Still More Proof that the NCAA's Malign, Incompetent | The Boneyard

Still More Proof that the NCAA's Malign, Incompetent

Sifaka

Sifaka

¿Doce campeonatos? ¡Macanudo!
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,403
Reaction Score
11,310
Every year the NCAA puts on a lavish banquet and throws crumbs to the women. If it wasn’t worth money, then why does television broadcast every single game? Time for congress to make the NCAA open their books and tell the truth.
 
jcoton56 said:
Every year the NCAA puts on a lavish banquet and throws crumbs to the women. If it wasn’t worth money, then why does television broadcast every single game? Time for congress to make the NCAA open their books and tell the truth.
Expand ...
Do you seek the truth or do you just hope you are right?
 
jcoton56 said:
Every year the NCAA puts on a lavish banquet and throws crumbs to the women. If it wasn’t worth money, then why does television broadcast every single game? Time for congress to make the NCAA open their books and tell the truth.
Expand ...
Because social media would go crazy. You know the same people who become indignant at a perceived slight to women's basketball but won't do thing one to directly support women's basketball with their viewing time or cash.
 
.-.
Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota has called for an investigation into the NCAA treatment of the women's tournament. She is making appearances on television this morning to support Sedona Prince, and mentioning Sally Jenkins and her WaPo article. Keep it up, Senator.
 
CTBasketball said:
Women’s basketball, as well as the women’s tournament, does not make money. Photography and media costs money.

It sucks, but it’s definitely a business decision.
Expand ...
Sometimes I think the only true fans of women basketball are us grandfather types. Seriously, this changes only when parents encourage their daughters to participate—if they want—in sports and, almost more importantly, take them to games. I would hope women would fill the arenas, bringing their husbands and boyfriends. Marches are great—I participated in a few—but marching into the field house to watch girls in high school or young women in college or professionals in WNBA, will be the change itself. 51% of the country is female. The product, of course, is important. UConn fills the house because they deliver the goods. But every year parity grows. As the sport grows in popularity, there will be more girls attracted to sports. I remember when the star on the Colorado women’s team showed up at a Y basketball practice and my then 9-year-old granddaughter showed the CU player her Y card that listed her as her favorite “pro”. The CU player, conference player of the year, immediately photographed the Y card and turned to a teammate and said, “Best day ever.”
 
How many UConn fans know that the tourney has been receded? Baylor is now a 1 seed. So they won't meet UConn or any other team that qualifies.
 
WHATTTTT??? I don't think so. You are a little misinformed. Joke???
 
donalddoowop said:
How many UConn fans know that the tourney has been receded? Baylor is now a 1 seed. So they won't meet UConn or any other team that qualifies.
Expand ...

The new brackets are as follows after the inaugural reseeding of the tournament:

1. UConn vs. South Florida
4. Oregon State vs. 5. Iowa
3. Tennessee vs. Iowa State
2. Maryland vs. 7. Northwestern

This is all that's been revealed so far.
 
.-.
CTBasketball said:
Women’s basketball, as well as the women’s tournament, does not make money. Photography and media costs money.

It sucks, but it’s definitely a business decision.
Expand ...

jcoton56 said:
Every year the NCAA puts on a lavish banquet and throws crumbs to the women. If it wasn’t worth money, then why does television broadcast every single game? Time for congress to make the NCAA open their books and tell the truth.
Expand ...

An article in the Hartford Courant on this issue (weight room, swag bags. "March Madness", etc.) stated that the men's tournament generated $1,000,000,000.00, yes, 1 billion, in revenue. The women's tournament generated $38,000,000.00 (38 million) in revenue. The numbers are approximate and vary year to year. But it does give you and idea of the disparity in income and the subsequent "worth" of the 2 events in the pocket of the NCAA.

I am a fan of the womens's game for a lot of reasons. The men's game also, but less so. So I want to see the women's game grow. The NCAA should also want this. After all two billion dollar tournaments would be better than one.

It would be in their best interest to get more seed money into the women's tournament and grow it's popularity and it's income. Over time Increases in the men's game revenue will be incremental. If nurtured, increases in the women's tournament revenue will be exponential.
 
dogged1 said:
An article in the Hartford Courant on this issue (weight room, swag bags. "March Madness", etc.) stated that the men's tournament generated $1,000,000,000.00, yes, 1 billion, in revenue. The women's tournament generated $38,000,000.00 (38 million) in revenue. The numbers are approximate and vary year to year. But it does give you and idea of the disparity in income and the subsequent "worth" of the 2 events in the pocket of the NCAA.

I am a fan of the womens's game for a lot of reasons. The men's game also, but less so. So I want to see the women's game grow. The NCAA should also want this. After all two billion dollar tournaments would be better than one.

