I would rather watch rugby than curling and not because I have prejudice against people who sweep the ice with a broom. When women chose to compete in a sport that rewards strength and size there is little wonder that it has an inherent disadvantage when compared to male athletes. Women's basketball is fun to watch, but don't try to legislate that it is equivalent to men's basketball.
4
Men's college basketball makes a boatload of money and everybody want a piece of the action: The players want to be paid; the Humanities Department wants a share because they are the heart of the University; and women want half because they help hold up the sky.
6
Title IX gave the women equal time and often to the exclusion of mens sports other than football, basketball and baseball.
I would argue that rather than worry about the money, we should worry about be over fascinated with college sports. Isn't the point to go get an education.
I don't see coaches doing cancer research or solving the worlds problems.
Even with all the men's money, sports overall are a money losing proposition, so colleges would be better served to eliminate them, especially football and its concussion risks.
Contrast all this with Division 3 colleges with none of this money where students play for fun and coaches are not millionaires. That's what sports should be about.
I would argue that rather than worry about the money, we should worry about be over fascinated with college sports. Isn't the point to go get an education.
I don't see coaches doing cancer research or solving the worlds problems.
Even with all the men's money, sports overall are a money losing proposition, so colleges would be better served to eliminate them, especially football and its concussion risks.
Contrast all this with Division 3 colleges with none of this money where students play for fun and coaches are not millionaires. That's what sports should be about.
17
This article supports "separate but equal" men's and women's college sports. Is no one scratching their head over this? I thought the liberal line was that women and men are equal and should be treated as such. So why separate? Why not just equal? Why not just one gender-blind team per school?
Enjoy the mental gymnastics you'll need to do to avoid arriving at the obvious but politically incorrect answer to this question. Which answer, incidentally, also explains why the women's game is woefully attended and ignored. You can legislate equality all day long, but you can't legislate equal excitement into a comparatively limp spectacle.
Enjoy the mental gymnastics you'll need to do to avoid arriving at the obvious but politically incorrect answer to this question. Which answer, incidentally, also explains why the women's game is woefully attended and ignored. You can legislate equality all day long, but you can't legislate equal excitement into a comparatively limp spectacle.
8
When I studied chemistry, I was told that women weren't wanted. If only the problem was wage disparity.
By contract law and without government intervention, I don't even know if I've achieved parity with my male computer programmer, so for this generation of athletes who happen to be female, organize and threaten to withhold your service if equality does not yet exist.
Enough fans care to make a difference. If women's sports are once again allowed to languish, they will.
By contract law and without government intervention, I don't even know if I've achieved parity with my male computer programmer, so for this generation of athletes who happen to be female, organize and threaten to withhold your service if equality does not yet exist.
Enough fans care to make a difference. If women's sports are once again allowed to languish, they will.
2
Like another writer said, you can't make people watch a boring product, no matter how much you try. WNBA is a terrible product, subsidized by NBA, playing to empty arenas. I don't know if it's still true, but 2-3 years back I looked into season tickets for the Knicks, and if you wanted to buy them you had to also buy WNBA tickets. Women's college sports are no different.
Women's sports are great, the athletes are great players, better than I could ever hope to be . That's not the point. TV revenue is based on viewership and (pretty much) no one wants to watch women play. You can click your heels three times and wish it were not so, but we're not in Kansas anymore.
Women's sports are great, the athletes are great players, better than I could ever hope to be . That's not the point. TV revenue is based on viewership and (pretty much) no one wants to watch women play. You can click your heels three times and wish it were not so, but we're not in Kansas anymore.
8
Women's sports are less watchable, and consequently less important. Lacrosse is particularly unwatchable, with stops in the action and fouls called for minor incidental contact every minute. If not for the 3-point play with old fashioned set shots, there would hardly be any scoring in women's basketball. Title 9 has destroyed a number of men's sports at many universities, including wrestling, swimming and baseball. All so that women can play ice and field hockey, and delude themselves into believing that anyone cares.
7
IMO, the "women's game," in all sports, is the only "true" one left.
It's all about school spirit, win-one-for the Gipper, win-one-for my team mate, win one for the fans, etc -- not "win one for the buck" (and my pro career) as the men's sports are.
You get true, dedicated performance from the athletes in women's sports. In men's sports you sometimes get this -- unless star players have already locked-up their pro deals and don't want to risk getting hurt by "playing too hard."
[BTW, women's volleyball is the most interesting, strategic, fast-paced, exciting sport there is today. Watch it sometimes.]
It's all about school spirit, win-one-for the Gipper, win-one-for my team mate, win one for the fans, etc -- not "win one for the buck" (and my pro career) as the men's sports are.
You get true, dedicated performance from the athletes in women's sports. In men's sports you sometimes get this -- unless star players have already locked-up their pro deals and don't want to risk getting hurt by "playing too hard."
[BTW, women's volleyball is the most interesting, strategic, fast-paced, exciting sport there is today. Watch it sometimes.]
4
Excellent article filled with factual truths!! It's a total joke that Women's College BB Teams receive so little attention and rewards. In most cases they're outstanding in their sport and should be recognized accordingly.
It's unfortunate that more women fans don't recognize that fact and support them...helping to offset the simple minded, chauvialistic male brethren who are too dense to appreciate true team basketball!!
It's unfortunate that more women fans don't recognize that fact and support them...helping to offset the simple minded, chauvialistic male brethren who are too dense to appreciate true team basketball!!
3
Andrew Zimbalist is one of the best informed economists on sports and his voice is usually persuasive. This time it's hard to buy into his argument that the NCAA is the problem when it comes to financial rewards for women's collegiate basketball.
The NCAA is a terrible organization whose blind eye of oversight encourages the types of academic fraud discovered at UNC as well as similar disreputable practices at other major colleges. However, the television contracts, the sports athletic wear sponsors and indirectly the professional leagues determine how much money is available and where it goes.
Women sports just do not generate a fraction of the commercial interest that men's sports generate. I say this as the proud father of a Smith graduate who played softball for the Smith team.
Personally, I find the UCONN women's team a wonder to behold, and whose record is easily a match for the Alcindor / Walton years of UCLA. Moreover, I find women's basketball to be highly enjoyable to watch, reminding me of when basketball was played below the rim and referees actually called traveling violations.
But the beauty of the women's game does not translate into economic power which means the money will not flow into these programs.
Now, when Mr Zimbalist organizes a movement to re-charter the NCAA to refocus them from proselytizing on behalf of the NBA and NFL to one of championing more athletic participation for all undergrads, then I'll sign up.
The NCAA is a terrible organization whose blind eye of oversight encourages the types of academic fraud discovered at UNC as well as similar disreputable practices at other major colleges. However, the television contracts, the sports athletic wear sponsors and indirectly the professional leagues determine how much money is available and where it goes.
Women sports just do not generate a fraction of the commercial interest that men's sports generate. I say this as the proud father of a Smith graduate who played softball for the Smith team.
Personally, I find the UCONN women's team a wonder to behold, and whose record is easily a match for the Alcindor / Walton years of UCLA. Moreover, I find women's basketball to be highly enjoyable to watch, reminding me of when basketball was played below the rim and referees actually called traveling violations.
But the beauty of the women's game does not translate into economic power which means the money will not flow into these programs.
Now, when Mr Zimbalist organizes a movement to re-charter the NCAA to refocus them from proselytizing on behalf of the NBA and NFL to one of championing more athletic participation for all undergrads, then I'll sign up.
8
Glad the Times includes a discussion of these issues on the opinion pages. If only the Times would actually cover women's sports on the sports pages. No way to know the women even have a NCAA playoff, let alone that UConn is an outstanding team other than the occasional short piece from the AP--with rare, inconsistent exceptions.
For those who inevitably throw in comments about "The Women's Game" not being good, my experience is that they don't watch anyway--or watch a few minutes of a "bad game" and take that to represent play in general. Plenty of men's games aren't the epitome of excellence either, yet the same group wouldn't say "The Men's Game" is terrible.
The bigger issue that most miss is how calculated the marginalization of women's sport (and their access to money) is--by the NCAA, the Times, and beyond. This isn't circumstantial, a matter solely about audience interest, or a "we'll get there someday" situation. In terms of the issues raised here, this is: boys get all the money and girls get none. And it's planned. THEN comes the justification for it. Not the other way around.
For those who inevitably throw in comments about "The Women's Game" not being good, my experience is that they don't watch anyway--or watch a few minutes of a "bad game" and take that to represent play in general. Plenty of men's games aren't the epitome of excellence either, yet the same group wouldn't say "The Men's Game" is terrible.
The bigger issue that most miss is how calculated the marginalization of women's sport (and their access to money) is--by the NCAA, the Times, and beyond. This isn't circumstantial, a matter solely about audience interest, or a "we'll get there someday" situation. In terms of the issues raised here, this is: boys get all the money and girls get none. And it's planned. THEN comes the justification for it. Not the other way around.
4
I don't watch the NBA, it's a clown show, not basketball. I don't watch the men anymore, they are on the same road as the NBA.
This man says If you want to see the best basketball team in the world, watch the UCON women. They play as a team, they pass and move as a team, they push the ball up the floor in 2 seconds. They play the game the way it is meant to be played -- by a team, as a team with precision and intelligence. And, while they overpower virtually every opponent, those opponents are challenged to play their best, never give up and play the game as it was meant to be played -- by and as a team.
I haven't watched a minute of the men's tournament and never will again. It is not basketball anymore it is a game of banging bodies, clanking shooting and one-man showoffs -- just like the NBA, which it feeds.
This man says If you want to see the best basketball team in the world, watch the UCON women. They play as a team, they pass and move as a team, they push the ball up the floor in 2 seconds. They play the game the way it is meant to be played -- by a team, as a team with precision and intelligence. And, while they overpower virtually every opponent, those opponents are challenged to play their best, never give up and play the game as it was meant to be played -- by and as a team.
I haven't watched a minute of the men's tournament and never will again. It is not basketball anymore it is a game of banging bodies, clanking shooting and one-man showoffs -- just like the NBA, which it feeds.
20
Once again you think that if we impose a value on people, to wit: "watch this too because it is just as important" that the value will in fact be validated. This is not modern art people, where a small minority can overrule reality and state that one thing is just like another. Men and Women are different and as a season ticket holder for both mens and women sports I can tell you that the quality of play and entertainment value is very, very different and even thought one can argue that the different aesthetics have the same value this is false argument because it undermines the very reason that these events are watched and enjoyed. Do away with mens and women tams and make then unisex as you desire to make bathrooms for the transgendered. Then we will have a realistic universe where truth means something again. It always exists but wearily acknowledge it. We will see the truth when Women enter the infantry of the Marine Corps and we all know why women sports in basketball are not as widely applauded or rewarded as the Mens. They are just not as good.
4
There are a lot of problems with this analysis. Mens basketball is widely followed and generates an amazing amount of revenue. Womens basketball, both at a professional and collegiate level, is not widely followed. It does not generate the same revenue and does not receive the same financial focus as mens basketball. This is basic economics.
The sport of womens basketball is arguably less entertaining. The pace is slower, there are no 'exciting' dunks and most importantly there is not much competitive parity in the sport. This explains the dominant performance of the UCONN womens basketball team. What initially appears as a phenomenal team achievement also underscores the competitive weakness of womens collegiate basketball.
In January, the UCONN womens team won consecutive games at scores of 104-49, 106-51, 90-37, 94-30, 83-40, 96-38 and 92-46. Does that sound like exciting basketball?
The sport of womens basketball is arguably less entertaining. The pace is slower, there are no 'exciting' dunks and most importantly there is not much competitive parity in the sport. This explains the dominant performance of the UCONN womens basketball team. What initially appears as a phenomenal team achievement also underscores the competitive weakness of womens collegiate basketball.
In January, the UCONN womens team won consecutive games at scores of 104-49, 106-51, 90-37, 94-30, 83-40, 96-38 and 92-46. Does that sound like exciting basketball?
6
Yes it may be unfair, but I bet in the larger game the women win. The larger game being; gaining an education. Most NYT readers are well aware of the "graduation rates" of many of the Division 1 men's programs. These young men are used by the University to generate big money and then they are tossed aside when they no longer produce. How many NCAA scandals must we be made aware of before we realize he big losers are the kids who don't make it to the NBA and never really learned anything in school either.
