NCAA's Treatment of Women

ncjacket79

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,032
End of discussion. This is so silly.
Maybe. But a huge part of the reason football and men’s basketball make money are the TV contracts. And to get that money you need to be in a conference and to be in the conference you have to provide the specified number of sports. But the reality and end of discussion is why would you treat 2 groups of athletes differently? Just do the right thing normally keeps you out of trouble.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,915
My point is much more basic. Perhaps we are assuming that the managers of the Mens tourney meet with the managers of the Women’s tourney and they harmonize the program so the product is the same. Or even considers the same things. And looks at similar checklists. My argument is they probably don’t.
And that is something that I discussed in my post. It probably is the case that the people running the tournaments are different teams of people. That probably provides the actual explanation of how these things happened. However, they aren't in different organizations. Both of those committees report to the NCAA, and both of those committees are in Division 1 of the NCAA. What I said is that there is a lack of leadership and management above those levels. I think it was probably a failure at the top levels of the NCAA instead of on the actual committees. I stated earlier in the thread that I believe there is a lack of leadership in the NCAA in other areas as well, such as enforcement. In fact, I don't see anything that the NCAA appears to do well systematically.

From your example of Marriot and Courtyard, let's assume that Marriot International actually owned the hotels instead of franchising them(or the majority of them). Would the Marriot and Courtyard be exactly the same? What about J.W. Marriot and Fairfield? No. They are operated differently and marketed differently to attract a different level of customers. However, would Marriot International have a good gender equality policy for Marriot, but allow the Fairfield brand to have misogynistic policies? No, they would probably have the exact same, or at least very similar HR documents across all of their brands. The NCAA needs someone to set the tone for the organization. They have a mission statement, but I don't see anyone who pushes them to follow that mission statement and direct their efforts towards it. I see them as kinda-sorta doing something related to college athletics and only reacting to situations instead of proactively "safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes and equipping them with the skills to succeed on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life". From what I can see, Mark Emmert is not a strong leader. I doubt many employees of the NCAA would state the previous statement as the purpose of the NCAA. I doubt many people in athletics at NCAA member schools would state that as the purpose of the NCAA. If an organizations members and employees don't understand what the purpose of the organization is, that is definitely the fault of leadership.
 

Milwaukee

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,008
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Maybe. But a huge part of the reason football and men’s basketball make money are the TV contracts. And to get that money you need to be in a conference and to be in the conference you have to provide the specified number of sports. But the reality and end of discussion is why would you treat 2 groups of athletes differently? Just do the right thing normally keeps you out of trouble.
You answered your own question. Money.
Stop overthinking and trying to be the smartest person in the room cause you’re not. “Why treat different groups differently?” Lmao.
 

ncjacket79

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,032
You answered your own question. Money.
Stop overthinking and trying to be the smartest person in the room cause you’re not. “Why treat different groups differently?” Lmao.
You’re hilarious. Basketball tournaments for P5 should be equivalent. The NCAA agrees. They also agree they screwed up. So what is it you’re arguing?
 

LibertyTurns

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,558
You’re hilarious. Basketball tournaments for P5 should be equivalent. The NCAA agrees. They also agree they screwed up. So what is it you’re arguing?
The NCAA Men’s basketball program built their brand over many, many years. Talented individuals had a dream and worked hard to accomplish it. Now it’s a billion dollar a year business. The Women’s basketball program had little interest OR it attracted lesser talented individuals trying to build their brand. Take your pick. There’s plenty of women run businesses dominating their markets having achieved success over similar periods.

This is a free country or at least it’s supposed to be. If there’s someone preventing women from selling tickets to their games to generate revenue & interest in their programs then “out” them and let those people face the music. Far more people watch women’s gymnastics than men’s, same for figure skating, etc. If women are pissed off at the treatment of their sport then start buying tickets, spend money on women’s basketball jerseys, watch their games on tv, etc. They will then have the revenue to eat lobster, outfit a gym they won’t visit, fly first class or whatever else they want to squander their money on. Oh yeah maybe hire some competent people to run their tournament so they remember to put a logo on their court.

Right now we’re taking money the men are EARNING and giving it to the women so we can have equality. Must really feel good to be given something you didn’t EARN and then show your butt in public complaining about the fact it wasn’t good enough.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,766
Sorry, but aren't most college athletics funded by Athletic Associations which are NOT funded by taxpayer dollars?

