[Snorlax94]

Note: this post was originally entered as a separate thread titled

WaPo: NCAA’s message to women’s basketball players: You’re worth less

Until someone folded it into this thread (I believe, incorrectly, because it discusses women’s sports broadly beyond the current basketball scandal).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...l-unequal/

“I’m tired. Not from today or from yesterday but from 40 years of it. Forty years tired of writing the same damn story about the same NCAA shortchangers in suits who would begrudge women’s athletes so much as an equal amount of air in a tire if they thought it might come at a man’s expense. Sick and tired of the chiseling administrators with their million-dollar salaries and monstrous heaps of revenue who act like women’s basketball players should be thankful for a uniform that isn’t funded by a bake sale...

[Snorlax94]

Note: this post was originally entered as a separate thread titled

WaPo: NCAA’s message to women’s basketball players: You’re worth less

Until someone folded it into this thread (I believe, incorrectly, because it discusses women’s sports broadly beyond the current basketball scandal).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...l-unequal/

“I’m tired. Not from today or from yesterday but from 40 years of it. Forty years tired of writing the same damn story about the same NCAA shortchangers in suits who would begrudge women’s athletes so much as an equal amount of air in a tire if they thought it might come at a man’s expense. Sick and tired of the chiseling administrators with their million-dollar salaries and monstrous heaps of revenue who act like women’s basketball players should be thankful for a uniform that isn’t funded by a bake sale...

[PVTree]

Hoops Herstory 2021 ®
Hoops Sheampionship ®
Femme Finale ®

[PVTree]

Hoops Herstory 2021 ®
Hoops Sheampionship ®
Femme Finale ®

[M T]

I actually saw March Madness used for the women's tournament today, in the Comcast streaming app. No idea if Comcast did that on their own or if it somehow came from the NCAA.

I heard one of the ESPN announcers use that Monday night for the women's tournament.

----

The NCAA has a spot that showed during the half time in the Syracuse-UConn game (56:50 after the start). (I had seen it in a game on Monday as well.) The spot is a (men's) March Madness ad posing as an Covid-awareness spot. It starts with Andy Katz "The college basketball season is about finding the top teams." Then they show a number of male basketball players and coaches with statements about wearing masks, etc. Unfortunately, they show one player in a well-equipped weight room (that wouldn't be worth noting except for the next part). Then Luka Garza (Iowa) says "If we accept that the season may not be equitable for all."

I'm surprised that the NCAA didn't pull that ad already.

The ad didn't appear at the same time during the half of the Ok State - Stanford game.

[M T]

I actually saw March Madness used for the women's tournament today, in the Comcast streaming app. No idea if Comcast did that on their own or if it somehow came from the NCAA.

I heard one of the ESPN announcers use that Monday night for the women's tournament.

----

The NCAA has a spot that showed during the half time in the Syracuse-UConn game (56:50 after the start). (I had seen it in a game on Monday as well.) The spot is a (men's) March Madness ad posing as an Covid-awareness spot. It starts with Andy Katz "The college basketball season is about finding the top teams." Then they show a number of male basketball players and coaches with statements about wearing masks, etc. Unfortunately, they show one player in a well-equipped weight room (that wouldn't be worth noting except for the next part). Then Luka Garza (Iowa) says "If we accept that the season may not be equitable for all."

I'm surprised that the NCAA didn't pull that ad already.

The ad didn't appear at the same time during the half of the Ok State - Stanford game.

[BostonCard]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more that compromises are made with academic values, the more that student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

Not sure what you mean by “high level sports”  There are  two income producing sports. Men’s basketball and football.  My guess is all others lose money.  Stanford dropped non incoming producing sports. 

Asking what is ”equality” on this is more difficult.  Leave aside the current FUBAR with the way the NCAA handled resources/ facilities at the Tourney. 

If you are to pay athletes, do you do so only for revenue producing sports?  And of course, how do you slice the pie.  Does DeVonta Smith get paid the same as the 4th string center? 

I’m all for players getting paid for use of their name and likeness.  But that will be limited to a few.  But in the end, if you go to any type of employment model, that will be the end of intercollegiate sports. (In fact, the only ones that possibly could survive would be football and Men’s Hoops.)   And I’m not sure how that helps.

I don't mean to single you out, but I think to some extent this tweet addresses your comment:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1374813946125881346?s=20[/tweet]

There once was a time when the NFL was an afterthought, it didn't become a behemoth through happenstance, and it is not guaranteed to remain the premier professional league in the US forever.  Likewise, there is nothing fundamental about women's basketball that dooms it to unprofitability, and if I had to predict which sport would grow faster in the next 20 years, I'd pick WBB over MBB.