3
As a three plus decade employee of sports on the fueling front I can tell you without exception, we have more mouths to feed and back to cloth than most have revenue to cover and strangely that is in part a result of Title IX. The area under the student-athlete curve only enlarged with the mandatory compliance of Title IX and it only made AD's more creative at finding ways to generate revenue. Enter the real sharks behind the exploitation of athletics, organizations like IMG that know how to package and prop up events for sale to the highest bidder who when they overpay for broadcast rights have to in turn crank up the sizzle on the event to bring viewers into a foaming at the mouth frenzy! And at the end of the day it stimulates annual comparisons as to what college athletics was suppose to be about that leave the have and have not’s conferences and schools in a state of contempt that will inevitably split the NCAA up on two sets of tracks based on revenue potential. The women's sports on the have side of the tracks will benefit along with all of the non-revenue male sports more than the athletic departments on the poor side of the tracks. The only good news I have is that around these athletes on both sides of the tracks are good people who really care for the welfare of the student-athletes along their journey. It's still a journey worth taking regardless of the economics.
This all points to the absurdity of association of sports and education. Unless a sport actually makes a school money, it should not be supported by taxpayers and other students. This applies to all men's and women's sports which the universities support with scholarships, staff and facilities. Sports which cannot support themselves should be funded by directed donations and participants. We ignore the fact that the huge majority of athletes at the college level are playing games because they like to. They do not deserve scholarships, and have no right to demand support from anyone. If you want to play women's basketball, run track, or wrestle because you enjoy it, good for you. Just don't demand that everyone else provide the facilities, staffing, and tuition support.
2
The Education Department’s Equity in Athletics data shows that each year U.S. colleges and universities in spent about $7 billion on men’s teams and about $4 billion on women’s teams, but the disparity is almost entirely due to the $3 billion spent on football, which has no coed teams. The schools also spent $1.5 billion on men’s basketball compared to about $1 billion on women’s basketball, a $500-million disparity in favor of men.. However, when football and basketball are excluded, the schools spend about $2.9 billion on women’s sports compared to about $2.3 billion on men’s sports, a $700-milion disparity in favor of women. If colleges and universities dropped football due to the growing concern over concussions, the disparity between funding for men’s and women’s sports would virtually vanish.
So is the NCAA suppose to transfer the money that Men's Basketball earns to Women's Basketball so they can increase advertising of the support in an attempt to increase viewership and attendance at games?
If the NCAA is trying to be social responsible in their attempt to "equalize" the sport, whatever attempt and means they try will probably not work since attracting fans is the "X factor" in whatever equation the NCAA attempts to formulate..... (And by the way to run the Women's NCAA Basketball tournament parallel with the Men's tournament is a failed plan)...
Like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make the horse drink. So if the NCAA continues to run both tournaments simultaneously, will they limit the broadcast of the Men's games and in an attempt to steer viewership to the Women's games?
So much for freedom of choice.....
If the NCAA is trying to be social responsible in their attempt to "equalize" the sport, whatever attempt and means they try will probably not work since attracting fans is the "X factor" in whatever equation the NCAA attempts to formulate..... (And by the way to run the Women's NCAA Basketball tournament parallel with the Men's tournament is a failed plan)...
Like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make the horse drink. So if the NCAA continues to run both tournaments simultaneously, will they limit the broadcast of the Men's games and in an attempt to steer viewership to the Women's games?
So much for freedom of choice.....
3
It is a biological fact, rooted in evolution over hundreds of thousands of generations of humans and pre-humans, that human females are smaller and less physical than human males. And it is a biological fact, similarly rooted, that human females are more protective of their bodies and less inclined--psychologically and physically--to physical confrontation than are human males. These are not bad things, but rather things that ensured our survival as humans.
But it is as foolish to deny these evolutionary facts as it is to deny the change of seasons. And like it or not, modern competive sports is a theatre of evolutionary brutality. We are wired to want to watch cunning versus brute force, endurance versus pure strength, play out in a field of mock battle to see who--what--prevails. That is what our primeval brain craves. Asking humans to embrace something else simply ignores those eons of evolution.
It's not nice--or profitable--to try to fool mother nature.
But it is as foolish to deny these evolutionary facts as it is to deny the change of seasons. And like it or not, modern competive sports is a theatre of evolutionary brutality. We are wired to want to watch cunning versus brute force, endurance versus pure strength, play out in a field of mock battle to see who--what--prevails. That is what our primeval brain craves. Asking humans to embrace something else simply ignores those eons of evolution.
It's not nice--or profitable--to try to fool mother nature.
3
Here is a thought. When it comes to counting participation, only count those on scholarship. Partial scholarships count as partial participants. You can have 100 women on the crew team but they only count as 100 if they are all on full scholarship. And, yes, they must be women. What we will do about fluid gender I have no idea.
Have females become afflicted with "male envy"? How much respect would a female cop or female soldier receive if she was wearing a dress instead of pants? How much respect would a male cop or male soldier receive if he was wearing a dress instead of pants? Is the females desire to wear male pants a sign of masculine envy? Since most females wear pants most of the time, why do they insist on wearing a dress on their wedding day? Why not wear pants on their wedding day?
Men and women have equal intelligence but not physical strength.
Men and women have equal intelligence but not physical strength.
5
More Liberal nonsense. Women want equality when it is totally undeserved and without merit. The truth is no one cares about women's sports. How many people go out on Friday night to see women play any sport? Answer-NONE. I know the Liberals don't want to acknowledge that mens sports are more popular, but tha'ts the way it is. Is the next article going to lament the fact that WNBA players don't make what NBA players make? Come on.
9
Thank you for your discussion of the inequality in women's basketball. I see by the comments that reason, law, morality and numbers have not convinced the old silverbacks. Note, too, that inequality is justified by the monetization of sport. With your argument you have entered the world of irrationality and hostility women live in every day, not just on game days.
I hope you will persist in writing about the issue.
I hope you will persist in writing about the issue.
3
Colorado State University is a good, or should I say, bad example of this. They are now building a new $220 million (half billion when paid for) football stadium on the academic campus, just 3 miles away from the old one that is in a beautiful location. They are diverting 15 acres of prime land to football. Many assert that football pays for other sports which, at most Division 1 schools is the opposite of truth.
At CSU for example, according to a document from CFO Lynn Johnson's office, FY ending 2014 football lost ~$7 million, M BB $3.3 million, W BB $2 million and $5.7 million for ALL OTHER sports combined - M track field, W track field, M golf, W soccer, W volleyball, W softball, W swimming, W golf (no M swimming) etc etc .
CSU spends less than 30% of the athletics budget on women - not counting facilities. CSU has been out of compliance with Title IX for years. More than half undergraduates are women. Well more than half students of students graduate with avg of $25K of debt.
And now CSU is raising tuition AGAIN - we are #7 in the nation for tuition increases and they are also reducing academic spending. Academics generates the revenue. Football loses it but yet people love to claim that football pays for Title IX sports when the complete opposite is true.
At CSU for example, according to a document from CFO Lynn Johnson's office, FY ending 2014 football lost ~$7 million, M BB $3.3 million, W BB $2 million and $5.7 million for ALL OTHER sports combined - M track field, W track field, M golf, W soccer, W volleyball, W softball, W swimming, W golf (no M swimming) etc etc .
CSU spends less than 30% of the athletics budget on women - not counting facilities. CSU has been out of compliance with Title IX for years. More than half undergraduates are women. Well more than half students of students graduate with avg of $25K of debt.
And now CSU is raising tuition AGAIN - we are #7 in the nation for tuition increases and they are also reducing academic spending. Academics generates the revenue. Football loses it but yet people love to claim that football pays for Title IX sports when the complete opposite is true.
3
Label me insincere if you choose. I find the women's game boring, and I've tried to watch it repeatedly.
My home town paper the Oregonian does a really good job of interspersing articles about the women's and men's basketball games, to the extent that I'll read half-way through an article about, say Oregon State, only to encounter a player's name, which tips me off that I'm reading about the women's game. I immediately stop reading because I simply don't care.
I'm a strong feminist and I'm okay with some level of equal funding (I guess), but this isn't going to change the fundamentals. I'm still not watching women's NCAA basketball. And I went to UConn - even that is not enough.
My home town paper the Oregonian does a really good job of interspersing articles about the women's and men's basketball games, to the extent that I'll read half-way through an article about, say Oregon State, only to encounter a player's name, which tips me off that I'm reading about the women's game. I immediately stop reading because I simply don't care.
I'm a strong feminist and I'm okay with some level of equal funding (I guess), but this isn't going to change the fundamentals. I'm still not watching women's NCAA basketball. And I went to UConn - even that is not enough.
9
Sports has to be considered "entertainment". As such, consumers have lots of choices. Have you ever noticed the small crowds at most of the women's B-Ball games? The same can be said about first round games in the mens NCAA and NIT tournaments. The player's sex has nothing to do with the entertainment value provided, and lets face it, the girls' games typically are not on a par with the men's games from an entertainment standpoint! You can draw the same conclusion for men's baseball, crew, wrestling, volleyball, etc. There are very small crowds at the national championship contests for these male sports. Discrimination?? Hardly!
Let's face it, the biggest bang for the college entertainment dollar are men's basketball and football games and those two programs make all the other college level sports programs possible(male and female).
Let's face it, the biggest bang for the college entertainment dollar are men's basketball and football games and those two programs make all the other college level sports programs possible(male and female).
1
Of course men's sports are more important. They bring in the money, and that's what the NCAA is all about.
2
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the men's tournament is much more important.
2
Maybe, as at least one college has suggested, the NCAA should include a National Cheerleader championship, since a school could really balance their male/female ratios pretty easily and these shows are pretty popular (ie, revenue makers on TV). Or band competitions held at halftime during the various bowl games - more interesting than halftime commentators. Or dance competitions. Yeah, all the above are judged totally subjectively, but they are TV-friendly, and are actually very athletic. (Better than having a 100 member female rowing team to balance out the Title XI sheet....)
Several items need correcting in this article - football scholarships are set at 85 - maybe some big schools get walk-ons, but not 35 or so. Also, men's games ratings are much higher than the equivalent female games, so the athletic dept gets a check for the TV rights (that goes into the general athletic fund for that school), but ESPN (etc) usually barely breaks even with female sports, so there's no check afterwards.
Several items need correcting in this article - football scholarships are set at 85 - maybe some big schools get walk-ons, but not 35 or so. Also, men's games ratings are much higher than the equivalent female games, so the athletic dept gets a check for the TV rights (that goes into the general athletic fund for that school), but ESPN (etc) usually barely breaks even with female sports, so there's no check afterwards.
1
Perhaps you should watch more NCAA women's basketball games. Then you should convince the same number of people who watch the NCAA men's basketball games on TV to watch the NCAA women's games. As that is what drives the NCAA to hand over cash.
But if the American population is not interested in watching NCAA women's basketball, using the government to force them to do anything is morally wrong.
Then again, we should also remove all government rules on taxation for universities - let them be taxed as other business ventures are taxed.
But if the American population is not interested in watching NCAA women's basketball, using the government to force them to do anything is morally wrong.
Then again, we should also remove all government rules on taxation for universities - let them be taxed as other business ventures are taxed.
4
When you change the sport so that the winners are the biggest and baddest thugs on the floor, of course the men's leagues are going to be more important.
That's where the money is.
Want to turn basketball back into a sport? Raise the men's baskets to 16 feet and the women's to 14.
It puts a far bigger premium on skill than brute force.
That's where the money is.
Want to turn basketball back into a sport? Raise the men's baskets to 16 feet and the women's to 14.
It puts a far bigger premium on skill than brute force.
The idea of "student athlete" and the NCAA as promoting "amateur activity with redeeming physical, social and educational value." is a total sham. What matters is the Golden Rule: That which brings in the gold, rules. The Men's NCAA Tournament is now the financial equal of the World Series and the Superbowl, worth billions in revenue.
While I do enjoy college sports, I've long argued that the connection between a good sports program and a good educational institution is non-existent. My undergrad school has always been one of the top public institutions. All that happened when they moved the Men's Basketball from Div III to Div I is they got caught in a cheating scandal and a number of players were expelled and the coach fired--and it hurt the school's reputation.
Div I college sports is a totally exploitative business that pays coaches millions, and gives the players, IF THEY ARE LUCKY, a semi-decent education and a chance at the pros. If not, they are abandoned to their fate, like that homeless UNC football player the Times followed regularly who just died and had CTE.
While I do enjoy college sports, I've long argued that the connection between a good sports program and a good educational institution is non-existent. My undergrad school has always been one of the top public institutions. All that happened when they moved the Men's Basketball from Div III to Div I is they got caught in a cheating scandal and a number of players were expelled and the coach fired--and it hurt the school's reputation.
Div I college sports is a totally exploitative business that pays coaches millions, and gives the players, IF THEY ARE LUCKY, a semi-decent education and a chance at the pros. If not, they are abandoned to their fate, like that homeless UNC football player the Times followed regularly who just died and had CTE.
Suggest you speak to Charles Barkley. I'm paraphrasing his rant against A.A.U. basketball -- "when all the best players are on one team, it's no longer a sport and no one actually learns to play the game properly." This quote applies to NCAA women's basketball (and many other NCAA women's sports) and I actually thought this was the subject of the article. The NCAA has a women's problem alright. It's just that the men aren't to blame on this one...
