[crackpot]

That most of these sports can't make money outside the NCAA system shows that the athletes they are paying so much are not really what is driving the revenue.  If it was about the athletes and their skill level, they wouldn't need the colleges to be attractive to fans.  Except for the very few big stars it really is all about the school, not the athlete.  It is all tribal.  How much did Stanford or NIL or whatever pay the WBB players last season?  Were they worth it?  What did the university gain by paying them?  Nothing monetary in return, that's for sure.  This is not like a pro team where the owners make money from revenue and from the value of their franchise increasing over time.  Stanford is not more valuable as an entity because of anything WBB does or ever did.  Most sports at most schools lose money, often a lot of money.  Yet we are supposed to pay athletes to play them?  Stanford WBB does not make money as far as I know and never has.  A few years ago I saw a story about who makes money in WCBB.  It was I think like three schools, UConn, TN at that time, and maybe that was it.  Maybe a few more do now but mostly tickets are cheap and do not make up for money spent on coaches, scholarships, and all the rest that goes into a program.  Lots of salaries to pay.  Everything is backwards.

Rant #2 over.

...and I can't find any, but I swore I used to regularly read articles saying that *most* college football programs lose money (3/4, maybe?).

The math doesn't make sense to me.

Still, the NCAA caused this problem. They'd go ballistic if someone wanted to give a student athlete a free cookie, but schools were (are) free to pay their coaches millions. If they'd just 1) let student athletes earn whatever endorsements might come their way (as long as it was all on the up-and-up and made legitimate business sense); and 2) allowed compensation for their true NIL, e.g., NCAA Football app, they wouldn't be in this mess.

[crackpot]

That most of these sports can't make money outside the NCAA system shows that the athletes they are paying so much are not really what is driving the revenue.  If it was about the athletes and their skill level, they wouldn't need the colleges to be attractive to fans.  Except for the very few big stars it really is all about the school, not the athlete.  It is all tribal.  How much did Stanford or NIL or whatever pay the WBB players last season?  Were they worth it?  What did the university gain by paying them?  Nothing monetary in return, that's for sure.  This is not like a pro team where the owners make money from revenue and from the value of their franchise increasing over time.  Stanford is not more valuable as an entity because of anything WBB does or ever did.  Most sports at most schools lose money, often a lot of money.  Yet we are supposed to pay athletes to play them?  Stanford WBB does not make money as far as I know and never has.  A few years ago I saw a story about who makes money in WCBB.  It was I think like three schools, UConn, TN at that time, and maybe that was it.  Maybe a few more do now but mostly tickets are cheap and do not make up for money spent on coaches, scholarships, and all the rest that goes into a program.  Lots of salaries to pay.  Everything is backwards.

Rant #2 over.

...and I can't find any, but I swore I used to regularly read articles saying that *most* college football programs lose money (3/4, maybe?).

The math doesn't make sense to me.

Still, the NCAA caused this problem. They'd go ballistic if someone wanted to give a student athlete a free cookie, but schools were (are) free to pay their coaches millions. If they'd just 1) let student athletes earn whatever endorsements might come their way (as long as it was all on the up-and-up and made legitimate business sense); and 2) allowed compensation for their true NIL, e.g., NCAA Football app, they wouldn't be in this mess.