It would be in their best interest to get more seed money into the women's tournament and grow it's popularity and it's income. Over time Increases in the men's game revenue will be incremental. If nurtured, increases in the women's tournament revenue will be exponential.
Expand ...
In order for the women’s game to grow it needs a bigger audience. Revenue will not match the men’s tournament until they on-par with promotions and viewership.
 
CTBasketball said:
In order for the women’s game to grow it needs a bigger audience. Revenue will not match the men’s tournament until they on-par with promotions and viewership.
Expand ...

Couldn't agree more with every word you wrote. But to grow viewership, the fanbase, you need to market the product. That takes seed money, an investment in the future.
 
For those of you that are arguing that the revenue generated by the tournament should determine the quality of treatment of the athletes based on sex, I would state that you are wrong. That argument presupposes the college athletics exists in a vacuum of only the tournament. The truth is that while athletics are outside of mainstream academics, they only exist because the colleges exist as academics institutions.

Today, more than 50% of college students are women and more than 50% of the degrees at most schools are granted to women. These women are paying tuition that pays the professors, and keep universities alive. While you might argue that donors who support male teams are helping althetics, it is irrelevant because of title 9. Universities are bound to treat women fairly and equally. The NCAA gets around this because they are not bound by title 9. While that might be a legal argument, it’s certainly not an ethical one. Since women attend universities, pay tuition and are in fact part of the very life blood of these schools, they deserve no less than equal treatment at every level. Anyone who argues otherwise is saying that male students should get an inferior education, live in inferior housing and get worse text books because women make up greater than 50% of the tuition flow into the schools.

Since, of course that is silly, I would argue that schools must treat as a whole of all of their programs and that includes both academics and sports. Regardless of where the contributions of each sex are coming from, you must treat all students equally at all times.
 
Last edited:
.-.
CTBasketball said:
In order for the women’s game to grow it needs a bigger audience. Revenue will not match the men’s tournament until they on-par with promotions and viewership.
Expand ...
The hard facts, sometime reality sucks. I attended my First WCBB game in the mid 1970's, there were more players than spectators. The game was just slightly better than the atrocious officiating. Things have changed, gotten better players and officiating have made huge leap's forward. I think we sometimes forget we are watching the preeminent woman's team in the county. Few woman's teams fan base pays what is needed to run the program. The same is true in regards to the tourney.
This does not excuse the vast disparity between the men's and woman's treatment in this years tournament, it highlights it. The woman's game needs more fans demanding a better deal for the women. The game needs more good players and more good teams this starts with youth programs thru AAU, and High School programs. It just doesn't happen because we want it to, it is growing, we need more fans to nurture it. It's the law of supply and demand. The more fans the bigger the voice, and dollars follow. Remember the tag line from a great movie. "If we build it they we come". I understand the term UCONN is bad for woman's basketball. In reality UCONN is great for WCBB .
 
Lorcan said:
The new brackets are as follows after the inaugural reseeding of the tournament:

1. UConn vs. South Florida
4. Oregon State vs. 5. Iowa
3. Tennessee vs. Iowa State
2. Maryland vs. 7. Northwestern

This is all that's been revealed so far.
Expand ...
As of 2:15 PM, the NCAA website lists the games as they have been scheduled according to the original brackets. I think the info in the above post is based on Charlie Creme's confusing and misguided "reseeding", which is his opinion and not the official bracket schedue, which has not changed. ESPN still listing So. Florida vs. NC State and Iowa vs. Kentucky, along with all the other matchups previously announced and attained by the respective teams.
 
drweo said:
As of 2:15 PM, the NCAA website lists the games as they have been scheduled according to the original brackets. I think the info in the above post is based on Charlie Creme's confusing and misguided "reseeding", which is his opinion and not the official bracket schedue, which has not changed. ESPN still listing So. Florida vs. NC State and Iowa vs. Kentucky, along with all the other matchups previously announced and attained by the respective teams.
Expand ...
I need a sarcasm font.
 
I wish the ESPN “reseeding” was true, making UCONN and Baylor both 1 seeds, but it’s just an opinion piece after the first round results.
 
That just shows how ignorant you are. The more coverage, the more interest. The more interest, the more viewers. The more viewers, the more money the women's championship brings in. It is a business decision, a jackass business decision by people who just don't get it.
 
.-.
dogged1 said:
An article in the Hartford Courant on this issue (weight room, swag bags. "March Madness", etc.) stated that the men's tournament generated $1,000,000,000.00, yes, 1 billion, in revenue. The women's tournament generated $38,000,000.00 (38 million) in revenue. The numbers are approximate and vary year to year. But it does give you and idea of the disparity in income and the subsequent "worth" of the 2 events in the pocket of the NCAA.

I am a fan of the womens's game for a lot of reasons. The men's game also, but less so. So I want to see the women's game grow. The NCAA should also want this. After all two billion dollar tournaments would be better than one.