1
On the other hand, women's gymnastics in the NCAA is highly successful and very popular, with capacity crowds in a number of places like Utah, Georgia, Florida, etc. In fact, women's gymnastics is much more popular than men's gymnastics, with more teams competing. Women's gymnastics in the NCAA is also a model of excellence, with the USA dominating in world competitions. A number of gymnasts have deferred their entry to the NCAA to compete in the Olympics. where the USA is poised to win a number of medals. The first priority in supporting women's sports in the NCAA should be to support success and popularity where it can be found, so keep supporting those gymnastics teams!
3
Follow women's basketball at tourney times and one finds that many media outlets don't even report on scores. Zip. I find this particularly galling when our major Boston paper doesn't follow up on the UConn Lady Huskies, of which we are fans. Maybe late the day after a game. So there is a lot of blame to go around here.
When I was in Storrs a few years ago, I was shocked that no jerseys of the great women players were made or sold. No Bird, Taurasi, Lobo, Moore...but boy were there racks of men' jerseys. I settled for a t-shirt and a jar of Mama Auriemma pasta sauce.
It's all about the money. Millions of people want to watch the men and the women's game is unwatchable by anyone other than friends and family of the players. End of story.
3
Men do not have any innate advantage over women in the classroom. But they do on the athletic courts and fields. When the UConn women's basketball team beats the UConn men's team, or when female basketball players start making the men's team roster (which is perfectly permissible and would be gladly embraced if it would help the hyper-competitive male teams gain an advantage), then we can talk about inequitable treatment. Men's and women's sports teams are treated differently because men and women are physiologically different when it comes to athletic ability. It is the one arena where men have a distinct advantage over women and is why women's sports aren't as popular, and thereby lucrative, as men's.
Wishing it weren't so, and attempting to apply the same equitable standards to athletic endeavors that should be enforced in areas where there is no male advantage would be ludicrous and unfair.
Wishing it weren't so, and attempting to apply the same equitable standards to athletic endeavors that should be enforced in areas where there is no male advantage would be ludicrous and unfair.
3
The U.S. is unique in having high schools and universities host serious sports programs. What does serious sports have to do with the mission of a university? The NCAA should just be eliminated altogether.
1
Let's start with the premise: the money teams receive from the NCAA tournament doesn't go to fund exclusively that one activity, it goes to the school where it is spent on other athletic programs, mostly women's teams. Men's sports subsidize women's sports. From NCAA's web site, with the exception of women's basketball, which makes a small profit, all other women's teams lose money, as do most men's teams besides football and basketball. What we have with the NCAA, is a plantation where young, mostly black, men compete in a professional sports league for free to subsidize wealthy white women so that they can get scholarships to bowl and row.
The article's statistics are misleading. The truth is that colleges could care less about men's sports outside of the two that make money and would be perfectly happy to have more women on teams to avoid title IX lawsuits. Go to any college web site and you will find, mostly, women's sports outnumbering men's, sometimes 2 to 1. The problem is that women are not as interested in sports as men, full stop. So universities have cut men's sports such as wrestling and gymnastics and added women's archery, rowing and bowling, all sports where it is easy to recruit walk-ons to pad rosters. It's actually bad for women who lack scholarships and funding for activities they themselves want to do. An effort to declare Cheer a sport was scuttled by gender activists because they, the activists, decided that women should play 'real' sports.
The article's statistics are misleading. The truth is that colleges could care less about men's sports outside of the two that make money and would be perfectly happy to have more women on teams to avoid title IX lawsuits. Go to any college web site and you will find, mostly, women's sports outnumbering men's, sometimes 2 to 1. The problem is that women are not as interested in sports as men, full stop. So universities have cut men's sports such as wrestling and gymnastics and added women's archery, rowing and bowling, all sports where it is easy to recruit walk-ons to pad rosters. It's actually bad for women who lack scholarships and funding for activities they themselves want to do. An effort to declare Cheer a sport was scuttled by gender activists because they, the activists, decided that women should play 'real' sports.
4
Aside from the fact that the NCAA no longer does what it was designed to do, if they put a fraction of the money into women's sport that they do into promoting men's sport, the women would have commensurate viewership and generate commensurate revenue. As it stands now, the paltry sums, if any, the women's side sees makes it a virtual miracle that they do as well as they do now.
1
This article does a great job of discussing the need for reform in collegiate athletics, both in the way money is distributed within sports, and in the preferential financial treatment these sports receive from both the state and federal government.
However, because the system is so crooked, making the needed reforms would probably spell the end of big-money competitive collegiate athletics. And to that I say: it's about time. Sports fetishism warps the academic missions of colleges and universities. There is a lot of concern today about the value of a college degree after graduation; going to a school which is nothing football or basketball program with a college sloppily attached to it threatens the value of that degree. The degree is supposed to mean that you've learned how to do something worthwhile in the world, not that you've learned how to buy jerseys to fund an unaccountable for-profit enterprise so you can cheer on the home team from tax-deferred, state-subsidized seats.
However, because the system is so crooked, making the needed reforms would probably spell the end of big-money competitive collegiate athletics. And to that I say: it's about time. Sports fetishism warps the academic missions of colleges and universities. There is a lot of concern today about the value of a college degree after graduation; going to a school which is nothing football or basketball program with a college sloppily attached to it threatens the value of that degree. The degree is supposed to mean that you've learned how to do something worthwhile in the world, not that you've learned how to buy jerseys to fund an unaccountable for-profit enterprise so you can cheer on the home team from tax-deferred, state-subsidized seats.
1
How many female collegiate athletes have been accused of any criminality? That is a statistic that the NCAA complete ignores when it comes to the men's versus women's athletic programs. Perhaps if we had more women being accused of wrongdoings the NCAA would give them more money?
1
Everyone knows big time college sports as overseen by the NCAA has nothing to do with the educational mission of colleges and universities. It is business, pure and simple. Let's eliminate all athletic scholarships for a start. (Note that no network showed the finals of the NCAA women's hockey championship. Congratulations MInnesota!)
1
Meanwhile, how many people even know that there are actually championships in other sports also being contested this weekend? Ice Hockey? Men's Swimming? No madness, except for the athletes, their families, and friends.
Most of the abuses in collegiate sport occur in football and men's basketball. They have our attention and shape the policies. While true amateur athletes compete for glory away from the bright lights.
Most of the abuses in collegiate sport occur in football and men's basketball. They have our attention and shape the policies. While true amateur athletes compete for glory away from the bright lights.
1
This is about economics. Although Title IX is clear on its definition of fairness in funding, coaches’ salaries, etc., the reality is that game attendance and television ratings rule. In mandating funding equality, high school and college athletic programs have struggled to maintain balanced budgets, with many universities posting deficits.
Add the facilities wars between schools and the burden of balanced budgets enters the equation.
My point is while we may want to have equal funding it isn't always possible. In fact, as much as many of us agree that there is a need for equitable financing, it simply isn't reality. We live in a society where, with the exception of governmental agencies, balanced budgets are definitive.
And if the resources aren't available, market forces close the door on fairness.
Add the facilities wars between schools and the burden of balanced budgets enters the equation.
My point is while we may want to have equal funding it isn't always possible. In fact, as much as many of us agree that there is a need for equitable financing, it simply isn't reality. We live in a society where, with the exception of governmental agencies, balanced budgets are definitive.
And if the resources aren't available, market forces close the door on fairness.
1
I do not believe that professional athletics should have a place in collegiate sports. While the athletes are not being paid, the colleges, coaches and athletic directors are making money big time. The money is going to them, not the players. You should be better off demanding that college athletics return amateurism rather than demanding that women teams be treated professionally.
2
There's a big difference between equal opportunity and equal outcomes. I don't think we can deny that women have an equal opportunity to play most sports in a women's league.
But this is still an economy, and consumers are going to pay more to see a better game. When it comes to that, I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb here to say that UCONN's storied women's teams of the past decade would likely lose if they played UCONN's men's team. Fans will pay more money and pay more attention to the better team.
If women want to change this dynamic, they are going to have to take the next step towards equality and compete directly with (and against) the men.
Tangential point: The unequal treatment in our institutions of higher education that America would do better to focus on is whether all Americans are getting an equal shot at an affordable higher education, and whether that education has rigor and value to creating informed and employed citizens. That would provide more opportunity and better outcomes to far more people in things that matter, like their actual lives.
But this is still an economy, and consumers are going to pay more to see a better game. When it comes to that, I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb here to say that UCONN's storied women's teams of the past decade would likely lose if they played UCONN's men's team. Fans will pay more money and pay more attention to the better team.
If women want to change this dynamic, they are going to have to take the next step towards equality and compete directly with (and against) the men.
Tangential point: The unequal treatment in our institutions of higher education that America would do better to focus on is whether all Americans are getting an equal shot at an affordable higher education, and whether that education has rigor and value to creating informed and employed citizens. That would provide more opportunity and better outcomes to far more people in things that matter, like their actual lives.
4
The reality is that mens sports are more important in that is where the audience is and where the money comes from. I say this as the father of two daughters that were both excellent college athletes at the Univ. of Virginia and Georgia.
1
So, for example, if you go to the NCAA BB Schedules and Results tab in the New York Times, Men's College Basketball comes up. To get the Women's score, you have to click on the Men's tab, which will send you to the Men's scores and then on the far right it says "Women's" in small point size and finally click on that and you can get the women's scores! Thanks a lot! The NCAA is not the only one who has a problem. Go Huskies!
2
You can bet that if NBC, CBS, ABC, ESPN, et al, could make a lot of money on broadcasting women's sports, they'd be paying big bucks for the rights. The reason why is that no one cares to watch them. This is borne out by the low attendance and viewership numbers. Which leads to less advertising, which leads to lower dollars for the networks. It's really simple economics, notwithstanding popular social agendas.
5
Last year, the Women’s Final Four attracted about 5.2 million viewers while the Men’s Final Four attracted about 54 million viewers. Title IX ensures women have equal opportunity to compete in athletics, but it doesn’t ensure women’s teams will generate as much revenue as men’s teams. The reason is that the Title IX can’t regulate fan behavior, and fan behavior determines ticket and advertising revenue. The Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics Data shows that during its 2014-2015 championship season, the Connecticut women’s basketball team generated $3,991,215 in total revenue while reporting $6,658,516 in operating expenses for a net loss of $2,667,301. The Connecticut men’s basketball team finished 20–15 and didn’t make the NCAA Tournament, but they made $9,572,964 in total revenue against operating expenses of $8,569,846 for a net profit of $1,003,118. The reason that more fans prefer watch men’s basketball than women’s basketball is that the men’s game is more exciting because the skill level is much higher. If the goal in college sports is equal opportunity to participate, while do differences in revenue matter?
3
Men's sports are more important. Repeat after me -- men's sports are more important. Why is that so hard to get???
1
Better a 120 member woman's rowing teams than eliminating all non revenue men's sports.
I think we should also consider that any men's sport that generate money are also full of fraud, drug and otherwise. How couldn't it be? There is too much money to be made.
I don't follow men's basketball and football because these educational institutions use these players as their pawns. And don't tell me that these players are lucky and get an education, because we know that isn't true, particularly with male athletes in the sports that generate revenue. I won't even mention concussions associated with football.
All of the men's hot mess adversely impacts women's collegiate sports, which are probably the most pristine athletic endeavors around.
I don't follow men's basketball and football because these educational institutions use these players as their pawns. And don't tell me that these players are lucky and get an education, because we know that isn't true, particularly with male athletes in the sports that generate revenue. I won't even mention concussions associated with football.
All of the men's hot mess adversely impacts women's collegiate sports, which are probably the most pristine athletic endeavors around.
2
I certainly agree with the premise that there should be equal opportunity and support for men's and women's intercollegiate sports. What is not clear in this analysis is exactly what the institution's with revenue-generating men's programs (both basketball and football) do with that revenue generated. My suspicion is that it is used to support ALL if the non-revenue generating sports - including women's programs. It is true that the fact that the Women's NCAA tournament doesn't appear to turn a profit (enough to pay participating women's schools) is suspicious. One must, however dig deeper to understand if this is truely the case (e.g. fees for broadcast rights, ticket sales, all related expenses etc.). An analysis such as this might in fact find that the NCAA is hoarding revenue - for both women's and men's sports.
Viewership for men's basketball is superior, as is the talent of the male players. Same goes for hockey for that measure. Title IX insured an equal number of scholrships, that does not equate to equal levels of fan interest. It is beyond the pale to suggest that sexism is preventing equal viewership, it is the talent level that drives it. The WNBA is a ward of the NBA for the same reason. Dispense with the constant braying about sexism, Title IX has given women equal athletic opportunities despite the devided difference in talent, major media and fan interest.
