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.
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.
You answered your own question. Money.
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?
Money.
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.
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.
My OP:
My OP:
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.
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.
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.
Huh? That’s exactly what they do.
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.
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.
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.