Kinda makes a difference in my mind.

I think the snub was extreme, and that was silly of the NCAA.Typically handled in an obtuse manner. But I also don't quite get the "it should be equal" argument.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,089
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I would bet you could spend $100 million marketing lacrosse and it wouldn’t change anything.
I think you'd be wrong. Soccer was an also-ran for years and years. It's now the most popular youth participation sport in the US. I'm not saying that people's tastes will change, but better marketing of other sports and teams will create more buzz for those sports and teams. Will it ever rival football and men's basketball, no one knows. but younger generations are eschewing football because of the damage it does to the body, so the best athletes are starting to gravitate towards other sports. Some day, that cash cow known as college football will not be as appealing as...say, maybe, lacrosse, which is also a contact sport but not nearly as dangerous to the long-lasting health of the athelete.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,608
Is the NCAA a business? If so, then making decisions on which gender to support based on revenue generated makes sense. If the NCAA is a non-profit that supports amateur athletics for college students, then they can't legally treat the genders differently regardless of revenue generated by one or the other. The NCAA could drop their non-profit status, but that would cost a lot more than renting a few weight machines, decorating the facilities similarly, and doing COVID tests similarly.

I don't understand why people take everything and make it 100% one way or 100% the opposite. There are multiple issues that have different answers. Each issue should be looked at individually. Should a non-profit sports organization (the NCAA) treat a women's tournament the same as they treat a men's tournament? Yes. Should women's basketball coaches be paid the same as the men's basketball coaches at every school? No. The men's and women's coaches get contracts at market rates for their services. If they were on a government pay rate schedule, then the men's and women's coaches would have to be paid on the same schedules. That could mean that a women's coach with more seniority would be paid more. However, I seriously doubt that any major conference head coach (men's or women's) would want to be placed on a government pay schedule instead of being able to negotiate their best salary on their own.

I'm not sure the point of this post in regard to responding to my OP. Grandstanding? I literally covered everything you said.

Is the NCAA a business? If so, then making decisions on which gender to support based on revenue generated makes sense.
My OP:
...from a business perspective it makes sense for the NCAA to save some money for the women's tournament because it only pulls in a fraction of the revenue the men's tournament does.

The NCAA could drop their non-profit status, but that would cost a lot more than renting a few weight machines, decorating the facilities similarly, and doing COVID tests similarly...Should a non-profit sports organization (the NCAA) treat a women's tournament the same as they treat a men's tournament? Yes.
My OP:
From a moral standpoint, given the objective of the NCAA (a "nonprofit" organizations that give equal opportunities to all student athletes) it's equally as dumb.

I think it's understood this isn't a black and white issue. There are a lot of things going on below the surface. The problem is the NCAA wants to have their cake and eat it as well, which is why we have issues. They want to keep their non-profit status and all the tax and legal protections it affords, yet they also run the organization like a for profit business (hence the "penny pinching" with the women's tournament) that pulls in BILLIONS in revenue. If college sports were considered a business (which it most definitely is despite their classification), it would rank the #173 company by revenue with $18.9 BILLION in revenues...ranking between CarMax and Tenet Healthcare. Think about that.

What's happening is the people in charge of running the NCAA are operating with outdated methods in a social media world. They have yet to grasp the power of social media and how social media gives a voice to the SAs and equality issues (gender, and race). They have also yet to grasp that the world outside of the collegiate sports bubble has changed. Everything is starting to bleed into each other.

The fact is, the NCAA is now at a crossroads. The longer they hold onto the old school notion that they're a non-profit, and continue to run things as they always have, the more issues they will run into in the future.
 

GT_EE78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,229
I think you'd be wrong. Soccer was an also-ran for years and years. It's now the most popular youth participation sport in the US. I'm not saying that people's tastes will change, but better marketing of other sports and teams will create more buzz for those sports and teams. Will it ever rival football and men's basketball, no one knows. but younger generations are eschewing football because of the damage it does to the body, so the best athletes are starting to gravitate towards other sports. Some day, that cash cow known as college football will not be as appealing as...say, maybe, lacrosse, which is also a contact sport but not nearly as dangerous to the long-lasting health of the athelete.
and it would be even more popular if they'd get rid of that silly offsides rule so the youth could run a real fast break.
and fix the clock to run in the correct direction
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,915
I'm not sure the point of this post in regard to responding to my OP. Grandstanding? I literally covered everything you said.