2
So, your point is that women's NCAA basketball should be just as corrupted by big money as men's basketball and football? Equal financial corruption?
The NCAA has grown into a gigantic entertainment industry that undermines the idea of a university. Weekends on many college campuses resemble the drunken carnivals and circuses of the medieval and ancient eras. The partying is subsidized by the taxpayers.
Women's sports programs have expanded because of Title IX, but sports fans don't eat mountains of chicken wings and drink barrels of beer watching women's sports. Here in Louisville the women's teams often play in nearly empty arenas despite the university giving away thousands of tickets.
Women's sports programs have expanded because of Title IX, but sports fans don't eat mountains of chicken wings and drink barrels of beer watching women's sports. Here in Louisville the women's teams often play in nearly empty arenas despite the university giving away thousands of tickets.
1
How telling is it that when the University of MN won the NCAA Women's hockey championship last week they were given hats with the men's Frozen Four logo on them? See Twitter for the ladies reactions.
3
To a certain degree Title 9 has done it's job, there are many more opportunities for women to participate in sports. And women's sports are always increasing in profile and interest, they are not as popular as the men. The real problem is that the NCAA and administrators at the schools only look at the athlete as an income producer whether they are male or female. The men carry the financial burden until they can't play and then they are tossed to the side. The women produce small amounts of cash, so are treated poorly all the time.
The real problem is the NCAA and the administrators who only care to line there own pockets at the expense of all students. The NCAA should be abolished as the out of control, unfair, antiquated bureaucracy that it is and replaced by one the doesn't look at the students as fodder. When that is done maybe the women will have even more opportunity to grow.
The real problem is the NCAA and the administrators who only care to line there own pockets at the expense of all students. The NCAA should be abolished as the out of control, unfair, antiquated bureaucracy that it is and replaced by one the doesn't look at the students as fodder. When that is done maybe the women will have even more opportunity to grow.
2
The real solution to all of these NCAA articles, is removing Division I athletics from universities. Set them up as semi-pro leagues, get educational institutions out of this mess and get them back into what they should be doing---TEACHING.
2
Forgetting for the moment whether sports and money should be such an important aspect of college, "equal pay for men and women" is absurd. There is just no comparison, in any sport, between men and women. It is just biological; men are stronger, bigger and faster. That is why men's sports draw bigger crowds and generate more revenue. Women's NCAA basketball should receive some financial reward, but not at the same level of men's basketball. Men and women are equal (in the eyes of the law), but they are also different. Until we recognize this, we will continue to argue over salaries and payments to men and women in sports.
2
Misogyny is the among the least of the NCAA's problems. The NCAA is voluntary servitude to a corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare caste. A bunch of scavengers and parasites. NCAA sports fans determine the worth of the payers and the players.
1
The NCAA ignores the Women's game because there is no money in it. At least not as much as the Men's. They have turned football into the NFL farm system, and seek to to the same with basketball. As such, male athletes represent a marketable product to be exploited to the benefit of the "Universities" and the NCAA. Most men never graduate (or if they do, with a worthless degree)and no professional career.
The Women, on the other hand, play high level ball and graduate at high levels. True scholar athletes.
The Women, on the other hand, play high level ball and graduate at high levels. True scholar athletes.
1
On the writers point that women's basketball generates positive revenue, but the NCAA doesn't payout. If that were true, the money would go to the school, not the women themselves. So the women are not hurt in anyway by the university's failure to demand this supposed unclaimed windfall from the NCAA. And why would the schools not demand a share of this cash if it was really there? Oh right, they don't want money if it comes from women's sports because the universities like funding all these revenue draining teams themselves. The professor's argument sadly fails on so many levels. Go to the back of the class professor
5
"The N.C.A.A. also doesn’t protest when its member schools engage in the counting chicanery — unfortunately permissible under federal guidelines — that overstates their numbers of female athletes. Male basketball players who practice with a women’s team can be counted as female athletes."
Can we have a citation on this? I can't believe the NYT would allow such nonsense.
Can we have a citation on this? I can't believe the NYT would allow such nonsense.
1
Team sports are refined versions of military battle, historically carried out by...males. They have evolved into vicarious male identification events. It is unfortunate but not surprising that similar female events do not inspire the same kind of identity attachment. My grandmother would say that "this is what we are put on earth to rise above"...but we ain't there yet.
3
As a former collegiate coach (1976-1999) who finally took legal action to try to receive a salary equal to my male counterpart, and full scholarship and financial support for my team, I won the battle and lost the war, being retaliated against for several years until they could get away with firing me and my career was destroyed. The administration was terrified that if they paid me an equal salary it would set a precedent that the women's basketball coach would have to receive a salary equal to her male counterpart, even though the men's program was highly successful and the women's program was not.
I have believed all along that a bonus structure, which many colleges employ really can solve these issues because a successful coach can earn a hefty bonus for success each season above a base salary that is equal for men and women. It also needs to be pointed out that when an athletic program receives NCAA funds and conference funds these funds benefit all teams.
I believe that Professor Zimbalist does not have a clear understanding of current issues that truly impact women's sports. You cannot force people to watch women's basketball and the money being brought in through TV revenues from men's sports has helped women's teams and coaches enormously.
I have believed all along that a bonus structure, which many colleges employ really can solve these issues because a successful coach can earn a hefty bonus for success each season above a base salary that is equal for men and women. It also needs to be pointed out that when an athletic program receives NCAA funds and conference funds these funds benefit all teams.
I believe that Professor Zimbalist does not have a clear understanding of current issues that truly impact women's sports. You cannot force people to watch women's basketball and the money being brought in through TV revenues from men's sports has helped women's teams and coaches enormously.
1
The NYT sports section "SCHEDULE AND RESULTS" box doesn't even provide a tab for Women's results. And IT'S march madness time!!! Give me a break.
I'd love to know the results of the teams that our beloved CT huskies will soon face.
Hypocrisy on a major scale, what else is new?
I'd love to know the results of the teams that our beloved CT huskies will soon face.
Hypocrisy on a major scale, what else is new?
"The N.C.A.A. also doesn’t protest when its member schools engage in the counting chicanery — unfortunately permissible under federal guidelines — that overstates their numbers of female athletes. Male basketball players who practice with a women’s team can be counted as female athletes."
Do the male basketball players use the female restrooms with the other members of the team or is the choice of facilities left to each of these trangender student-athletes to decide?
Do the male basketball players use the female restrooms with the other members of the team or is the choice of facilities left to each of these trangender student-athletes to decide?
3
The purpose of Title iX is to allow equal opportunity. It is not to mandate interest. Men's sports generate more revenue then women's sports because, fair or not, more people are interested in watching it. Likewise, Men's basketball generates more interest and revenue then men's hockey. That's life. yYu can't expect the law to dictate what people like to watch.
3
This is silly. There are only a small number of people who watch women's basketball. It's nice that the colleges have teams, but the sport is simply not competitive with men's basketball. It's slower, the players aren't as good.
Sure, the U Conn women's team is great -- when competing against women. But do you seriously think that they could beat any of the men's teams? I mean any college men's team. Do you think any of the U Conn women could make the men's team? Do you think anyone would watch college basketball teams composed of guys who were 6 feet and under -- or too slow to make the real men's team? Don't think so.
There are some women's sports that are entertaining. Volleyball, swimming, tennis, swim suit competitions. And I'll admit it possible that a really good female softball pitcher could probably strike out a lot of good male hitters. And women's track ain't bad.
But could any of these stand on their own? Would anyone attend an all female Olympic games?
I'm all for fairness, but in all fairness, women can't compete in athletics at the same level as men -- the best women athletes cannot beat the best men -- or male athletes who are essentially journeymen. So they shouldn't expect to draw the same crowds or get the same rewards. Nor should colleges, fans, TV networks, etc be forced to indulge progressive fantasies. Yes, let's have women's sports in college -- but don't whine when people don't follow women at the same level they do men.
Sure, the U Conn women's team is great -- when competing against women. But do you seriously think that they could beat any of the men's teams? I mean any college men's team. Do you think any of the U Conn women could make the men's team? Do you think anyone would watch college basketball teams composed of guys who were 6 feet and under -- or too slow to make the real men's team? Don't think so.
There are some women's sports that are entertaining. Volleyball, swimming, tennis, swim suit competitions. And I'll admit it possible that a really good female softball pitcher could probably strike out a lot of good male hitters. And women's track ain't bad.
But could any of these stand on their own? Would anyone attend an all female Olympic games?
I'm all for fairness, but in all fairness, women can't compete in athletics at the same level as men -- the best women athletes cannot beat the best men -- or male athletes who are essentially journeymen. So they shouldn't expect to draw the same crowds or get the same rewards. Nor should colleges, fans, TV networks, etc be forced to indulge progressive fantasies. Yes, let's have women's sports in college -- but don't whine when people don't follow women at the same level they do men.
3
I remember the first time my wife, who is from a foreign country, saw a college basketball game on TV. She said quite innocently, "They don't look like college students." referring of course to the players. This short sentence captured the fraud that is college sports, where so many student-athletes earn a free ride through college based on their sports abilities rather than their academic abilities, while real college students rack up enormous debts that they'll spend decades paying off. It's unfortunate that America doesn't care at all about the value of a college education except as a money-making venture in the entertainmentindustry
As a rabid UConn fan, I can attest to the indifference towards women's college basketball. There's a bar on the East Side that is home base for UConn fans where I have been watching the women (I don't have a TV). When I saw the UConn defeat USF for the American Conference championship, I was the only one watching in a virtually empty bar. When I watched the UConn men defeat Temple in the semis of the same tournament, the bar was packed to overflowing with screaming fans. I agree with the author's point, but unfortunately the NCAA is merely reflecting a bias that is much larger than that body. It's a terrible shame, because potential audiences are depriving themselves of some extraordinary athletic achievements, most particularly by Breanna Stewart, possibly the best women's college basketball player ever. I intend to follow her, BTW, into the WNBA, where she's expected to be the #1 draft pick.
1
The NCAA men's basketball tournament is a terrific show, but why aren't the women shown and discussed on national TV (other than the pay to view ESPN)? I've wondered about that for a while, and about the disparity at the professional level as well. In fact, the women's game is equally as entertaining as the men's game, and more down to earth if only because the women are more "normal" sized than men (which is not to say they aren't tall, just not as gargantuan). It says a lot that, at the professional level, Diana Taurasi is not playing in the WNBA because she's underpaid for her skills.
1
Go UConn, indeed - the UConn Women. This team isn't only incredibly successful on the court, the women actually graduate from college and go on to successful lives in sport and other endeavors. The fact the NCAA so thoroughly devalues this sport is incomprehensible. Isn't this the National COLLEGIATE AA? Or should it better be termed the National CORPORATE AA? Take a page from tennis, NCAA chiefs. It's the 21st century and women deserve - and have earned - equal compensation.
2
Of the dozens of women's and men's sports offered at large colleges, only two make money -- men's basketball and men's football. Even with 40 years of Title IX, that fact hasn't changed. Actually, men's basketball and men's football have swelled in revenue while the team with the greatest record -- UConn women's basketball can't even sell out the gym on their own campus. Life is unfair.
2
The last thing the women's game needs is the same money and corruption, the same culture of 'anything goes' that the men's game has. The men's game has prostituted academic standards, behavioral standards and in many ways decency to the pursuit of money. The answer should be to roll back the men's games of football and basketball to something more reasonably resembling other, amateur college sport - cap coaches salaries at no more than the college president makes for instance, enforce academic standards equal to non-athletes, institute and follow a code of conduct, integrate athletes with non-athletes in housing, etc. Please do not corrupt the women's game in the name of 'equality' with the culture that has grown up in the men's game in the service of obscene amounts of money.
1
It's who sells tickets, gets TV ratings, TV contracts, and gets alumni donations.
America pays for violence, and the woman's games are not as brutal.
Collegiate athletics in division one schools are a business. A big business.
Brilliant women's teams do not pack the house every night.
The Huskies record is because the talent isn't there on the other side.
America pays for violence, and the woman's games are not as brutal.
Collegiate athletics in division one schools are a business. A big business.
Brilliant women's teams do not pack the house every night.
The Huskies record is because the talent isn't there on the other side.
1
I'm not surprised the writer is a college professor at a liberal eastern school. This is the same crowd that gave us " microagressions" to whine about. Folks watch ( and pay for ) what they find entertaining. Even Title IX can't make women basketball entertaining
3
Real equality would be to allow women and men to play in the same tournament. Separate but equal never works.
Men's sports, especially football and basketball bring in more money. Period. Liberalism means that no matter what, make both sexes equal. You cannot make both sports interesting when men's sports are so much better. The plain truth is that men are simply more talented and hence more desired to watch than women. To the ladies: Enjoy the free ride you get with Title IX.