BC

[BostonCard]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more that compromises are made with academic values, the more that student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

Not sure what you mean by “high level sports”  There are  two income producing sports. Men’s basketball and football.  My guess is all others lose money.  Stanford dropped non incoming producing sports. 

Asking what is ”equality” on this is more difficult.  Leave aside the current FUBAR with the way the NCAA handled resources/ facilities at the Tourney. 

If you are to pay athletes, do you do so only for revenue producing sports?  And of course, how do you slice the pie.  Does DeVonta Smith get paid the same as the 4th string center? 

I’m all for players getting paid for use of their name and likeness.  But that will be limited to a few.  But in the end, if you go to any type of employment model, that will be the end of intercollegiate sports. (In fact, the only ones that possibly could survive would be football and Men’s Hoops.)   And I’m not sure how that helps.

I don't mean to single you out, but I think to some extent this tweet addresses your comment:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1374813946125881346?s=20[/tweet]

There once was a time when the NFL was an afterthought, it didn't become a behemoth through happenstance, and it is not guaranteed to remain the premier professional league in the US forever.  Likewise, there is nothing fundamental about women's basketball that dooms it to unprofitability, and if I had to predict which sport would grow faster in the next 20 years, I'd pick WBB over MBB.

BC

[Leftcoast]

Hmmhhh ... That's in 538's "Hot Take" section for a reason.

I see a headline meant to be "Hot" that boils down to a not-so-hot take - there's more opportunity for PERCENTAGE growth in NCAA WBB then in MBB which is already near its max.

The reality is paying athlete's is a no-win scenario for most colleges which will be stuck between two cross-currents - Compensation-for-Value and Equity.   The NCAA will either pay athlete's for the revenue/profit they bring to the table in which two men's sports will dominate OR you spread the wealth across all athletes and let the athletes in "money" sports grumble they STILL aren't being adequately compensated for their contribution to the bottom-line.  The pressure to drop non-revenue sports will build and title-9 will be either dropped or honored with lip-service and workarounds.

I don't get the rush to this model .... particularly for Stanford and schools that share our values.

[Leftcoast]

Hmmhhh ... That's in 538's "Hot Take" section for a reason.

I see a headline meant to be "Hot" that boils down to a not-so-hot take - there's more opportunity for PERCENTAGE growth in NCAA WBB then in MBB which is already near its max.

The reality is paying athlete's is a no-win scenario for most colleges which will be stuck between two cross-currents - Compensation-for-Value and Equity.   The NCAA will either pay athlete's for the revenue/profit they bring to the table in which two men's sports will dominate OR you spread the wealth across all athletes and let the athletes in "money" sports grumble they STILL aren't being adequately compensated for their contribution to the bottom-line.  The pressure to drop non-revenue sports will build and title-9 will be either dropped or honored with lip-service and workarounds.

I don't get the rush to this model .... particularly for Stanford and schools that share our values.

[BostonCard]

The name of the podcast is "hot takedown".  Their whole premise is that the podcast is there to dispell "hot takes" with data.

BC

[BostonCard]

The name of the podcast is "hot takedown".  Their whole premise is that the podcast is there to dispell "hot takes" with data.

BC

[lex24]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more that compromises are made with academic values, the more that student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

Not sure what you mean by “high level sports”  There are  two income producing sports. Men’s basketball and football.  My guess is all others lose money.  Stanford dropped non incoming producing sports. 

Asking what is ”equality” on this is more difficult.  Leave aside the current FUBAR with the way the NCAA handled resources/ facilities at the Tourney. 

If you are to pay athletes, do you do so only for revenue producing sports?  And of course, how do you slice the pie.  Does DeVonta Smith get paid the same as the 4th string center? 

I’m all for players getting paid for use of their name and likeness.  But that will be limited to a few.  But in the end, if you go to any type of employment model, that will be the end of intercollegiate sports. (In fact, the only ones that possibly could survive would be football and Men’s Hoops.)   And I’m not sure how that helps.

I don't mean to single you out, but I think to some extent this tweet addresses your comment:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1374813946125881346?s=20[/tweet]

There once was a time when the NFL was an afterthought, it didn't become a behemoth through happenstance, and it is not guaranteed to remain the premier professional league in the US forever.  Likewise, there is nothing fundamental about women's basketball that dooms it to unprofitability, and if I had to predict which sport would grow faster in the next 20 years, I'd pick WBB over MBB.

