In Reply to: you think Football subsidizes all because of women's sports???? posted by barrya on January 30, 2024 at 09:22:31
Say what? Are you able to read? I wonder this often with you. This has nothing to do with “women’s sports” or “men’s sports”. It has to do with football. Why should football finance everything? The rationale that “because we’ve always done it this way” is not a compelling rationale. Moreover, within the next decade football players ARE going to be paid by their universities. If you’re following what’s going on here, the SEC and 10 and going to form a super division. There are a few things to shake out, where FSU, Clemson Miami and a few others wind up, but it’s gonna happen; relatively soon.
Did you even look at the document attached? The reason I singled out women’s hoop is obvious. It’s the only specific sport broken out: and it’s fugly. Look at the economics. The women’s hoop team at LSU paid coaches 2x the amount of revenue generated in a year they won the championship. The ladies incurred nearly identical expenses as the men’s team. The men’s team was in the black and the ladies in the red by (8mm). The men’s team was awful, the women’s champions. If you don’t see a problem with that, you probably shouldn’t be commenting. The other sports (although it’s hard to be certain because they are aggregated) seem safe because they, on average, are relatively close to being revenue neutral (1.3mm, or so).