1
Why separate sports by gender at all? Is that done in other areas of academia? Is that the rule for university bands or research centers? Gender is an artificial constraint, according to current theory. If the goal is equality why not have one team? Women's basketball often appears as an inferior product, similar to a men's game when all players taller than six-feet are prohibited. Why not we just let the best compete, regardless of gender.
2
I live in Connecticut. Though I'm not much a fan of women's basketball, many of the people in my world are huge followers of the UCONN women. Many would never miss a game.
But with 71 consecutive wins (think about that for a moment), its hard to get jazzed up for the next ho-hum non-competitive thrashing that UCONN hands out week after week.
How cool would it be to watch the Red Sox play after winning 300 straight games, most of them by ten runs? Even at the height of the Tiger Woods era back in his prime, he still only won less than a quarter of the PGA tour events.
It may be argued that UCONN Women's Basketball has put the sport on the map. I think that's a fair point.
But sports is about a lot of things and pure competition is at the top of the list. Well matched competition creates the uncertainty that keeps us glued to the action.
If NCAA women's basketball is to grow and attract more interest (and viewership) nationally, it needs to find a way to level the playing field, create a legitimate competitive identity and, frankly, make the sport more interesting.
But with 71 consecutive wins (think about that for a moment), its hard to get jazzed up for the next ho-hum non-competitive thrashing that UCONN hands out week after week.
How cool would it be to watch the Red Sox play after winning 300 straight games, most of them by ten runs? Even at the height of the Tiger Woods era back in his prime, he still only won less than a quarter of the PGA tour events.
It may be argued that UCONN Women's Basketball has put the sport on the map. I think that's a fair point.
But sports is about a lot of things and pure competition is at the top of the list. Well matched competition creates the uncertainty that keeps us glued to the action.
If NCAA women's basketball is to grow and attract more interest (and viewership) nationally, it needs to find a way to level the playing field, create a legitimate competitive identity and, frankly, make the sport more interesting.
3
This is a crucially important set of revelations about the chasm which Title IX was initiated to cross...45 years ago! To say that the advances have been significant is true, but verges on trite in light of the immense vested economic interests and deeply ingrained patriarchy (there, I said it) still comfortably in place in North American collegiate sports.
And so...this morning (Saturday, March 26) I can readily find the D1 men's tournament results from last night on the Times Home Page. For the D1 women's results from last night...well, you need to use the search function.
Still searching for parity...
And so...this morning (Saturday, March 26) I can readily find the D1 men's tournament results from last night on the Times Home Page. For the D1 women's results from last night...well, you need to use the search function.
Still searching for parity...
14
The author leaves out one detail: women aren't nearly as good at basketball as men, thus women's basketball is not nearly as big a public draw, and this women's basketball makes no money overall, none. In fact, it is a net cost for schools.
Also, how can 57% of students attending college be female? Shouldn't the number be limited to 50% under title ix...
Also, how can 57% of students attending college be female? Shouldn't the number be limited to 50% under title ix...
2
Let's just put an end to the "separate but equal" (or not) debates and have one team at each school comprised of the best players, male or female. Woman simply must have the right to demonstrate that they can compete on an equal footing with men.
1
Try thinking of it this way. In high school, girls have higher participation rates in virtually every extra curricular activity but sport--art, drama, band, dance, student government, etc. Thus, girls' leisure activities are more highly funded than boys. In universities, they are 60% of all students, so, again, their leisure activities, other than sport, are more highly funded than guys. Sport is the exception.
2
We need to end this silliness by just having one tournament. No more men's or women's tournaments. Just one tournament for all teams.
ESPN broadcasts the women's games - and presumably pays the NCAA for the privilege. Where does that money go to, if not to the womens' programs?
WOMEN Outrank men in many vital areas at the university level. There are more women than men. Those women are more successful than men academically. They're also emerging from college to pursue advanced training and careers in medicine, law and other prestigious professions. If athletics were funded by a formula containing the metrics of the number on campus, the grade point averages and the postgraduate work, women would get lots more money than men. In a fair world that is. But who ever claimed that life on the planet Earth is fair? So let's hope that women turn out in strong numbers to carry Hillary to the White House. We already now that she'll advocate for women.
1
Really? A story about the NCAA saying it is not about the best interest of the students? Really?
1
I have watched college women play basketball for more than 20 years and hve watched about 5 men's games. The women play a cooperative team game that makes eminent sense. The men play individually and their teams suffer for it. The men's game should be altered by raising the hoop to disable dunking so that scoring is based on talent rather than on sheer size. Irrespective of these considerations, women should share equally in whatever largesse is available.
Title IX killed the men's baseball team, the men's wrestling team and the men's soccer team (no money in any of those either) now you want to take a swing at men's basketball? Nice.
4
This is a superb and important piece. The profound discrimination against women's collegiate sports is breathtaking. By way of a small example, which may not really be that small: Yahoo Sports, the popular sports app, provides many scores for many sports teams--and none of them for women's teams. No NCAA women's brackets. Nothing.
The sexism this reflects starts in childhood, with the far greater importance and financial commitment attached to little boys' sports activities. We need to change it. indeed, collegiate women's sports are far closer to the amateur ideal than men's. After all, the women cannot use college sports as a platform for launching professional careers as athletes. There are none.
The sexism this reflects starts in childhood, with the far greater importance and financial commitment attached to little boys' sports activities. We need to change it. indeed, collegiate women's sports are far closer to the amateur ideal than men's. After all, the women cannot use college sports as a platform for launching professional careers as athletes. There are none.
While the author outlines some serious concerns and issues related to gender equality as it pertains to athletics, the beginning of the piece ultimately falls flat as it relates to the NCAA's women problem.
That the success of the UConn women is going largely unnoticed is not necessarily the NCAA's problem. The NCAA can't force society at large to pay more attention to women's basketball any more than they can force society at large to pay attention to men's Division III basketball. The forces that cause the success of the women's team to go largely ignored run far deeper than the NCAA.
And while I agree that money and compensation have spun wildly out of control in Division I men's college basketball and football (especially the salaries of the head coaches at the upper echelon teams), the fact of the matter is that revenue generated by the NCAA men's tournament helps pay for and support the so-called olympic sports (or non-revenue generating) for both males and females.
That a win by the men's team in the NCAA tournament is worth significantly more revenue for a conference than a win by the women's team in the NCAA tournament is of little concern to me. How that money is distributed to the athletic programs once it makes its way to schools, however, is an entirely different matter and one that is of potentially great concern.
(I write this as a former NCAA DI athlete whose program was cut due to lack of funding.)
That the success of the UConn women is going largely unnoticed is not necessarily the NCAA's problem. The NCAA can't force society at large to pay more attention to women's basketball any more than they can force society at large to pay attention to men's Division III basketball. The forces that cause the success of the women's team to go largely ignored run far deeper than the NCAA.
And while I agree that money and compensation have spun wildly out of control in Division I men's college basketball and football (especially the salaries of the head coaches at the upper echelon teams), the fact of the matter is that revenue generated by the NCAA men's tournament helps pay for and support the so-called olympic sports (or non-revenue generating) for both males and females.
That a win by the men's team in the NCAA tournament is worth significantly more revenue for a conference than a win by the women's team in the NCAA tournament is of little concern to me. How that money is distributed to the athletic programs once it makes its way to schools, however, is an entirely different matter and one that is of potentially great concern.
(I write this as a former NCAA DI athlete whose program was cut due to lack of funding.)
2
Of course it's less significant. This PC obsession of trying to convince one and all that women's sports are as compelling, exciting and athletically talented as the men's game is ridiculous. Boy's high school basketball is more exciting and significant to watch than the women's game at any level.
5
I'm mostly with Professor Zimbalist, until he gets to the part about the Women's tournament "sells out many games."
I watched last night as two #1 seeds fell before pitifully sparse crowds, South Carolina in Sioux Falls (really?, Frostbite Falls wasn't available?) and Notre Dame in Lexington, KY, a reasonable drive from South Bend.
I would guarantee that the overwhelming majority of sellouts are in the first two rounds when the games are on the campuses of top seeded teams, and then (maybe) the Final Four. That home court advantage, long lamented by the teams without it, is far less significant than it used to be. Washington just came off of beating Maryland on their home court, then Kentucky on theirs.
I'm a big fan, and the father of daughters, one of whom swam D-III, the other who officiated D-III swimming. But Zimbalist weakens his argument by positing many sellouts.
I watched last night as two #1 seeds fell before pitifully sparse crowds, South Carolina in Sioux Falls (really?, Frostbite Falls wasn't available?) and Notre Dame in Lexington, KY, a reasonable drive from South Bend.
I would guarantee that the overwhelming majority of sellouts are in the first two rounds when the games are on the campuses of top seeded teams, and then (maybe) the Final Four. That home court advantage, long lamented by the teams without it, is far less significant than it used to be. Washington just came off of beating Maryland on their home court, then Kentucky on theirs.
I'm a big fan, and the father of daughters, one of whom swam D-III, the other who officiated D-III swimming. But Zimbalist weakens his argument by positing many sellouts.
2
The escalating monetization of collegiate sports, particularly men's, has infiltrated basketball and football. Nike, Under Armor and Adidas have not yet made it to the team jerseys - just one step away with prominent placement on player shooting shirts. The financial formula for tourney wins sets up the contradictory incentives due to large purses, not to mention the bonus structures of their coaching staffs for surviving and advancing. The benefactors = networks, the NCAA, conferences and the coaches.
UConn's women's basketball team has a 100% graduation rate while their male counterparts boast 20%, the lowest in the NCAA tournament. The South Carolina women's basketball team, until last night, may have received the most significant coverage at the ESPN desk as they have the greatest chance of knocking off the successful women Huskies. Somehow their 53% graduation rate never came up in the analysis. This is collegiate athletics...let's celebrate the student-athlete and programs that do it right.
Source: Keeping Score When It Counts: Graduation Success and Academic Progress for the 2016 NCAA Division I Men's and Women's Basketball Tournament Teams, The Institute for Ethics & Diversity in Sports, UCF, March 2016
UConn's women's basketball team has a 100% graduation rate while their male counterparts boast 20%, the lowest in the NCAA tournament. The South Carolina women's basketball team, until last night, may have received the most significant coverage at the ESPN desk as they have the greatest chance of knocking off the successful women Huskies. Somehow their 53% graduation rate never came up in the analysis. This is collegiate athletics...let's celebrate the student-athlete and programs that do it right.
Source: Keeping Score When It Counts: Graduation Success and Academic Progress for the 2016 NCAA Division I Men's and Women's Basketball Tournament Teams, The Institute for Ethics & Diversity in Sports, UCF, March 2016
1
"That sends a strong signal that the women’s tournament is less significant and less worthy than the men’s"...
The thing is - it's not the NCAA sending that signal... it's the MARKET! (In the form of $$$ for television rights, tickets, and corporate sponsorships)
Yes, the NCAA women's tournament generates revenue but the author is at best guessing in implying it actually turns a profit and at worst flat out making it up. Yes, tournament games are broadcast by ESPN but the average attendance at the 16 sites was ~4500 (http://www.thestate.com/sports/college/university-of-south-carolina/usc-... So if they're selling out many games they're playing them in comparatively tiny venues. Even the largest and most successful women's basketball programs lose an average of more than $2M a year - a shortfall in many cases no doubt paid out of the revenues from the school's men's football and basketball programs.
I'm all for the women's teams being rewarded for their victories - but those rewards should be commensurate with the 'signals' sent by the market same as the men - not as calculated by busy-body Title IX bureaucrats in Washington DC and some obscure economics professor at a small liberal arts college for women in Massachusetts.
The thing is - it's not the NCAA sending that signal... it's the MARKET! (In the form of $$$ for television rights, tickets, and corporate sponsorships)
Yes, the NCAA women's tournament generates revenue but the author is at best guessing in implying it actually turns a profit and at worst flat out making it up. Yes, tournament games are broadcast by ESPN but the average attendance at the 16 sites was ~4500 (http://www.thestate.com/sports/college/university-of-south-carolina/usc-... So if they're selling out many games they're playing them in comparatively tiny venues. Even the largest and most successful women's basketball programs lose an average of more than $2M a year - a shortfall in many cases no doubt paid out of the revenues from the school's men's football and basketball programs.
I'm all for the women's teams being rewarded for their victories - but those rewards should be commensurate with the 'signals' sent by the market same as the men - not as calculated by busy-body Title IX bureaucrats in Washington DC and some obscure economics professor at a small liberal arts college for women in Massachusetts.
3
When I examined 2007-08 federal data, I discovered that women's basketball proved especially expensive, with only the national champion (UConn) reporting positive earnings among the final top 25 teams. The other top teams racked up losses totaling $38 million.
