I would like to propose a new rule for the board, which is that no one is allowed to compare anything to anything as between Summitt and her program versus Pearl or Fulmer and their programs. Here is my reasoning:
From a purely objective point of view, none of it is comparable. The task of fielding one of the best women's teams is infinitely easier than doing so on the men's side because the opportunites that await successful men's players after college are about a million times more in number and benefit than the women's players.
Therefore, from a purely objective point of view and whether you care about women's programs or not, there is no basis for comparing their success because they are in totally different contexts.
Next, if you do happen to be a fan of Summitt and her team, you should not want there to be a comparison because a) the money generated by a mediocre men's team at any given major college is going to absolutely dwarf the money generated by the most successful women's teams. And I mean by a lot; and, b) because the women's product is not nearly as athletic or entertaining as the men's product, why on Earth would you want people comparing them knowing for a fact that the women's program will always lose the side-by-side battle?
And, if you happen to be like me and find the women's program at any university and any level to be silly and wasteful, all such posts do is drive you crazy. Its not like anyone will ever convince anyone else that women's college basketball is a worthwhile endeavor. I'm not saying it isn't, though I happen to feel that way. I realize it is subjective. But trying to compare that program to the men's program is a debate and battle that will always be lost. Always.
So why do it?
