I read the local media. I've been searching for the story, that has rolled to archives, so I'm having trouble finding it, but there is a story on how OSU has become the "cool" out-of-state college destination for high school graduates in the DFW Metroplex. One of the reasons cited was the image that OSU is projecting through it's branding, which included the success of the football team and it's stylish uniforms.
In fact, the #6 RB, Ronald Jones II, is from McKinney, Tx. Two of the reasons he cited for choosing OSU over offers from Alabama, Clemson, Auburn, Miami, Michigan, Arizona State, et. al., is OSU's proximity to his home town, and the fact that his sister had already chosen to attend OSU. His sister is one of the students from the DFW area that I'm citing.
People like you, that want to cite causality when discussing the impact of branding, advertising and marketing in general, are one of the great burdens that a marketing professional has to deal with on a weekly basis. That quant jocks don't buy it, unless you run a regression analysis to show a correlation coefficient indicating causality. I'm having a discussion on a sports board, not trying to prove correlation.
But there's a famous dictum in advertising that says, "Scientific research proves that only 50% of dollars spent on advertising works. The problem is, you don't know which 50%!
But by all means, keep your football program in the 1990's and embrace your limited traditions, because your results on the field are specific and measurable over time, and ISU isn't doing so hot.
How do I know? I read your board and hear your tradition loving fan base complaining about the various causal effects that are keeping you out of bowls, and have you being passed by the likes of Baylor and Oklahoma State.