 19:03:32 GMT -8
The Cavinders had already built a big following while they were at Fresno St., which had nearly zero visibility on TV and no success as a program nationally. I'm sure some on the list don't go the same route, but the Cavinders and Dunne very much use their sex appeal to build their brand. While they are also competitive athletes, that is not what's driving clicks on their social media platforms. I think most of the content for the Cavinders is them dancing in bikinis. I think both Shaylee Gonzalez and Paisley Harding (Johnson) built fairly big social media followings while they were at BYU. Gonzalez has been at Texas the last 2 years but Harding was at BYU for the duration of her career. BYU would be similar to Fresno St., not a nationally prominent or highly visible program. Any Pac 12 athlete that has built a big following isn't because of tv appearances, because as we all know much of the country has not had availability of the Pac 12 Network pretty much for the entirety of its existence. And as noted above Mastrov barely plays on a team that has not been good in recent years and has not been anywhere near the NCAA Tourney at any time during her career. Most of them don't. The Cavinders load up their social media with bikini shots. And even then, they sprinkle in some basketball shots. The others are either almost all about basketball (Caitlin Clark is pretty much all basketball) or have a lot of basketball but some glamour-type shots or shots with like cutoffs or whatever in the mix, which is unusual attire at all for college age women. College basketball stardom absolutely drives subs, likes, clicks, etc., for most of them.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Mar 13, 2024 19:20:19 GMT -8
I would disagree for the most part because I believe that TV exposure, particularly gained through success in the NCAA tournament, is one of the biggest factors in building social media popularity for the players. Yes, there are exceptions like Mastrov, Haley Cavinder and Sedona Prince, though I would argue that basketball exposure was still a significant factor for Cavinder and Prince being able to build a big social media following. Shelomi Sanders is part of a famous family of athletes and benefits highly from Prime Time being her father. But Clark is the best player in the nation and No. 5 Paige Bueckers of UConn is right up there. No. 2 Angel Reese is a top player who led LSU to the national title last season. No. 3 Flau'jae Johnson plays for LSU as does No. 6 Hailey Van Lith, who was definitely a player who grabbed attention during the NCAA tournament last year with Louisville. Juju Watkins and Cameron Brink are two of the best players in the Pac-12 and nationally. Deja Kelly is one of the best players in the ACC. The bottom line is, yes, a run of the mill women's basketball player can build a big social media following but it's much easier and more common for the top players on the top teams to get that national exposure and the social media growth that goes along with it. HVL was #1 in followers before she arrived at Louisville, Bueckers was #2 before she arrived at UConn etc. And Clark didn't become who she is because of Iowa, Iowa became what it is because of Clark. You have to have some sort of schtick to make it in social media such as success at basketball. But just getting your face on TV does nothing for you. There are lots of really good players who've gotten nothing in NLI except what the school has arranged (usually not much). While many who aren't that good have all kinds of NIL moola. Not sure where you are getting your "facts" about Van Lith's and Buecker's followers. So more people followed them as high school prospects than followed any players already in college? Possible, but I doubt it. I don't think Clark became who she is because of Iowa. Already said so. Getting your face on TV is huge. Very few of these athletes are pursuing a social media presence that focuses on anything but their athletic pursuits (college/student life is intertwined with their status as an athlete). Good luck building a huge social media following as a women's college basketball player if you never play in front of a national TV audience. It isn't happening for the vast majority.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Mar 13, 2024 19:26:29 GMT -8
Maybe if OSU goes on a run and attracts some attention during the NCAA tournament, some of the players will get a significant boost to their social media accounts. Nobody has seen the Beavers outside of the Pac-12.