BC

How?  I’m talking today. Men’s basketball generates enormous revenue. Maybe someday women’s hoops will. But it doesn’t at this time.

[lex24]

IMHO the NCAA has to either get out of the fairness side of the equation or the profit side of the equation.

I do not think this is a real choice.  If the NCAA gets out of the fairness side of the equation then Stanford and any other universities who have a shred of integrity will leave big-time sports. And then there are laws like Title IX to consider.  Who here thinks the NCAA is about to be hit with a massive Title IX lawsuit over the basketball tournaments?  

The more collegiate sports become professionalized, the more they are driven by economic interests, the more that compromises are made with academic values, the more that student-athletes become expendable employees in a quasi-labor market for running the collegiate athletics "business,"-- the closer we will come to Stanford exiting all high level sports.  It has already started, has it not?  I really think trends are against the beautiful and increasingly rare blending of high level academic and athletic talents that our university has attempted to create.  And that saddens me to no end.

Not sure what you mean by “high level sports”  There are  two income producing sports. Men’s basketball and football.  My guess is all others lose money.  Stanford dropped non incoming producing sports. 

Asking what is ”equality” on this is more difficult.  Leave aside the current FUBAR with the way the NCAA handled resources/ facilities at the Tourney. 

If you are to pay athletes, do you do so only for revenue producing sports?  And of course, how do you slice the pie.  Does DeVonta Smith get paid the same as the 4th string center? 

I’m all for players getting paid for use of their name and likeness.  But that will be limited to a few.  But in the end, if you go to any type of employment model, that will be the end of intercollegiate sports. (In fact, the only ones that possibly could survive would be football and Men’s Hoops.)   And I’m not sure how that helps.

I don't mean to single you out, but I think to some extent this tweet addresses your comment:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1374813946125881346?s=20[/tweet]

There once was a time when the NFL was an afterthought, it didn't become a behemoth through happenstance, and it is not guaranteed to remain the premier professional league in the US forever.  Likewise, there is nothing fundamental about women's basketball that dooms it to unprofitability, and if I had to predict which sport would grow faster in the next 20 years, I'd pick WBB over MBB.

BC

How?  I’m talking today. Men’s basketball generates enormous revenue. Maybe someday women’s hoops will. But it doesn’t at this time.

[Spiny_Norman]

Sally Jenkins (Stanford '82) calls BS on the NCAA's claim that the women's tournament does not make money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...t-revenue/

Excerpt:

Short of stifling Geno Auriemma with a pillow while stealing his diamond championship rings, the NCAA could not work harder to smother the potential of the women’s tournament and rob it of revenue. This week, in response to a query about its financials, the NCAA insisted again that the women don’t turn a profit. This is patently unjustifiable. You know how much revenue NCAA Division I women’s basketball generated collectively in 2018-2019? Almost a billion dollars. That’s according to economist Daniel Rascher, a financial analyst for the firm OSKR who studied the NCAA’s self-reported numbers and testified as an expert in the governing body’s ongoing antitrust litigation. “I don’t see how they lose money on it,” he says.

You know how many companies will advertise on ESPN during this women’s tournament, brands that want to be associated with the elegance of stars such as Iowa’s Caitlin Clark and Stanford’s Kiana Williams, who play the game like strings of silk? A total of 77, among them Verizon, Chevrolet, L’Oréal and Nike.

You know how many viewers watched the championship game in 2019? More than 3.68 million, with a peak of 5.6 million in the closing minutes of Baylor’s one-point victory over Notre Dame. Know what that’s comparable to? A Wimbledon men’s final. Game 1 of the 2019 National League Division Series between the Washington Nationals and Los Angeles Dodgers. LeBron James’s debut with the Los Angeles Lakers. Hannity.

[Spiny_Norman]

Sally Jenkins (Stanford '82) calls BS on the NCAA's claim that the women's tournament does not make money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...t-revenue/

Excerpt:

Short of stifling Geno Auriemma with a pillow while stealing his diamond championship rings, the NCAA could not work harder to smother the potential of the women’s tournament and rob it of revenue. This week, in response to a query about its financials, the NCAA insisted again that the women don’t turn a profit. This is patently unjustifiable. You know how much revenue NCAA Division I women’s basketball generated collectively in 2018-2019? Almost a billion dollars. That’s according to economist Daniel Rascher, a financial analyst for the firm OSKR who studied the NCAA’s self-reported numbers and testified as an expert in the governing body’s ongoing antitrust litigation. “I don’t see how they lose money on it,” he says.