The Equity in Athletics Act assumes that providing women an equal opportunity in athletics means providing them an intercollegiate team. But perhaps intercollegiate sports is a highly expensive and inneficient way to provide athletic opportunities for students when the sports teams lose money.
For those interested in the data, see:
http://john-martens.com/universities/college_sports_by_the_numbers.html
http://john-martens.com/universities/financing_sports.pdf
The Equity in Athletics Act assumes that providing women an equal opportunity in athletics means providing them an intercollegiate team. But perhaps intercollegiate sports is a highly expensive and inneficient way to provide athletic opportunities for students when the sports teams lose money.
For those interested in the data, see:
http://john-martens.com/universities/college_sports_by_the_numbers.html
http://john-martens.com/universities/financing_sports.pdf
3
I haven't watched the Men's NCAA Basketball series in years. But I watch the NCAA Women's Series religiously, year after year.
Why? The NCAA men are simply warming up for the NBA...the play long ago degenerated into "star selfishness and grandstanding." The Women demonstrate real team play and sportsmanship. College ball is about amateur athletics at its most highly refined level...not just more of our national malaise of thinking money is the only measure of success. I can't imagine ho I could care less about the Men's NCAA Tournament.
Why? The NCAA men are simply warming up for the NBA...the play long ago degenerated into "star selfishness and grandstanding." The Women demonstrate real team play and sportsmanship. College ball is about amateur athletics at its most highly refined level...not just more of our national malaise of thinking money is the only measure of success. I can't imagine ho I could care less about the Men's NCAA Tournament.
Yes, money does indeed make the men's tournament games - or any regular season games - more profitable, thus more important. It has always been this way.
The Times and the sliver of American liberalism that it represents simply have to decide if it can live with this difference between the sexes, or not. When/if the NCAA gets a competitive swimming suit competition going, the women will undoubtedly lead the cash flow in that sport, but then, our heroes of the Left will have another problem with that, obviously.
It was probably a liberal experiment to have both tournaments going at the same time, but it has been a mistake - but. a mistake that the Left will probably miss.
Oh, and Title IX needs to be seriously loosened, or simply done away with. It, like the ADA, are primarily law-firm funding tools that basically do nothing for America.
The Times and the sliver of American liberalism that it represents simply have to decide if it can live with this difference between the sexes, or not. When/if the NCAA gets a competitive swimming suit competition going, the women will undoubtedly lead the cash flow in that sport, but then, our heroes of the Left will have another problem with that, obviously.
It was probably a liberal experiment to have both tournaments going at the same time, but it has been a mistake - but. a mistake that the Left will probably miss.
Oh, and Title IX needs to be seriously loosened, or simply done away with. It, like the ADA, are primarily law-firm funding tools that basically do nothing for America.
3
First of all, I believe that Mr Zimbalist is absolutely correct in his assertion that the scale of the gap in the Huskies earnings is absurd. Even the strongest fans of gender-differentiated payouts in sports would surely agree that the women's game is worth significantly more than zero.
However, going beyond this simple fact raises a couple of questions.
First, what is the correct gap? Is the answer 'no gap at all' as many people would advocate, or is it "proportional" to earnings, or is there some other "right" principle.
Second, and this goes far beyond college sports, should gender gaps be banned, or significantly reduced, but other gaps allowed to persist? For example, the ATP tennis debates of the last few weeks have generated a lot of attention. Many people have argued that differences in player earnings should not be based upon differences in overall revenue generation. While this sounds fair, surely this is a debatable principle. If athletes pay should be independent of revenue generation in one case (eg tennis), why should it not be independent in all cases? For example, tennis players earn significantly more than gymnasts. Why is this the case? The players would no doubt argue that this is 'fair' because tennis generates significantly greater revenues than. Ok, but in that case, should male tennis players not earn more money, by the same principle? (Of course this assumes that the revenue generation figures for male and female sports are indeed different.)
However, going beyond this simple fact raises a couple of questions.
First, what is the correct gap? Is the answer 'no gap at all' as many people would advocate, or is it "proportional" to earnings, or is there some other "right" principle.
Second, and this goes far beyond college sports, should gender gaps be banned, or significantly reduced, but other gaps allowed to persist? For example, the ATP tennis debates of the last few weeks have generated a lot of attention. Many people have argued that differences in player earnings should not be based upon differences in overall revenue generation. While this sounds fair, surely this is a debatable principle. If athletes pay should be independent of revenue generation in one case (eg tennis), why should it not be independent in all cases? For example, tennis players earn significantly more than gymnasts. Why is this the case? The players would no doubt argue that this is 'fair' because tennis generates significantly greater revenues than. Ok, but in that case, should male tennis players not earn more money, by the same principle? (Of course this assumes that the revenue generation figures for male and female sports are indeed different.)
1
The NCAA is a corrupt and morally bankrupt organization that has colleges and universities in this country in its throes. It's undermined the amateur status of college athletics by creating pre-professional leagues where student athletes are treated like semiprofessionals. The most egregious eample this year is Ben Simmons, a freshman who is the consensus best player and probable #1 NBA pick, and whose atheletic skill is outweighed only by his apparent disdain for the classroom. Simmons wasn't eligible for the Wooden Award, given each year to the outstanding college basketball player, because he didn't maintain the academic standard required to be eligiblle for consideration.
To be sure, it's inappropriate that women's sports should be treated unequally, but the larger issue is the corrupting influence all the TV revenue that the NCAA controls is having on higher education. The unequal treatment of women's sports is one more reason to end the NCAA and to free higher education from its corrupting influence.
To be sure, it's inappropriate that women's sports should be treated unequally, but the larger issue is the corrupting influence all the TV revenue that the NCAA controls is having on higher education. The unequal treatment of women's sports is one more reason to end the NCAA and to free higher education from its corrupting influence.
1
The fact that there's only one comment so far illustrates nicely the theme of the piece: female jocks? Meh. Since the revenue (at least theoretically) goes to the institution, it should be used to provide equal opportunities. Then let the outcomes fall where they may. If the men don't want to share, perhaps they should choose an all-male institution that accepts no federal money. Show their rugged individualism, so to speak.
I wonder whether some of the rancor, and I don't mean it in a pejorative manner, is due to the prevailing sense that there is more "madness" in the NCAA men's tournament. The wins and losses going into the tournament seem to matter less for the men's teams, creating a quality of excitement and unpredictability. The men's games tend to be closer, and the competition more even. NCAA women's tournament match-ups are often lopsided, with teams often winning by as many as 20 and 30 points, even in the later rounds of the tournament. Moreover, as Zimbalist mentioned, UConn has won the competition frequently enough to take the mystery out of the tourney. They have certainly called dibs this year. There is a small handful of women's teams, it seems, that own the championship. Not so much with men. Notwithstanding institutional sexism and its problematic relationship with dollars and cents, I wonder whether this offers any more texture to Zimbalist's argument.
2
I was fortunate to attend the Women's Final Four in Tampa several years ago. It's ironic the schools get so little money from the tournament -- the seats, at both the men's and women's final fours, are mostly filled with coaches and administrators from around the country, plus fans of the teams participating, all of whom pay a lot of money to attend. The Final Four is also the annual coaches' conference, with sneaker vendors hosting cocktail hours, and a ton of schmoozing, paid for by various sponsors trying to sign schools up to buy their branded products for their student-athletes to wear. The NCAA takes a cut of everything, in addition to the TV revenue.
I don't get cable anymore, so I can't even watch the Huskies win this year. The NCAA treats women athletes with so little respect, I long for the AIAW. I was a four year Division 1 varsity athlete at the dawn of the Title IX era, and, less than a decade ago, an athletic administrator at the same school. The women's "stuff" had improved, but their situation compared to the men was no better than it had been back in 1978. I found it impossible to gain any traction trying to improve that. I'm out of college athletics now, and concentrate on teaching (mostly) women sailing and boat maintenance skills. Title IX has meant a lot in leveling the "playing field" in academics, but for all the complaining and gnashing of teeth of men, very little for athletics.
I don't get cable anymore, so I can't even watch the Huskies win this year. The NCAA treats women athletes with so little respect, I long for the AIAW. I was a four year Division 1 varsity athlete at the dawn of the Title IX era, and, less than a decade ago, an athletic administrator at the same school. The women's "stuff" had improved, but their situation compared to the men was no better than it had been back in 1978. I found it impossible to gain any traction trying to improve that. I'm out of college athletics now, and concentrate on teaching (mostly) women sailing and boat maintenance skills. Title IX has meant a lot in leveling the "playing field" in academics, but for all the complaining and gnashing of teeth of men, very little for athletics.
Well, of course, everybody knows that college sports is all about making money. There is nothing more important. Just read the comments here. Who cares about participation, education, fairness, the joy of competing or rewarding hard work and dedication? Money, Money, money, money, give me money.
8
Yes, there has been a backlash against women taking their rightful place in American society for the last 40+ years and this is one example. However, things are changing and that's a Good Thing. Last week Raymond Moore, CEO of the BNP Paribas Open tennis tournament in Indian Wells, Calif. resigned because of the backlash by women and men against his remarks that women should get down on their knees and thank men for leading the way for professional tennis payouts. The author says, "Athletic administrators and overseers treat college sports like a commercial venture." Yes, and this is another problem. Any money earned by public colleges and universities MUST be used to cut tuition and improve conditions for every student not just sports departments. Let's put the public back in public education and stop the privatization and the elitism it brings.
11
It's awful basketball and unwatchable. They should change the sport do as to not compare with the men, same as softball is different than men, and women's gymnastics from men's.
20
Oh, really? How many women's games have you seen or attended? My household, husband (an athletically gifted guy who played basketball, baseball, and football) included, enjoys watching the women play as much as the men, and perhaps even more so. But you don't have to take my word for it. No less than the late great John Wooden said the same, calling the women's game purer than the men's.
I do agree with you in one respect, and that is that the women's-game basket should perhaps be lowered a bit, so that the women can perform the same feats as the men with the same amount of effort, rather than having to go the extra mile, so to speak, as they do now.
I do agree with you in one respect, and that is that the women's-game basket should perhaps be lowered a bit, so that the women can perform the same feats as the men with the same amount of effort, rather than having to go the extra mile, so to speak, as they do now.
28
Sexist example. It is not awful basketball but your analysis is awful.
6
This is spot on. I have no interest in watching women mimic men (and often with men coaching them). Be original -- like the floor gymnast from UCLA that built hip-hop into her routine. People (male and female) appreciate originality and good competition. One team taking all the best players and winning all the championships is truly boring.
Is an increased emphasis on major sports and professionalism in college the way to go, whatever the gender distribution? One important matter that is not mentioned in this piece is alumni support. Many institutions not in the major conferences support money-losing football and basketball programs at least in a major part because this draws alumni monetary support. As states cut back on monetary support universities and colleges need more alumni support as well as increased tuition. Is this a factor in the increased prevalence of the high profile quasi-professional sports such as football (which no one even seems to be suggesting that women play)?
Education should be supported by public funds, not professional athletics. Title IX was intended to open opportunities for women for at the amateur, not professional level.
Education should be supported by public funds, not professional athletics. Title IX was intended to open opportunities for women for at the amateur, not professional level.
16
More and more state universities are or are becoming farm teams for the NBA and NFL. Is that what we really want?
Donations made to academics are because of academics and inspired by the faculty, not due to sports. All you need to do is to check the NCAA sports database or read articles to see that athletics at most Div 1 schools is heavily subsidized by academics - $21 million or more at Colorado State University and much of that directed into subsidizing Big Time Sports for entertainment and not education. Athletic donations do not pay for these sports but everyone else does.
In my opinion - there should be equal money spent on men's and women's sport so that talented athletes that are also good students get the opportunity of a college education they deserve.
In my opinion - there should be equal money spent on men's and women's sport so that talented athletes that are also good students get the opportunity of a college education they deserve.
Even the Sports talk shows refuse to talk about women sports. No one is more demeaning than Mad Dog Russo on Sirius XM Satellite radio. He went bonkers when NYC held a parade for the US Women's Soccer Championship. How dare they spend his tax dollars on women's soccer!
Don't believe the talk about gender equality. Sports have always been a man's world. But take heart, UConn women. I will keep attending your games each year and always show up for the victory parade.
Don't believe the talk about gender equality. Sports have always been a man's world. But take heart, UConn women. I will keep attending your games each year and always show up for the victory parade.
23
But UConn women's basketball really isn't sport. They recruit all the top players for one team -- essentially an All-Star team. It's like rooting for the Globetrotters against the Washington Generals. There may be some feigned worry when they fall behind early but in the end you will triumph. No thanks.
1
Even the readers/commenters here tend to be on the side of protecting the status quo, approving the financial outcomes since the men's games have larger crowds and TV viewership. They see college sports in terms of an economic commodity.
If that's the case, then we should quit kidding ourselves that college sports (at least Division I) are in any way about an educational pursuit and in the best interest of the students. They're about profit, and apparently we all know it.