|
|
|
Post by nwhoopfan on Mar 13, 2024 19:38:05 GMT -8
HVL was #1 in followers before she arrived at Louisville, Bueckers was #2 before she arrived at UConn etc. And Clark didn't become who she is because of Iowa, Iowa became what it is because of Clark. You have to have some sort of schtick to make it in social media such as success at basketball. But just getting your face on TV does nothing for you. There are lots of really good players who've gotten nothing in NLI except what the school has arranged (usually not much). While many who aren't that good have all kinds of NIL moola. Not sure where you are getting your "facts" about Van Lith's and Buecker's followers. So more people followed them as high school prospects than followed any players already in college? Possible, but I doubt it. I don't think Clark became who she is because of Iowa. Already said so. Getting your face on TV is huge. Very few of these athletes are pursuing a social media presence that focuses on anything but their athletic pursuits (college/student life is intertwined with their status as an athlete). Good luck building a huge social media following as a women's college basketball player if you never play in front of a national TV audience. It isn't happening for the vast majority. This is all so new. Developing and maintaining a large social media presence just wasn't a thing for college athletes until very recently. Of course NIL has a lot to do with that, which is also very new.
Did Ionescu have a big social media presence while she was at UO? I wasn't aware of it. If you go back a little further to players like Stewie or Plum, it just wasn't a thing.
While a few had already started to get in on it, I think Bueckers is one of the pioneers of the intersection of social media and college athletics. And yes, she did have a very big following while she was still in high school. That was going to follow her no matter where she went.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Mar 13, 2024 20:32:59 GMT -8
Not sure where you are getting your "facts" about Van Lith's and Buecker's followers. So more people followed them as high school prospects than followed any players already in college? Possible, but I doubt it. I don't think Clark became who she is because of Iowa. Already said so. Getting your face on TV is huge. Very few of these athletes are pursuing a social media presence that focuses on anything but their athletic pursuits (college/student life is intertwined with their status as an athlete). Good luck building a huge social media following as a women's college basketball player if you never play in front of a national TV audience. It isn't happening for the vast majority. This is all so new. Developing and maintaining a large social media presence just wasn't a thing for college athletes until very recently. Of course NIL has a lot to do with that, which is also very new.
Did Ionescu have a big social media presence while she was at UO? I wasn't aware of it. If you go back a little further to players like Stewie or Plum, it just wasn't a thing.
While a few had already started to get in on it, I think Bueckers is one of the pioneers of the intersection of social media and college athletics. And yes, she did have a very big following while she was still in high school. That was going to follow her no matter where she went.
Sure. But it has helped immensely that she went on to star at UConn, which is a regular contender and therefore gets a lot of national attention particularly during the NCAA tourney. There are several factors that can lead to NIL "success" for women's college basketball players but continued success as a player (that includes team success, particularly in the tournament) produces ready-made exposure and even fame. Athletes like the Cavinders and few others are the outliers. The rest are getting it done because they are very good to great players that in most cases are putting their programs in a contending position. We're also talking about a group of players at the very top of the NIL valuations. Most in women's hoops are nowhere near this level. And, of course, valuations are not the same as actual income.
|
|
|
Post by beaveragain on Mar 13, 2024 21:50:48 GMT -8
