[M T]

For the men, the money from the tournament goes to the conferences, not the schools.  How does that help the schools that actually go to the tournament?  For instance, has Stanford (MBB) been freeloading off AZ (etc) in some way?  

And, as I reported, the KU coach would have gotten $100K if his team had beaten Stanford and gone to the Sweet 16.  Is that just the school paying to get its name out in public (getting more choice of recruits and potentially more alumni $$ and more advertising $$), or is that money coming back from the NCAA somehow (seemingly not)?

I'd love to see a graphic:
  If Tara Vanderver had her success as a coach of a men's basketball team, the NCAA would have paid the PAC-10/PAC-12  $x million dollars.  Since she coached women, the NCAA paid nothing.

In a sense, that's unfair, as the advertisers were paying for MBB viewers,  but it might be a stunning amount.

[M T]

For the men, the money from the tournament goes to the conferences, not the schools.  How does that help the schools that actually go to the tournament?  For instance, has Stanford (MBB) been freeloading off AZ (etc) in some way?  

And, as I reported, the KU coach would have gotten $100K if his team had beaten Stanford and gone to the Sweet 16.  Is that just the school paying to get its name out in public (getting more choice of recruits and potentially more alumni $$ and more advertising $$), or is that money coming back from the NCAA somehow (seemingly not)?

I'd love to see a graphic:
  If Tara Vanderver had her success as a coach of a men's basketball team, the NCAA would have paid the PAC-10/PAC-12  $x million dollars.  Since she coached women, the NCAA paid nothing.

In a sense, that's unfair, as the advertisers were paying for MBB viewers,  but it might be a stunning amount.