2011 NCAA women thread ... better late than never?

So ... we kill the WWL for being front-runners for such high-profile entities as the NFL, NBA and MLB but skewer them for trying something different since CBS has exclusive broadcasting rights to the men's tournament. What should ESPN show then? Why don't you send them some teacher photos to broadcast your fascination with teacher-student intercourse ... and make sure to tell them to post the photos.

If you don't like it, fine. We got it already.

 

I couldn't decide if that was supposed to look like a penis and testicles, or a uterus.

 

Actually, I liked the court idea. Old-school lanes. Much better than a couple of the ideas they've unveiled in recent years.

 

Impressive. You did way better with your response than I did with mine.

 

Women's college basketball doesn't bother me it all. I just find it hilarious there is this Emperor's clothes-type deal where people treat it like a bigger deal than the numbers clearly show it is.

 

So why does it bother you so much? Does it really destroy your life? Are the women causing little girls to starve themselves, take dozens of PEDs or attempt life-risking stunts in an attempt to emulate them?

Pat Summitt makes seven figures and, while I haven't seen any numbers, Geno Auriemma probably is somewhere near there in salary. Gail Goestenkors was lured to Austin from Durham for $800,000 annually. Are you trying to tell me that this many folks in Knoxville, Storrs and Austin are paying them such salaries for Title IX purposes? Title IX says zero about what athletic departments pay coaches, and I can assure that those ADs aren't paying coaches for altruistic reasons or to placate women's basketball fans.

 

Title IX? I didn't introduce Title IX to this thread.

And each of the programs you mentioned hemorrhaged money last year. Why? have no idea. Maybe these programs are loss leaders.

 

Sam, you are right. Though I stand by my posts, the final four thread is the wrong place to be shitting on the sport of women's basketball.

 

No, you didn't chum the waters with Title IX, but you tastefully tossed this into the punch bowl.

Classy. Really classy.

Name an athletic department who will gladly dole out the salaries earned by Pat Summitt, Geno Auriemma, Gail Goestenkors, et al ... and be able to write that off as "loss leaders." Name one.

Title IX, much like the salaries in various major professional sports, says zero about coaching salaries. Yet these schools feel it's important to retain these coaches and pay them very well to do so. It's not because they're trying to be charitable. No athletic department at any school in the country is paying coaches and writing it off.

 

Did someone mention Women's Final Four courts?

http://i.imgur.com/DYjIe.jpg[img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/1bDxT.jpg

 

Eh, for whatever reason my St. Louis one isn't showing up. That's the best (worst).

 

Although it isn't a Title IX issue, there is enormous pressure to raise the salary of the women's basketball coach. When Cal hired Mike Montgomery, women's coach Joanne Boyle got a raise from $300,000 to more than $600,000. Although the team has been successful, I guarantee you can't justify that as the value the women's basketball program is bringing to the Berkeley campus. So the athletic department is in a world of hurt and threatening to cut sports (although it looks like baseball will be saved).