HVL was #1 in followers before she arrived at Louisville, Bueckers was #2 before she arrived at UConn etc. And Clark didn't become who she is because of Iowa, Iowa became what it is because of Clark. You have to have some sort of schtick to make it in social media such as success at basketball. But just getting your face on TV does nothing for you. There are lots of really good players who've gotten nothing in NLI except what the school has arranged (usually not much). While many who aren't that good have all kinds of NIL moola. Not sure where you are getting your "facts" about Van Lith's and Buecker's followers. So more people followed them as high school prospects than followed any players already in college? Possible, but I doubt it. I don't think Clark became who she is because of Iowa. Already said so. Getting your face on TV is huge. Very few of these athletes are pursuing a social media presence that focuses on anything but their athletic pursuits (college/student life is intertwined with their status as an athlete). Good luck building a huge social media following as a women's college basketball player if you never play in front of a national TV audience. It isn't happening for the vast majority. Yes, I'm saying that HVL and Bueckers had more followers in HS than anyone in college. Look it up, HVL social media. Several articles about it. Your convictions about TV are of a bygone age. Look at the top 10 on TikTok. The only one I've ever heard of is The Rock.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Mar 14, 2024 9:12:28 GMT -8
Not sure where you are getting your "facts" about Van Lith's and Buecker's followers. So more people followed them as high school prospects than followed any players already in college? Possible, but I doubt it. I don't think Clark became who she is because of Iowa. Already said so. Getting your face on TV is huge. Very few of these athletes are pursuing a social media presence that focuses on anything but their athletic pursuits (college/student life is intertwined with their status as an athlete). Good luck building a huge social media following as a women's college basketball player if you never play in front of a national TV audience. It isn't happening for the vast majority. Yes, I'm saying that HVL and Bueckers had more followers in HS than anyone in college. Look it up, HVL social media. Several articles about it. Your convictions about TV are of a bygone age. Look at the top 10 on TikTok. The only one I've ever heard of is The Rock. I'll take your word for it. I took more than a few minutes to search and found only a couple of articles about Van Lith and Bueckers being at the top but when they were already in college. I did find a story that had Bueckers' Instagram (which is almost all about her as a basketball player) at 200k followers in high school. She now has over 1 million, now that she is playing for UConn and has been widely exposed due to NCAA play. To further my point about TV's impact, last year's Sweet Sixteen games averaged 1.2 million viewers a game. The Elite Eight, 2.2 million. The Final Four, 4.5 million. The championship game between Iowa and LSU had 9.9 million viewers. Those are good numbers for football games. So yeah, TV exposure, particularly in the NCAA tournament, is a huge factor and has been getting bigger than ever, not fading away.
|
|
|
Post by beavfan14 on Mar 15, 2024 9:31:21 GMT -8
Regarding the NIL issue, the best way for Timea and/or Raegan to get NIL deals is to play for a program that is on television. It doesn't matter that Clark plays for Iowa, it matters that basically all of her games are on TV. Connecticut plays in a weak conference, but they're on TV all the time so Bueckers is in demand. Taking this a step further, the best argument for the Beavers to play a tough non-conference program is going to be to get on TV and be able to tell recruits "come here and you will be seen." I am not suggesting that college athletes should only think of maximizing income, but it is going to be a factor. It would absolutely have been a factor for me at that age. I respectfully disagree. Livvy Dunne is the highest paid female athlete in college sports. Yet I doubt anyone outside of LSU or maybe the SEC has seen her on tv. Its' social media marketing, not television viewers. Thats what goes to the school. Would you have watched Iowa without Clark? No, it's not that Iowa was on tv which made Clark famous, its that Clark is a all time great that put Iowa on tv. And you cant' use the highest few as examples when there aren't many players at her level. Players at OSU need better social media advisors.
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Mar 15, 2024 10:02:33 GMT -8
You guys miss the main problem. There is no formula for NIL success. If there was, *everyone* would be rich!
On-court success matters, but if you look at the top players you'll find that most have almost no marketability outside their locality. Social media savvy matters, but if you look at all the athletes that really invest in their social media profiles, most have virtually no marketable presence. TV visibility matters, but not all that much. It really, really helps to have the backing of existing moguls like the Sanders family or Nike, but Nike back thousands of athletes and only a fraction break through. And frankly, what matters most with female athletes is their looks - it attracts followers and it especially attracts sponsors who can translate those looks into sales - but predicting just what the next Livvy Dunne will look like is impossible.
