Coach Nell thanks the NCAA

The Jacket

The Coat
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
26,484
It’s all good, brother. You are passionate and your expectations of rich organizations/businesses are high. I also wish folks did more for those who are oppressed, treated unjustly, or undercompensated. I just don’t see female collegiate athletes in that category. I love you.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,577
The point is if you’re going to have a tournament and sponsor a sport support it sufficiently. According to the NCAA they are spending the money now so it’s not even about that, it’s about being stupid in how they are spending it.
Now on this we agree. But how could we determine if women's basketball were being sufficiently supported, or if the funds were being spent stupidly?

For example, how do you decide if it's worth $xxx to paint logos on a basketball court for a few games or if the $xxx should stay in the pot that supports all the member institutions' athletics departments, including the departments so small they fund their entire programs – male and female – from their share of the pot?

"Well, the men's courts are repainted!" Yes, but do you spend the same amount of money to advertise on a billboard that no one sees as you do to advertise on a billboard that millions see?

Perhaps these decisions are already being made on a rational and equitable basis, which in the big picture has actually done an incredible job promoting and encouraging women athletes.

Just maybe this whole brouhaha is merely another symptom of late America identity politics run amok... as even women getting a free education for playing a game no one watches, complain that they are victims of the very system that has so remarkably favored them.

For example, did you know that women's D1 basketball teams have 15 scholarships apiece, and men's only 13?
 
Last edited:

ncjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
14,623
Now on this we agree. But how could we determine if women's basketball were being sufficiently supported, or if the funds were being spent stupidly?

For example, how do you decide if it's worth $xxx to paint logos on a basketball court for a few games or if the $xxx should stay in the pot that supports all the member institutions' athletics departments, including the departments so small they fund their entire programs – male and female – from their share of the pot?

"Well, the men's courts are repainted!" Yes, but do you spend the same amount of money to advertise on a billboard that no one sees as you do to advertise on a billboard that millions see?

Perhaps these decisions are already being made on a rational and equitable basis, which in the big picture has actually done an incredible job promoting and encouraging women athletes.

Just maybe this whole brouhaha is merely another symptom of late America identity politics run amok... as even women getting a free education for playing a game no one watches, complain that they are victims of the very system that has so remarkably favored them.

For example, did you know that women's D1 basketball teams have 15 scholarships apiece, and men's only 13?
Maybe or maybe it’s simple incompetence BT those putting on the tournament and the women calling them on kt?
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,577
Maybe or maybe it’s simple incompetence BT those putting on the tournament and the women calling them on kt?
Never underestimate human incompetence! So another point of agreement for us.

But we’re gonna disagree on the part that constitutes the incompetence...
 

andrew

Bobby Bonilla's Financial Planner
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
23,381
Maybe or maybe it’s simple incompetence BT those putting on the tournament and the women calling them on kt?
I honestly think this is the most likely situation. Simply more organizational focus on the men's tournament, not necessarily a conscious decision to spend more money on the men.

There are probably more people in the NCAA paying attention to the men's tournament, and more focus on it because it gets more attention, so it's more likely for things to fall through the cracks on the women's side.

And stuff falling through the cracks is not unique to the NCAA. I'd say the meals that NBA players were getting when they first arrived in the bubble last year were equivalent to the joke of a weight room the women got.
 

Flywheel

What year is it?
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
14,466
No, men's basketball had a huge start because of natural gender differences.

But even if you believe the disparities are due to something unjust and remediable... well, who's to say the 'right' level of funding for women's sports?

Just like today any racial disparity is somehow the fault of white people, so too any sexual disparity will forever be the fault of men. How could it be otherwise? Even you, who obviously sees this situation very differently from me, don't actually have any way to quantify the extent to which it was sexism rather than natural sexual difference that has resulted in the current disparities.

Let me guess, we'll keep overpaying the women until they "feel" it is fair?
I think the heart of the issue is the NCAA itself, a one-stop-shop for all college athletics where reveue gets pooled together, and then not paid to players. They love to claim it's about students first and amateurism in their advertising like they're a nonprofit, and then they operate for profit. It creates an expectation about operations that routinely gets unfulfilled.
 

GTCrew4b

All moratoria must be earned
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
25,622
I think the heart of the issue is the NCAA itself, a one-stop-shop for all college athletics where reveue gets pooled together, and then not paid to players. They love to claim it's about students first and amateurism in their advertising like they're a nonprofit, and then they operate for profit. It creates an expectation about operations that routinely gets unfulfilled.
Almost nothing in this post is accurate.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
24,577
I think the heart of the issue is the NCAA itself, a one-stop-shop for all college athletics where reveue gets pooled together, and then not paid to players. They love to claim it's about students first and amateurism in their advertising like they're a nonprofit, and then they operate for profit. It creates an expectation about operations that routinely gets unfulfilled.
I think you need to do some investigation. The NCAA does not operate for profit, and uses revenue from the revenue sports to subsidize activities (ie, non-revenue sports) that otherwise wouldn't exist without the subsidy. In other words, the NCAA deliberately 'loses' money every year, by giving away money to activities (college non-revenue athletics) that it thinks are good for the participants but which make no money. This comes up all the time on this board, with people confusing revenue with profit.

And, of course, there's also indignation that some individual people working in athletics (a handful of coaches and administrators) get paid a lot of money. This fact does not mean that the NCAA is a for-profit organization. Georgia Tech itself is a charity, but Angel Cabrera makes a lot of money personally. That's because he has a complicated and important job, not because the underlying goal of the organization is profit.

All charities want to maximize their revenue, because it allows them to spend more money on their charitable activities. In other words, the more 'profit' the men's tournament makes, the more it can (and does and has) subsidize the money-losing women's tournament (and other non-revenue sports).

That's close to the definition of charity.

EDIT: PS. It is, of course, a completely different question whether amateur athletics of *any kind* is properly considered a charitable activity. How does it help society generally to have more women's softball players? That's a much more philosophical question.
 
Last edited:

ncjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
14,623
Why? Because they chose to go to different school for their education?
No because they choose to go to different schools because of who recruits them for their sport. The divisions don’t have the same scholarship rules either because they don’t play at the same level. It has nothing to do with their education. The NCAA has made it pretty clear they have nothing to do with education.
 

goldeagle

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Messages
5,047
We can use any jurisprudence you want... they won't be employees under any legal standard, IMHO.
They are told when to be where,how to be dressed,and consequences for not doing so;They are employees as far as the IRS is concerned.
 

cyclejacket

Not A Fan of Biden BS
Joined
Jul 28, 2002
Messages
7,185
They are told when to be where,how to be dressed,and consequences for not doing so; They are employees as far as the IRS is concerned.
If the IRS is concerned with them, does that mean they declare their scholarship benefits and file tax returns for them?
 
Top