If that's the case, then we should quit kidding ourselves that college sports (at least Division I) are in any way about an educational pursuit and in the best interest of the students. They're about profit, and apparently we all know it.
99
I doubt there's very many people "kidding" themselves about college sports. When I watch the University of Alabama play football I realize I'm watching an almost professional level football team that's owned by the university. A professional team with zero pay for players and the highest paid state employee in Alabama coaching the team.
1
If the Title IX goal is equal opportunity to participate, what does it bother you that men's sports generate more revenue than women's sports?
2
This is a non-problem that will solve itself soon. The Power 5 men's conferences will soon walk away from the NCAA 'Big Dance' because they can, and will have their own tournament. The NCAA will get no money from it - it will all belong to the Power 5 schools. So there will be no allocation of funds from the NCAA - just like there is not in the football bowl games or the newly created football national championship.
Oh, BTW - the women's tournament is DEFINITELY less significant and less worthy than the men's. Other than Obama, do you know anyone who fills out a women's bracket? Didn't think so......
Oh, BTW - the women's tournament is DEFINITELY less significant and less worthy than the men's. Other than Obama, do you know anyone who fills out a women's bracket? Didn't think so......
19
" Athletic administrators and overseers treat college sports like a commercial venture"
Actually, it is. Check out the number of spectators at a mid-level men's basketball game and those at a women's game. Sadly, the difference is both large and obvious. And this from someone (me) who is a fan of women's basketball.
Now, providing additional funding to schools with women's athletic programs that do well may be a good idea, but denying the financial facts of life is not.
Actually, it is. Check out the number of spectators at a mid-level men's basketball game and those at a women's game. Sadly, the difference is both large and obvious. And this from someone (me) who is a fan of women's basketball.
Now, providing additional funding to schools with women's athletic programs that do well may be a good idea, but denying the financial facts of life is not.
14
Oh come on, women's basketball plays to mostly empty seats. Even the final four games do not sell out. Want to see equity: look baseball and softball, gymnastics (both), track (both), soccer (both), etc. Once past football and men's basketball, college sports do not produce revenue, buth feature excellent gender equity, and uphold the purposes of collegiate sports.
17
And, perhaps to add a bit of context, I'm not only a women's basketball fan, but also a photographer for NCAA Division 1 games.
4
The early rounds of the men's tournament include a lot of mediocre talent playing a lot of sloppy basketball. Nobody would watch these games if they weren't part of the tournament. The late rounds of the women's tournament are generally much better played. If it weren't for the March Madness thing, fans looking to watch quality basketball would split their time between the men's Sweet 16 and the women's Final 4.
11
Nonsense. The men's games are far better played. In addition, men's tournament is far more competitive. In any given year maybe two women's teams have a legitimate shot to win it versus in the men's tournament where as many as twenty teams have a shot.
Making an argument should contain some facts. Your bias shows thst you have watched none of the men's games and I seriously doubt you watched any of the women's games either.
Making an argument should contain some facts. Your bias shows thst you have watched none of the men's games and I seriously doubt you watched any of the women's games either.
3
That is simply not true. The early rounds do not have a lot mediocre talent playing a lot of sloppy basketball. Only the top teams get into the tournament (with very few exceptions). Rather than falsely degrading the men's tournament, you simply have to recognize the difference between the men and women's game. The UCONN women's coach has long been very honest about the difference. He regularly disagrees with reporters who try to compare him to John Wooden.
2
michjas-- the women are slow and mostly cannot dunk, that cannot be fixed. The early mens round buzzer beaters are incredibly exciting, you are really reaching here to try to compare apples and oranges.
4
Women have made tremendous strides in college athletics thanks to Title IX. But not even Congress can dictate what sports fans will pay to watch.
This article should have been accompanied by a chart showing the incredible financial losses caused by women sports that are subsidized at the D-1 level by men's football revenue.
So, while 20-year-old males risk serious injury and concussions on the gridiron to subsidize women athletes (and other men's and women's non-revenue sports), the NYT wants to argue about equalizing media revenues in a manner not justified by viewership.
Perhaps it is time to let the athletes whose efforts earned the money reap the rewards, such as setting up a post-graduation medical fund for college football players. Now, that would be "fair."
This article should have been accompanied by a chart showing the incredible financial losses caused by women sports that are subsidized at the D-1 level by men's football revenue.
So, while 20-year-old males risk serious injury and concussions on the gridiron to subsidize women athletes (and other men's and women's non-revenue sports), the NYT wants to argue about equalizing media revenues in a manner not justified by viewership.
Perhaps it is time to let the athletes whose efforts earned the money reap the rewards, such as setting up a post-graduation medical fund for college football players. Now, that would be "fair."
33
While it is true that football generates tremendous revenue, it also absorbs enormous costs. There are very few football programs at Division I and certainly none at Divisions 2 and 3, that run in the black if accurate accounting standards are used. Thus, the notion that football pays for everything else is simply wrong.
I don't really get the logic. If you are running a charity and you sell candy and cookies to raise money - and the cookies raise significantly more money, then you shift your efforts to selling the cookies.
Men's basketball and men's football generates far more revenue than men's track and field, men's wrestling, men's baseball, men's golf and any number of men's sports - as well as women's.
If I were running an athletic department and trying to support as many sports as possible - men's and women's - I would invest in my money makers. Who wouldn't?
I watch the women's basketball tournament on ESPN - but the stadiums are half full at best. This is not a criticism of the women's teams, their coaches or their successes - but you can't deny the importance of audience size. The bigger the audience, the bigger the revenue; the bigger the revenue, the more sports you can support.
Women's sports are a great thing. They deserve strong support for any number of reasons. But it would be better for universities to use the overall revenues for all their sports to support every manner of campus athletics.
Men's basketball and men's football generates far more revenue than men's track and field, men's wrestling, men's baseball, men's golf and any number of men's sports - as well as women's.
If I were running an athletic department and trying to support as many sports as possible - men's and women's - I would invest in my money makers. Who wouldn't?
I watch the women's basketball tournament on ESPN - but the stadiums are half full at best. This is not a criticism of the women's teams, their coaches or their successes - but you can't deny the importance of audience size. The bigger the audience, the bigger the revenue; the bigger the revenue, the more sports you can support.
Women's sports are a great thing. They deserve strong support for any number of reasons. But it would be better for universities to use the overall revenues for all their sports to support every manner of campus athletics.
45
But this isn't about universities apportioning money; it's about the NCAA and ESPN giving the women's teams ZERO money while the NCAA and ESPN pocket the profits.
By your logic, even though you continue to sell the less-profitable candy, you should be able to pocket the entire amount raised and not pay the vendor for the product.
That's what's happening here.
By your logic, even though you continue to sell the less-profitable candy, you should be able to pocket the entire amount raised and not pay the vendor for the product.
That's what's happening here.
1
By paying female athletes and advertising and promoting their games, the NCAA could vastly increase their overall profits.
Though I disagree with their policy not to do this, I can only applaud their obvious determination to be true to their ideology even when it means sacrificing millions of dollars of potential income.
Though I disagree with their policy not to do this, I can only applaud their obvious determination to be true to their ideology even when it means sacrificing millions of dollars of potential income.
2
It is a vicious cycle both at the college and at the professional level. I watch golf - men's golf. I would watch women's golf, but it is rarely on the networks (don't have cable). Because I don't watch the women, I don't know any of the players, which makes it less interesting when they are on. I'm sure women's tournaments have much lower viewer numbers. That, in turn, makes it less lucrative to broadcast... and so it goes. If the women were on more frequently and folks could got to know the players as well as we know Spieth, Michelson, Watson, Adams, Johnson (X2), McElory etc., etc., there would be more watching and more revenue.
It is discrimination, plain and simple. The powers that be (college administrators, broadcast networks, advertisers etc.) send a message that women's sports are less interesting, less entertaining and less worth funding. The public is in the habit of not watching and not caring; female athletes get the short end of the stick (on the bright side, they may actually get a college education, which many male athletes do not).
It is discrimination, plain and simple. The powers that be (college administrators, broadcast networks, advertisers etc.) send a message that women's sports are less interesting, less entertaining and less worth funding. The public is in the habit of not watching and not caring; female athletes get the short end of the stick (on the bright side, they may actually get a college education, which many male athletes do not).
64
That is unfortunately consistent throughout all sports. And professions as well. The gov. Needs to do more to promote equality. It needs money to do so which is yet another reason republican are defusing it at every level. They want women back in the kitchen having babies and waiting on their men.
1
Right. the networks realize that they could make $ by broadcasting women's golf, but simply choose not too b/c...sexism.
Or you could take the rational/sane view that the networks don't broadcast women's golf because not enough people want to watch women's golf (even if it were broadcast regularly and the audience "knew" the players) to make it profitable.
Also, I'm not sure how much you know about women's golf, but it is not nearly as enjoyable to watch as the men's. Women don't have the strength/club-head speed to play the shots that many of the men--bubba Watson, Phil Michelson, etc.--do: low pitches that stop on a dime, short irons that spin back twenty feet, big sweeping hooks and slices...
Or you could take the rational/sane view that the networks don't broadcast women's golf because not enough people want to watch women's golf (even if it were broadcast regularly and the audience "knew" the players) to make it profitable.
Also, I'm not sure how much you know about women's golf, but it is not nearly as enjoyable to watch as the men's. Women don't have the strength/club-head speed to play the shots that many of the men--bubba Watson, Phil Michelson, etc.--do: low pitches that stop on a dime, short irons that spin back twenty feet, big sweeping hooks and slices...
2
Exactly, Anne. Exactly backwards. If women's golf had a following and could turn a profit for a network, it would be on tv. As it stands, women's golf has very few fans and makes less money than the average infomercial makes.
3
Are you trying to insist that fans care as much about the women's game as about the men's? That's ultimately where the money comes from.
30
No....he's asking that the NCAA pay the women's teams SOME money for the victories in the NCAA's tournament because it pays men's teams LOTS of money for such victories.
30
If the policy in this country were that "where the money comes from" dictates how the money should be disbursed, then millionaires would get welfare subsidies and minimum wage earners would get nothing.
Where it comes from cannot be the sole criterion for how it gets spent.
Where it comes from cannot be the sole criterion for how it gets spent.
If fans started filling arenas to standing room only the networks and leagues would sit up and notice and there'd be an onslaught of women's sports being presented. That's how free markets work.
1
If you can get as many fans to watch (and pay for commercials) the womens basketball teams as watch the mens, then the money can be equal.
To claim, as this author does, that the current situation represents discrimination against women is, to my mind and many others, pure hogwash.
To claim, as this author does, that the current situation represents discrimination against women is, to my mind and many others, pure hogwash.
55
He wasn't arguing for the money to be equal. The men's hoops teams get money, the women's don't. That's inappropriate. THE.END.
20
You are missing the fact that the women's teams are not getting less, they are getting nothing.
2
Did you not understand the article? A million dollars for the men and zero for the women doesn't even approach a conversation about equal.
1
I turn on the TV and watch whatever game is on whether its men or women both are equally enjoyable. It's a matter of overcoming male female perceptions that were drilled into us since childhood.
30
When I was a high school principal in the 1970's, equality for women and girls in athletics was a paramount concern. I thought the war had been won and athletics would soon boast fully equal treatment.
I underestimated the doggedness of men who despise female accomplishment and the strange collaboration of women who aren't supremely incensed at this.
Who will ignite this century's battle for gender equality? Where is our Malala?
I underestimated the doggedness of men who despise female accomplishment and the strange collaboration of women who aren't supremely incensed at this.
Who will ignite this century's battle for gender equality? Where is our Malala?
73
Plainly hyperbolic. Malala for sports?! You need to really understand proportionality in your commentary.
1
I agree there is discrimination here. I much prefer female basketball.
However, this situation is in NO WAY comparable the the evils fought by Malala and to invoke her here is practicaly a sacrilege.
However, this situation is in NO WAY comparable the the evils fought by Malala and to invoke her here is practicaly a sacrilege.
1
Wow, are you lost in the 70's! One thing to remember is that sports is "entertainment" and people will pay to watch whatever they want for whatever reason they want. Would you consider that consumers should be required to pay for/fund movies produced by women if they weren't entertaining to watch, just for the sake of gender equity?
1
Women don't even watch women's games. I'm a fan and my wife and I watch and attend, but the sparse crowds and limited interest, coupled with the lack of a mandate, means your call falls on deaf ears.
44
And we are supposed to ignore the fact that the TV viewership of the Women's tournament is approximately the same as your average Orange glo infomercial? Is the NYT unable to grasp the reality that the WNBA will never be the NBA, and why that is? There are lots of things in life that are not fair, liberals just can't get their collective heads around the fact that income redistribution is not the answer.