There are a hundred other schools attempting to do the same thing as OSU. Most will fail, most of the time. Some will succeed for a while until they think that they have the formula figured out and then their formula will fail. All OSU can do is keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Mar 15, 2024 10:37:51 GMT -8
You guys miss the main problem. There is no formula for NIL success. If there was, *everyone* would be rich! On-court success matters, but if you look at the top players you'll find that most have almost no marketability outside their locality. Social media savvy matters, but if you look at all the athletes that really invest in their social media profiles, most have virtually no marketable presence. TV visibility matters, but not all that much. It really, really helps to have the backing of existing moguls like the Sanders family or Nike, but Nike back thousands of athletes and only a fraction break through. And frankly, what matters most with female athletes is their looks - it attracts followers and it especially attracts sponsors who can translate those looks into sales - but predicting just what the next Livvy Dunne will look like is impossible. There are a hundred other schools attempting to do the same thing as OSU. Most will fail, most of the time. Some will succeed for a while until they think that they have the formula figured out and then their formula will fail. All OSU can do is keep throwing stuff at the wall until something sticks. Exactly. School affiliated NILs will always be much much smaller than corporate deals. Even schools with a big donor for a specific sport are limited to that donor's interest level and willingness to contribute year after year. Donor run NILs may also be in violation of NCAA rules, and/or State regs regarding the influence of donors. Typically there needs to be a 3rd party to actually make the deals/dole out the $. But, it is the wild west out there. NIL deals will remain pretty much as is for 99%+ of student athletes... smaller 4-5 figure deals for merch and appearances. OSU is really in no different of a position than it was with recruiting vs the elite schools. OSU may lose some talent to the portal due to NIL deals that are bigger, but as we've seen they will gain talent simply due to playing time/school/coach frustrations. The NIL and portal are just more recent reasons for some to complain about college athletics. But, it is here, it is reality, and schools like OSU just have to work around it the best they can. However, OSU is never going to have a large NIL(s) pool of $ unless some large donor steps forward. At OSU those donors have been about using their contributions for capital improvements. And, IMHO it is the best use of the $$. Just based on the "dedicated" fan base... regular attendees and season ticket holders OSU does not have the quantity of fans that will dole out enough extra dollars to ever match up with the upper crust. But, we can compete $ wise with 70%+ of D1 schools. If a student athlete wants to get "rich" with 5-6 figure annual NIL deals it will never be at OSU. Just as it will not be at the majority of the D1 institutions. So, find coaching staffs that can sell their programs, develop talent, have success on a consistent basis, and OSU will continue to draw athletes that fit "our" culture. It is the AD and coaches that will have to adapt or move on. Just as we have before all this... OSU will thrive.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Mar 15, 2024 11:13:13 GMT -8
It does feel like free market forces are playing out faster than anticipated. Wealthy donors can tip the scales via the NIL, but it also bring more transparency as well as accountability to the student athlete.
NIL has been a good thing in that it helps student athletes that previously might have really struggled meeting basic needs.
It's also the case that a lot of top athletes, especially outside of football and men's basketball, come from families that aren't struggling (primarily because they could afford the coaching and access needed for their kids to get to that level). This kids are going to value their experience pretty high, and so the dollar delta would need to be pretty significant to become major factor, as it's otherwise not life-changing and if it comes with a bunch of emotional turmoil, it's pretty unappealing. IMO, OSU WBB, Gymnastics and Baseball (and possibly football) have a formula that gives OSU a sustainable lift relative to many programs. It's really been quite impressive.
Very recently Vanderveer also stated that the key is to have players who enjoy playing for and with each other. That's a hard thing to accomplish these days, and OSU has found some sustained success in that aspect across multiple programs.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Mar 15, 2024 11:39:15 GMT -8
I think one thing that is tripping up some people here is that there is a distinct difference between what Olivia Dunne and the Cavinders are as far as their approach to social media as opposed to athletes like Caitlin Clark, Paige Bueckers, Hailey Van Lith, etc. Dunne is a social media personality who happens to be a gymnast. Her gymnastics "fame" such as it is, has not been the major factor in how she built a huge social media base and has gone on to land big sponsors with commercials on national TV, etc. The Cavinders are social media personalities who happen to play basketball. They do not build their social media around basketball, although they do mix it up some. The fact that Dunne and the Cavinders are athletes no doubt has contributed but is not the driving force behind their social media success. For Clark, Bueckers, Van Lith and Jade Carey, for example, their social media personas are focused almost entirely around who they are as athletes. Take a look at Dunne's instagram and then Carey's. Or Clark's, etc. There is a significant difference. That's why those NCAA tournament TV numbers are relevant. Every year there's a chance for some players to gain a huge amount of exposure. It goes hand-in-hand with building a following if you are basketball player who focuses on that aspect of your life on social media.
|
|