You know how many companies will advertise on ESPN during this women’s tournament, brands that want to be associated with the elegance of stars such as Iowa’s Caitlin Clark and Stanford’s Kiana Williams, who play the game like strings of silk? A total of 77, among them Verizon, Chevrolet, L’Oréal and Nike.

You know how many viewers watched the championship game in 2019? More than 3.68 million, with a peak of 5.6 million in the closing minutes of Baylor’s one-point victory over Notre Dame. Know what that’s comparable to? A Wimbledon men’s final. Game 1 of the 2019 National League Division Series between the Washington Nationals and Los Angeles Dodgers. LeBron James’s debut with the Los Angeles Lakers. Hannity.

[M T]

Sally Jenkins (Stanford '82) calls BS on the NCAA's claim that the women's tournament does not make money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...t-revenue/

Excerpt:

  You know how much revenue NCAA Division I women’s basketball generated collectively in 2018-2019? Almost a billion dollars.

336 D-I teams + 224 D-II + 272 D-III  = 832 teams  (2020-2021, so it likely is down)
$1B =  $1.2M per team  or about $100K per player
Of course that's before expenses, like meals and rental costs for weight rooms at the NCAA tourney.

However, I'm sure the NCAA shares that money with other sports, like Men's Wrestling.

[M T]

Sally Jenkins (Stanford '82) calls BS on the NCAA's claim that the women's tournament does not make money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...t-revenue/

Excerpt:

  You know how much revenue NCAA Division I women’s basketball generated collectively in 2018-2019? Almost a billion dollars.

336 D-I teams + 224 D-II + 272 D-III  = 832 teams  (2020-2021, so it likely is down)
$1B =  $1.2M per team  or about $100K per player
Of course that's before expenses, like meals and rental costs for weight rooms at the NCAA tourney.

However, I'm sure the NCAA shares that money with other sports, like Men's Wrestling.

[UltimateCard]

Sally Jenkins (Stanford '82) calls BS on the NCAA's claim that the women's tournament does not make money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...t-revenue/

Excerpt:

  You know how much revenue NCAA Division I women’s basketball generated collectively in 2018-2019? Almost a billion dollars.

336 D-I teams + 224 D-II + 272 D-III  = 832 teams  (2020-2021, so it likely is down)
$1B =  $1.2M per team  or about $100K per player
Of course that's before expenses, like meals and rental costs for weight rooms at the NCAA tourney.

However, I'm sure the NCAA shares that money with other sports, like Men's Wrestling.

Long interview with Tara on inequities in women's sports, including on finances:

 The NCAA earns most of its money from tickets and TV rights for the men’s tournament. They pass most of this money back the conferences, and the conferences distribute the winnings among the schools. When a men’s team wins a game in the national tournament, the team earns a “unit” for its conference. This year, each unit was worth $337,141. These units are paid out over six years, making this year’s units worth a total of $1.68 million for the conferences by the time they are paid in full in 2027. This tournament’s winnings for the Pac-12 (the conference for my beloved Oregon State Beavers), which fared very well in the tournament, over six years will be $38,434,074.

You’d think that means the Pac-12 also did very well financially in the women’s tournament where the championship game was two Pac-12 schools—but you’d be wrong. The women earn absolutely nothing for the conferences for their wins.
This creates a perverse incentive for schools to invest heavily in men’s basketball, according to VanDerveer. “There’s no financial gain for a women’s team to do well versus a men’s team. So, there’s a lot more incentive by the NCAA to put money into a men’s program.” The men’s tournament has its own contract with one of the major networks, she noted, while the women’s tournament is lumped in with all the other NCAA sports for TV contracts.

https://msmagazine.com/2021/05/11/sexism...en-sports/

[UltimateCard]

Sally Jenkins (Stanford '82) calls BS on the NCAA's claim that the women's tournament does not make money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/20...t-revenue/

Excerpt:

  You know how much revenue NCAA Division I women’s basketball generated collectively in 2018-2019? Almost a billion dollars.

336 D-I teams + 224 D-II + 272 D-III  = 832 teams  (2020-2021, so it likely is down)
$1B =  $1.2M per team  or about $100K per player
Of course that's before expenses, like meals and rental costs for weight rooms at the NCAA tourney.

However, I'm sure the NCAA shares that money with other sports, like Men's Wrestling.

Long interview with Tara on inequities in women's sports, including on finances:

 The NCAA earns most of its money from tickets and TV rights for the men’s tournament. They pass most of this money back the conferences, and the conferences distribute the winnings among the schools. When a men’s team wins a game in the national tournament, the team earns a “unit” for its conference. This year, each unit was worth $337,141. These units are paid out over six years, making this year’s units worth a total of $1.68 million for the conferences by the time they are paid in full in 2027. This tournament’s winnings for the Pac-12 (the conference for my beloved Oregon State Beavers), which fared very well in the tournament, over six years will be $38,434,074.