It would be in their best interest to get more seed money into the women's tournament and grow it's popularity and it's income. Over time Increases in the men's game revenue will be incremental. If nurtured, increases in the women's tournament revenue will be exponential.
Expand ...
The problem is, the NCAA breaks out the Men's basketball tournament as a stand alone product so they can nicely account for the money it brings in (though I am not sure they ever have clearly revealed their books, because ...)

The women's tournament is conveniently used as a catch all for all other sports they sanction - 23. Because of this they truly cannot break out how much revenue the women's tournament generates and they can simply say ... Men's basketball is the only money maker for the NCAA and therefore the only one we pay colleges to participate in. When they started sanctioning WCBB this was probably a reasonable division, but the world has changed and unless they use some very creative accounting, the WCBB tournament is a moneymaker now.

Now a normal corporation would usually break everything down clearly. Or they would lump the Men's tournament with all the money losing championships and demand winning media contracts had to provide coverage of x percentage of the competitions (including the championship itself) in each of those sports for them to be awarded the contracts. But ...
 
King Kong said:
So invest in women, make it equitable, as you must, & you will have a much better tournament.
Expand ...
You need to cater to your audience. Or potential audience in this case.
 
Puppy Love said:
For those of you that are arguing that the revenue generated by the tournament should determine the quality of treatment of the athletes based on sex, I would state that you are wrong. That argument presupposes the college athletics exists in a vacuum of only the tournament. The truth is that while athletics are outside of mainstream academics, they only exist because the colleges exist as academics institutions.

Today, more than 50% of college students are women and more than 50% of the degrees at most schools are granted to women. These women are paying tuition that pay the professors, and keep universities alive. Well you might argue that donors who support male teams are helping althetics, it is irrelevant because of title 9. Universities are bound to treat women fairly and equally. The NCAA gets around this because they are not bound by title 9. While that might be a legal argument, it’s certainly not an ethical one. Since women attend universities, pay tuition and are in fact part of the very life blood of these schools, they deserve no less than equal treatment at every level. Anyone who argues otherwise is saying that male students should get an inferior education, live in inferior housing and get worse text books because women make up greater than 50% of the tuition flow into the schools.

Since, of course that is silly, I would argue that schools must be treated as a whole of all of their programs and that includes both academics and sports. Regardless of where the contributions of each sex are coming from, you must treat all students equally at all times.
Expand ...
I can't argue that you certainly have the ethical, moral position here. One that I personally share. But as we both know the world is not a particularly fair place. The NCAA is not guided by what is fair and what is right. Like most big institutions they are in it to maximize money and power. As long as their is that large a disparity in revenue, the men's tournament will reign supreme. And further, the NCAA and it's tournaments are not the same at law as the schools and their athletic departments.

But I will say in their, the NCAA's, defense that they use the income from the men's tournament (there main source, they get very little from the football play-off) to support all the men's and women's Olympic sports programs. The NCAA itself, because they are not an educational institution receiving federal funds, they are not bound by title 9 as a matter of law. An excerpt from Forbes quoting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg:

"The question in NCAA v. Smith was whether the NCAA qualified as a educational program that received Federal financial assistance such that it had to follow Title IX. In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (may she rest in power), the Court held that dues payments from recipients of federal funds were insufficient to subject the NCAA to suit under Title IX. Justice Ginsburg wrote, "[e]ntities that receive federal assistance [like the University of Oregon], whether directly or through an intermediary, are recipients within the meaning of Title IX; entities that only benefit economically [like the NCAA] from federal assistance are not." She concluded that "the Association's receipt of dues demonstrates that it indirectly benefits from the federal assistance afforded its members," which without more, "is insufficient to trigger Title IX coverage.""

In addition, most of the income at the division 1 college level athletic departments is generated by the football programs. So, in affect we have what you are looking for. The men's football and basketball programs are the cash cows that support all the other sports. With out them their would be no money for all the other athletic programs. Uconn does supplement the athletic department with student fees but it is a very small part of the athletic department budget and not the norm for Division 1 schools.
 
Nell Fortner wrote an open letter to the NCAA which I just read and think is excellent. Responding to the above post, whether it is legally enforceable or not is not the issue. The issue is stark disparity of treatment, from the facilities, to the media, even to the announcers. The law is very slow by its very nature but as Victor Hugo once said "Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come". This will not be fixed in the halls of Congress, It will be fixed in the caverns of pubic opinion as long as the complaints and photos and videos reach a crescendo response. Just watch. The NCAA is not going to justify what they are doing on the basis of money. If they go that route, there will be a hue and a cry that may result in a backlash they will not be able to control.
 
I know that many here on the BY have expressed their dislike of Nell Fortner as a commentator for WCBB. But she is now head coach of Georgia Tech and as such wrote a scathing letter to the NCAA for the despicable treatment of the women and their tournament. She pulls no punches. Well done , Nell.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,505
Messages
4,579,198
Members
10,489
Latest member
Djw06001


Top Bottom