“Small college athletics (NCAA Divisions II and III, plus NAIA) are clearly a niche market and need to be recognized as such. The implications for this concept require that niche marketing strategies are used to market and promote athletic programs with these national affiliations. One of the failed strategies in marketing athletics at this level is to rely too heavily on mass media channels and concepts that are based on strategies appropriate for major college athletics and professional teams. One of these questionable strategies is the concept of a regional conference spread out through multiple states and major market population centers. The lack of geographical homogeneity and ability to attract significant mass media attention has been illustrated to hinder many of these Division II conferences. The exception to this would be where there are no other geographical alternatives. Having a geographically homogeneous athletic conference would save on travel and could build a greater identity for the schools, the conference and NCAA Division II. This would be appropriate under a strategic concept for niche marketing.

“A comparison of Division II and NAIA shows that the NCAA financial resources overwhelm the NAIA even at the Division II level. Each active Division II member gets a revenue distribution check each year of $8-9,000, full travel expenses paid for national competition and the opportunity to apply for various grants. None of this is available to NAIA members except for limited reimbursement to national basketball, baseball, and softball tournaments. Each Division II conference receives a revenue sharing distribution that averages around $150,000 each year. Also, each conference has the ability to apply for Strategic Initiative grants from the NCAA. The brand of the NCAA is very strong. The influence of this brand for small college athletics may be subtle, yet there is anecdotal evidence that it is valuable. Oklahoma is one of the very few states that the NAIA brand still has some identity. Even in Texas, the NAIA brand is either poor or virtually invisible. Both the NCAA Division II and the NAIA operate on a partial scholarship model (full scholarships are legal but only used in limited cases). However, contrary to popular opinion, the Division II scholarship limits are actually less than the NAIA limits in most sports.

“The combined marketing of the athletic efforts of these 11 schools in a common conference could bring several benefits. The process of marketing a combined group would focus on creating a greater niche by reaching more interested individuals (alums, students, prospective students, athletes and parents, local residents, etc). The three private schools in this discussion (OC, SNU, OBU) have a combined alumni base of approximately 70,000, with approximately 50-60 percent residing in Oklahoma (source: individual schools). The addition of the regional universities (SWOSU, NWOSU, Cameron, ECU, SEOSU, RSU) adds an alumni base of over 132,000 (source: individual schools). If UCO and NSU were added, this would bring in approximately another 140,000 to the combined alumni base. For the regional schools the percentage of alums that reside in Oklahoma is over 66 percent. This combined alumni base in addition to each institution’s local constituent base provides an example for a significant niche market.

“Another key element for both groups of schools would be increased economic impact upon their local communities. In addition to saving on travel costs these institutions would be spending more of their travel dollars in Oklahoma, holding their conference tournaments in Oklahoma and attracting a greater fan base from opposing conference teams. This increased economic impact would help in seeking both institutional and conference sponsorship agreements targeting Oklahoma based businesses and corporations. Another potential economic impact could be the use of some of the travel savings to add new sports that only require limited scholarships, local competition, help to fulfill Title IX requirements, and that would be attractive to in-state students. This increased enrollment could result in the incumbent increase in tuition, fee and housing revenue.