My OP:
...from a business perspective it makes sense for the NCAA to save some money for the women's tournament because it only pulls in a fraction of the revenue the men's tournament does.


My OP:
From a moral standpoint, given the objective of the NCAA (a "nonprofit" organizations that give equal opportunities to all student athletes) it's equally as dumb.

I think it's understood this isn't a black and white issue. There are a lot of things going on below the surface. The problem is the NCAA wants to have their cake and eat it as well, which is why we have issues. They want to keep their non-profit status and all the tax and legal protections it affords, yet they also run the organization like a for profit business (hence the "penny pinching" with the women's tournament) that pulls in BILLIONS in revenue. If college sports were considered a business (which it most definitely is despite their classification), it would rank the #173 company by revenue with $18.9 BILLION in revenues...ranking between CarMax and Tenet Healthcare. Think about that.

What's happening is the people in charge of running the NCAA are operating with outdated methods in a social media world. They have yet to grasp the power of social media and how social media gives a voice to the SAs and equality issues (gender, and race). They have also yet to grasp that the world outside of the collegiate sports bubble has changed. Everything is starting to bleed into each other.

The fact is, the NCAA is now at a crossroads. The longer they hold onto the old school notion that they're a non-profit, and continue to run things as they always have, the more issues they will run into in the future.
I believe we agree. The second part of my post about people going to extremes wasn't intended to be directed at you. Just a comment in general regarding the tenor of the conversation in the thread.
 

ncjacket79

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,032
The NCAA Men’s basketball program built their brand over many, many years. Talented individuals had a dream and worked hard to accomplish it. Now it’s a billion dollar a year business. The Women’s basketball program had little interest OR it attracted lesser talented individuals trying to build their brand. Take your pick. There’s plenty of women run businesses dominating their markets having achieved success over similar periods.

This is a free country or at least it’s supposed to be. If there’s someone preventing women from selling tickets to their games to generate revenue & interest in their programs then “out” them and let those people face the music. Far more people watch women’s gymnastics than men’s, same for figure skating, etc. If women are pissed off at the treatment of their sport then start buying tickets, spend money on women’s basketball jerseys, watch their games on tv, etc. They will then have the revenue to eat lobster, outfit a gym they won’t visit, fly first class or whatever else they want to squander their money on. Oh yeah maybe hire some competent people to run their tournament so they remember to put a logo on their court.

Right now we’re taking money the men are EARNING and giving it to the women so we can have equality. Must really feel good to be given something you didn’t EARN and then show your butt in public complaining about the fact it wasn’t good enough.
None of what you said has anything to do with the point of my post. The NCAA screwed up. They have admitted it. This is not about money it’s about not putting forth the effort and they have made themselves look like fools...again.

As an aside, some of the takes on how businesses, particularly not for profits run is interesting. No one expects every line of business to make the same profit. That’s a classic cost accounting lesson. But for the sake of argument just consider your local hospital. If it took that approach they would only provide surgery and perhaps a few specialties because that’s where the money is. But they don’t and they don’t scrimp in other programs because it hurts the brand. It would also go against their mission and risk their tax exempt status.
 
Last edited:

LibertyTurns

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,558
But for the sake of argument just consider your local hospital. If it took that approach they would only provide surgery and perhaps a few specialties because that’s where the money is. But they don’t and they don’t scrimp in other programs because it hurts the brand. It would also go against their mission and risk their tax exempt status.
Huh? That’s exactly what they do.
 