You’d think that means the Pac-12 also did very well financially in the women’s tournament where the championship game was two Pac-12 schools—but you’d be wrong. The women earn absolutely nothing for the conferences for their wins.
This creates a perverse incentive for schools to invest heavily in men’s basketball, according to VanDerveer. “There’s no financial gain for a women’s team to do well versus a men’s team. So, there’s a lot more incentive by the NCAA to put money into a men’s program.” The men’s tournament has its own contract with one of the major networks, she noted, while the women’s tournament is lumped in with all the other NCAA sports for TV contracts.

https://msmagazine.com/2021/05/11/sexism...en-sports/

[BostonCard]

There once was a time when the NFL was an afterthought, it didn't become a behemoth through happenstance, and it is not guaranteed to remain the premier professional league in the US forever.  Likewise, there is nothing fundamental about women's basketball that dooms it to unprofitability, and if I had to predict which sport would grow faster in the next 20 years, I'd pick WBB over MBB.



BC

How?  I’m talking today. Men’s basketball generates enormous revenue. Maybe someday women’s hoops will. But it doesn’t at this time.

The NCAA structure was not dropped from above in its present state; it is the result of choices that have been made over decades.  And one shouldn't use the current state as a rationale for perpetuating the status quo.  There is no question that men's basketball is more profitable than women's basketball.  But, would the degree of that disparity still exist had the NCAA made different decisions with regards to how it marketed the respective teams?  And is it fair to penalize women's basketball for decisions made in the past that affect the present?

The problem, I think, is that it is not possible to know where women's basketball would wind up vis a vis men's basketball had marketing efforts been proportional to potential.  I think women's basketball would have been bigger but for NCAA and ESPN benign neglect, but despite my preference for the women's sport, I know enough people who appreciate the aspects of the men's sport (for example, the dunking) to know that complete parity would be unlikely, even with the best of efforts.

I don't know where that leaves us, other than hoping that the sport does better going forward and doesn't use the outcome of past mistakes as justification for repeating them going forward.

BC

[BostonCard]

There once was a time when the NFL was an afterthought, it didn't become a behemoth through happenstance, and it is not guaranteed to remain the premier professional league in the US forever.  Likewise, there is nothing fundamental about women's basketball that dooms it to unprofitability, and if I had to predict which sport would grow faster in the next 20 years, I'd pick WBB over MBB.



BC

How?  I’m talking today. Men’s basketball generates enormous revenue. Maybe someday women’s hoops will. But it doesn’t at this time.

The NCAA structure was not dropped from above in its present state; it is the result of choices that have been made over decades.  And one shouldn't use the current state as a rationale for perpetuating the status quo.  There is no question that men's basketball is more profitable than women's basketball.  But, would the degree of that disparity still exist had the NCAA made different decisions with regards to how it marketed the respective teams?  And is it fair to penalize women's basketball for decisions made in the past that affect the present?

The problem, I think, is that it is not possible to know where women's basketball would wind up vis a vis men's basketball had marketing efforts been proportional to potential.  I think women's basketball would have been bigger but for NCAA and ESPN benign neglect, but despite my preference for the women's sport, I know enough people who appreciate the aspects of the men's sport (for example, the dunking) to know that complete parity would be unlikely, even with the best of efforts.

I don't know where that leaves us, other than hoping that the sport does better going forward and doesn't use the outcome of past mistakes as justification for repeating them going forward.

BC

[UltimateCard]

At the risk of introducing politics, Tara and Anna (along with Dawn Staley and others) testified today to members of Congress on inequities in women’s sports.
https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...caa-sports

[UltimateCard]

At the risk of introducing politics, Tara and Anna (along with Dawn Staley and others) testified today to members of Congress on inequities in women’s sports.
https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...caa-sports

[teejers1]

At the risk of introducing politics, Tara and Anna (along with Dawn Staley and others) testified today to members of Congress on inequities in women’s sports.
https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...caa-sports

Tara should have taken the opportunity to testify about the inequity in Women's Olympic Team selections . . .

[teejers1]

At the risk of introducing politics, Tara and Anna (along with Dawn Staley and others) testified today to members of Congress on inequities in women’s sports.
https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...caa-sports

Tara should have taken the opportunity to testify about the inequity in Women's Olympic Team selections . . .