45
And that's the reasoning for not paying women's sports ANY money for tournament victories?
1
This is another reason capitalism doesn't reward its workers (or fans) without meaningful regulations. It only keeps trickling up to the top. In this case, the same old men's club in high rise suites.
Just another reason I support that Democratic Socialist guy running for President!
Just another reason I support that Democratic Socialist guy running for President!
The dreaded liberals denounced yet again for their un-American views, this time with regard to women's sports. Thanks for the enlightenment, Jordan.
1
welcome to the 21st century where we are quickly back-peddling to the 19th.
On the list of unfairness to women in this Land of the Free and compared to what the three Republican Presidential candidates want to do to them, this seems small.
I hear you. But colleges are notorious for being a little boys club. My thoughts? It's nothing compared to what these women will face in the workforce with no one to support them or see that they are treated fairly.
On the list of unfairness to women in this Land of the Free and compared to what the three Republican Presidential candidates want to do to them, this seems small.
I hear you. But colleges are notorious for being a little boys club. My thoughts? It's nothing compared to what these women will face in the workforce with no one to support them or see that they are treated fairly.
41
Based on the awarding of degrees and populations, colleges have become women's clubs. Perhaps we need a title x to bring the boys up to par.
2
Please. What they will face is set asides and lower bars to reach the same goals as their male counterparts.
2
"First, the men’s tournament may have higher ratings and sell more expensive tickets, but the women’s tournament is also a moneymaker: It is broadcast by ESPN and sells out many games."
The men's tournament sells out larger venues at higher prices and gets huge ratings. The women's game does not. Next year the men will play at the Arizona Cardinals' domed stadium. The women could not fill that stadium if tickets were free.
So you are asking for, basically, free, unearned stuff.
The men's tournament sells out larger venues at higher prices and gets huge ratings. The women's game does not. Next year the men will play at the Arizona Cardinals' domed stadium. The women could not fill that stadium if tickets were free.
So you are asking for, basically, free, unearned stuff.
45
The "free, unearned stuff" is the money earned from the women's games - and handed over exclusively to the schools with men's teams in the tourney.
Given that screwy formula, if you're running both men's and women's programs, which one are you going to spend your money on?
Given that screwy formula, if you're running both men's and women's programs, which one are you going to spend your money on?
1
Idiotic. They are asking for some funds, which are clearly available due to ticket sales and ads. Something is clearly fair, compared to the nothing they presently get.
2
An extreme example does not make a theory. Since you like extreme, here is another. UConn women’s basketball fills the same arenas and sells tickets faster than men’s. UConn women’s hockey, not so much; its games feature free admission and excellent, exciting real hockey worthy of real fans. It is a great game, and one fine team wins every time, playing another fine team. Your theory is purely economic, not a sports theory at all, and this opinion column demolished it. Your argument has support but not universal merit. Anti-women attitudes victimize men sports fans stupidly by unreasonably keeping them from great contests.
1
They should just stop the charade of intercollegiate sports. Make these teams junior professional teams, pay the players, and let the universities educate students again.
63
But the revenue generated isn't zero, hence the point that women are actually propping up the men's teams at their own expense.
This situation is self reinforcing: women's sports don't matter, so they aren't rewarded as much as men's sport; because they are so poorly recognized as athletes, women must not be good athletes, so their achievements in sports are insignificant...
This situation is self reinforcing: women's sports don't matter, so they aren't rewarded as much as men's sport; because they are so poorly recognized as athletes, women must not be good athletes, so their achievements in sports are insignificant...
34
Look, let's get one thing straight. Men's football and men's basketball pay the freight for ALL other college sports with very few exceptions like Utah's gymnastics.
18
Overall, NCAA women's basketball is a huge $ loser. Yes a few games make $, but there are about 1,000 women's games a year and about 99% lose money and are subsidized through profitable programs like men's basketball.
Also, to insinuate that women's players are comparable to men is nuts. An average high school varsity boy is better than 99.9% of women college players, maybe 100%.
Also, to insinuate that women's players are comparable to men is nuts. An average high school varsity boy is better than 99.9% of women college players, maybe 100%.
1
And yet, in many schools, the men's football does not even cover their own costs.
This myth that men's sports cover everything else just needs to go away already.
This myth that men's sports cover everything else just needs to go away already.
2
So I just looked at the NYT sports page, and it was plastered with coverage of the men's tournament. I could not find a mention of today's action at the women's tournament, even though two #1 seeds were upset. So, what gives with that NYT? People in glass houses...
134
Nice work.
Indeed! I've noticed this blatantly unequal coverage, too. The Times should practice what its columnists preach.
You make the point I came to comments to make: NYT where is the NCAA women's BB bracket?? It is disgraceful that you don't have it in your sports navigation.
There are also differences in the way the NCAA basketball tournament scores are listed on The Times website. (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/sports/ncaabasketball/index.html The men's games show the NCAA bracket seeding of each team, while the women's games show (apparently) the AP end-of-season ranking for each team. In addition, there's no live box score offered for women's games, as there is for the men's games. I'm guessing the inconsistencies come from the group that provides scores to The Times (STATS L.L.C.).
But still, is there any reason for the differences?
But still, is there any reason for the differences?
18
You certainly have to dig pretty deeply into the sports section to find the scores and write-ups of the women's games. The NYT could do a much better job of giving them equal treatment.
11
Excellent. Now is the time to take serious steps to deal with this gross injustice.
9
Once that's been accomplished we need to look at the severe imbalance of male to female college attendance and graduation.
2
Stop the presses! Professor Zimbalist has come to the stunning conclusion that the women's tournament is "less significant" than the men's. Shocking, if true. I understand he's now working on a thesis that the Little League World Series is less significant than the MLB World Series. I eagerly await his conclusions.
39
Your comparison is apples and oranges as UConn has both a men's and women's basketball team and they are comprised of college aged athletes.
To compare a children's game to an adult's professional game is rather disingenuous, to say the least.
To compare a children's game to an adult's professional game is rather disingenuous, to say the least.
1
The author citing Title IX and then completely ignoring the 57-43% discrepancy in favor women attending college is disgusting. To complain of sexism against women when so many more women attend college is simply bizarre. Where does the author think the money for women's scholarships comes from? The Easter Bunny? It comes from revenues from men's events of course. The money from advancing in the NCAA tournament go into one big pot, the athletic dept budget, not just men's sports.
16
The problem lies in zero rewards for the performance of the women's teams. What justifies the money being allocated 100% on the basis of how the men's teams do? If the UConn men don't make the tournament, the school gets zilch -- even if the women win the title! Surely you agree that this is nuts.
Thank you for this article. I was under no illusion that women's sports were big money generators but I had no idea that they made zero dollars. NCAA should be ashamed. Class action lawsuit, anyone?
17
Women's sports cost money, they don't make it. Will the complainants all have to contribute?
1
Believe it or not, Title IX makes all athletes (male and female) not in a major sport (basketball/football) suffer. Having competed on a collegiate track team at a school known for engineering (i.e. 80% male, 20% female), it was always frustrating because there simply were not enough scholarships to go around and keep things balanced. The men's teams would be woefully scholarship depressed, while the women's teams would suffer because they were forced to give scholarships to people who were walk-ons or not serious about the sport. I think that Title IX needs to be rethought so that everyone benefits a bit more. Great idea on paper, but poor in practice.
As for the financial inequality between men and women in the case of the basketball tournaments, I think the solution will not be for women's sports to beg for their share, but rather to eliminate the financial slave labor scheme the NCAA has created. A small percentage of NCAA executives are the only ones who win in the current system. Great article, I think this issue doesn't get enough coverage outside of ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
As for the financial inequality between men and women in the case of the basketball tournaments, I think the solution will not be for women's sports to beg for their share, but rather to eliminate the financial slave labor scheme the NCAA has created. A small percentage of NCAA executives are the only ones who win in the current system. Great article, I think this issue doesn't get enough coverage outside of ESPN and Sports Illustrated.
28
I greatly respect Professor Zimbalist. I back the alternative where the financial support and resources used by men's sports matches that of the women. There is no excuse for the overspending and the excessive rewards in men's college sports. Anything that can be done to redirect resources away from sports and in the direction of improved education should be done.
23
I do not think the NCAA is entirely to blame. It's a business and so it is interested only in profit -- when the american audience is as interested in women's basketball as men's basketball the NCAA will follow the money. The far bigger question, I think, is how student athletes are seen as revenue generators.
15
"It's interested only in profit," while officially a NONPROFIT, and there is the entire problem with the NCAA.
2
Perhaps, at the highest levels of college sports,the far bigger question is how the so called institutions of higher learning and the NCAA continue to perpetuate the charade that many of their scholarship athletes are students.
1
Hence the contradiction. If it IS a business it should not receive tax exempt status, especially if it is discriminatory. The NCAA is both so the tax break must end.
3
That's right! Female athletes have just as much of a right to be exploited and abused by the NCAA as their male counterparts! In an equal society, we'll degrade everyone, not just the privileged few.
41
The women are far more likely to leverage a scholarship into a degree than the men are, and the biggest offenders are the two biggest "revenue sports," football and men's basketball, which shows exactly how detached from the actual mission of universites and colleges the NCAA is. For every Duke/Mike Kryzyzewski, that graduates most of its men's players, there are at least half a dozen Kentucky/John Caliparis, whose programs are temporary way stations for players with little or no interest in education.
2
Women's sports are more interesting, but most men seem to prefer watching men in short pants or enhanced shoulders. Strange.
9
Last time I watched UConn I thought I was watching men until I looked closer.
4
More people are interested in division 1 football and basketball. Male version. Dividing the money differently is a good idea. Some if the dollars should go to athletes
How much money does the NCAA give men's sports that generate little interest or revenue? A lot less than men's basketball. Just because some women play a sport called "basketball" doesn't mean they should be treated the same as the men who play a sport called "basketball." They should be treated the same as sports that generate the same level of interest.
47
This is a rather bizarre statement.
And the author is not saying that women's sports should be getting equal revenue. He is simply stating that they should be getting, at the very least, some revenue.
Women's basketball receives zero from the NCAA or ESPN for their televised tournament games. Zero. And yet these TV viewing are making a profit. Where is that money going? Does ESPN get to just keep that money?
And it must be noted that that UConn women are a #1 seed and one of only two #1 seeds left whereas the men's team didn't even qualify for the tournament.
i would say that at UConn, the women's game is far better received than the men's.
And the author is not saying that women's sports should be getting equal revenue. He is simply stating that they should be getting, at the very least, some revenue.
Women's basketball receives zero from the NCAA or ESPN for their televised tournament games. Zero. And yet these TV viewing are making a profit. Where is that money going? Does ESPN get to just keep that money?
And it must be noted that that UConn women are a #1 seed and one of only two #1 seeds left whereas the men's team didn't even qualify for the tournament.
i would say that at UConn, the women's game is far better received than the men's.
1
The federal law Title IX requires equal opportunity for each gender in activities - But it doesn't guarantee equal outcome. For example, much of the revenue that is distributed comes from the sale of tournament television rights. The tournament revenue should be distributed in the same percentage for both men and women; but the fact is the revenue generated by the men's tournament is far greater than for the women's tournament. Equal opportunity must be required, but that doesn't guarantee equal outcome.
29
Zero--to $1.56 million? Where is the money from the women's tourney television rights going?
Deflecting to the general principle of "outcomes" ignores an obvious, outrageous specific: not just the size of the pot, but the distribution clearly has different rules!
Are male athletes counted three times? If not, then the process is deliberately being rigged and deliberately producing results that are unfair!
What does "equal outcome" have to do with counting male practice players as women? The real point is not outcomes, but a practice and pattern of subterfuge and deception that puts effort into covering up the ways women's sports are restricted to a second tier, by not being promoted or supported to achieve higher outcomes--and then robbed when they do!
Deflecting to the general principle of "outcomes" ignores an obvious, outrageous specific: not just the size of the pot, but the distribution clearly has different rules!
Are male athletes counted three times? If not, then the process is deliberately being rigged and deliberately producing results that are unfair!
What does "equal outcome" have to do with counting male practice players as women? The real point is not outcomes, but a practice and pattern of subterfuge and deception that puts effort into covering up the ways women's sports are restricted to a second tier, by not being promoted or supported to achieve higher outcomes--and then robbed when they do!
29
Read the article again - "the women's tournament is also a moneymaker" - the point that was made was not that the women should get the same amount but that it is unfair to give them nothing. The women's games are well attended and exciting. People pay to see them and I doubt that the NCAA is giving the rights to broadcast them away to ESPN. The NCAA is shorting those universities and conferences which actually support their women athletes.
32
You need to actually READ the article before posting. The article pointed out that the women received NOTHING (!!!), even though their games were broadcast on ESPN and had sold out games. How is that fair?
21