LibertyTurns

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,558
No they don’t. You’re telling me you have a nfp hospital that doesn’t have medical patients?
It’s ridiculous to say a hospital has ZERO patients but if that’s your bar, well there’s no arguing that. A building with ZERO patients is certainly not a hospital, so you win. If you wish to discuss real situations, you could not be more wrong. Rural hospitals have minimums they need to adhere to in order to get Uncle Sugar’s money- ER beds, intensive care, etc. We have a local not for profit hospital where I live, a solidly rural area here in Florida. 15 yrs ago it was ailing, falling into disrepair, not able to rub 2 nickels together. A very generous donor funded a state of the art cardiac unit & they also opened a specialty cosmetic surgery wing. Why? It’s where the money is. Surgery is 3-4x more profitable than treating a sick patient in a bed. I think the average cardiac patient costs $75k for a 3-4 day visit, those just in a bed generate $5k/day. It’s pure economics. The hospital maintains the minimum number of beds but now “smarter people or those with means” get transported to the cardiac unit for treatment because it’s one of the best in the state & certainly the best anywhere nearby. The cosmetic surgery wing was wildly profitable before Rona and literally crippled operations due to the cash drain. I’m sure there’s some on here that actually run hospitals that can provide more concrete details, but surgery in hospitals is where the money is. As always, follow the money.
 

ncjacket79

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,032
It’s ridiculous to say a hospital has ZERO patients but if that’s your bar, well there’s no arguing that. A building with ZERO patients is certainly not a hospital, so you win. If you wish to discuss real situations, you could not be more wrong. Rural hospitals have minimums they need to adhere to in order to get Uncle Sugar’s money- ER beds, intensive care, etc. We have a local not for profit hospital where I live, a solidly rural area here in Florida. 15 yrs ago it was ailing, falling into disrepair, not able to rub 2 nickels together. A very generous donor funded a state of the art cardiac unit & they also opened a specialty cosmetic surgery wing. Why? It’s where the money is. Surgery is 3-4x more profitable than treating a sick patient in a bed. I think the average cardiac patient costs $75k for a 3-4 day visit, those just in a bed generate $5k/day. It’s pure economics. The hospital maintains the minimum number of beds but now “smarter people or those with means” get transported to the cardiac unit for treatment because it’s one of the best in the state & certainly the best anywhere nearby. The cosmetic surgery wing was wildly profitable before Rona and literally crippled operations due to the cash drain. I’m sure there’s some on here that actually run hospitals that can provide more concrete details, but surgery in hospitals is where the money is. As always, follow the money.
I think you misunderstood my post because you have basically just made the same point. What I was saying is that’s how a not for profit works. You try to max where the make your money but still provide quality services in all areas your mission demands. What you don’t do is cut out those areas where you may lose or only break even to maximize profit. The comparison being the NCAA and the argument about who “deserves” the money. BTW I’ve worked in the hospital industry for 30+ years so I do understand how it works.
 

LibertyTurns

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,558
@ncjacket79 There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what “no for profit” actually means on here. It does not mean makes no profit. It means you do not have shareholders that can profit from the business & the non-profit tag is more of a tax avoidance issue than anything else because they “provide a community benefit”. Non-profits are hugely profitable in the United States and many people get filthy rich off them. I looked this up & for example Cleveland Clinic generated $10B in revenue in 2019 generating nearly $400M in profit. I read somewhere a while back that the non-profit medical industry generates somewhere around $20B in profit annually. Big money & they only have to give a token amount back to the community to maintain tax exempt status. Amazing what they get away with, but money buys politicians & politicians butter the bread.
 

ncjacket79

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,032
@ncjacket79 There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what “no for profit” actually means on here. It does not mean makes no profit. It means you do not have shareholders that can profit from the business & the non-profit tag is more of a tax avoidance issue than anything else because they “provide a community benefit”. Non-profits are hugely profitable in the United States and many people get filthy rich off them. I looked this up & for example Cleveland Clinic generated $10B in revenue in 2019 generating nearly $400M in profit. I read somewhere a while back that the non-profit medical industry generates somewhere around $20B in profit annually. Big money & they only have to give a token amount back to the community to maintain tax exempt status. Amazing what they get away with, but money buys politicians & politicians butter the bread.
100% true regarding margin/profit. The saying is “no margin, no mission”. The other side though is since there are no shareholders there are also no investors so a non profit must generate their funds for improvement, expansion, etc either through margin, donors or in the case of hospitals in many cases selling bonds. The people who “get rich” are typically the administrators who in many cases are well compensated for running very large, complex organizations. The “token” amount communities receive is normally in the millions in uncompensated care, free clinics and other services.

My point though was to compare this to the NCAA who has a mission to serve college athletics and college athletes. That mission should include some expectation in my opinion or treating athletes in the same division (D1, D2 etc) the same regardless of sex or marketability. Use the opportunities to generate money to support the whole, like your local hospital does.
 
Top