JRVFL
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,565
- Likes
- 3,967
Gandalf is wise...article is meh. :blink:Think they are going to have a big study on how much revenue Women's athletics bring in vs Men's? and how much we spend (lose) on women's programs vs men's? Yeah, didnt think we would see that study front and center on ESPN any time soon either. Inconvenient truth indeed.
Its because we have to recruit the country for football.
Think they are going to have a big study on how much revenue Women's athletics bring in vs Men's? and how much we spend (lose) on women's programs vs men's? Yeah, didnt think we would see that study front and center on ESPN any time soon either. Inconvenient truth indeed.
The title says that it isnt so simple, and the second paragraph says its not as bad as it sounds. Anyone calling this clickbait or suggesting that its some sort of hit piece is incredibly lazy.The article explains that the difference is because Tennessee spends near the top on both mens and womens recruiting. It is just a bad title and the whole article seems to undo the initial assumption of inequity. Id take that as positive press since it shows that UT spends a lot on women too.
I love how they fail to mention the difference in quantity of student athletes... Football alone accounts for at least 85 more male student athletes than women. Maybe this study should have broken it down to dollars spent per scholarship athlete. I bet the gap wouldn't be so large then...
Its not like they neglect to spend on womens recruiting Auburn, Georgia and Tennessee were all in the top six in women's spending, in fact but the gap is so large because of the significant money they dedicate to recruiting mens sports, specifically football.
Considering footballs status as the top revenue generator for most major athletic departments, its easy to see why schools spend big on recruiting in an attempt to be competitive on the gridiron. But that can lead to sizable spending gaps like those that exist at the aforementioned programs.