We'll look at that. While the men's NCAA Tourney and obviously the MF4 features one nip/tuck game after another. The first game of WFF features one team up 17 at half.
But by all means let's keep spending millions on this sport.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've been waiting for this grooved fastball for seemingly a decade, gonna feel great to smash this one 520 ft.
The women's NCAA tournament is 32 years old. At that point in men's tournament history, 1972, the NCAA was less competitive than the women's is now. You were like 30 years old in '72 which may account for the poor memory. In 1972 UCLA were in the processing of winning 7 straight NCAA Championships and 10 out of 12, and they started their 88 game winning streak. Thankfully in 1972 we didn't have a vocal group of sexists oddly wanting to kill a sport because it wasn't as competitive as they like even though they had the option of oh...not watch something they don't like.
Women's college basketball isn't going anywhere, there are federal laws ensuring this. I'm going to be so happy to see this sport continue to grow, I love it. I'll maintain my sanity to continuing to not watch or care about sports I don't like. You should try it, it feels great to be unburdened by worrying about why rugby gets to be on tv.
Thanks for that dax, that was a great birthday present to me, it felt much better than I thought it would.
I knew that's exactly what you were going to say, so pathetically typical. Sad.
It might literally be the biggest strawman ever relative to college athletic discussion to compare the current period of college athletics to anything in college athletics 30 or 40 years ago and beyond.
When John Wooden started winning his championships at UCLA there were literally schools that didn't allow African-American players to be on their basketball team, in some cases, they barely even allowed African Americans and other people of color into their institutions.
The money spent on athletics, that being the ENTIRE athletic department at the vast majority of schools . . . well let's just say that would have looked upon what a school like K-State spent on women's basketball last year in absolute awe (and for the 10 plus years before that). John Wooden probably barely made a million dollars from UCLA over the course of 3 plus decades of coaching there. Deb Patterson for example was paid over $3 million in her last 5 years.
The NCAA Women's Tournament was propelled into venues, coverage and notoriety on a rocket ship, literally riding the coat tails of the modern men's National Tourney. It took decades for the men's national tournament to get to the level the women's tourney is now and has been for well over a decade. Back during in the 50's, 60's and 70's, college basketball and the national tourney were niche sport that was propelled forward by the growing number of people who attended college, but still dwarfed by college football and pro sports. During that time there was a competing national tournament that was on some levels even bigger than the NCAA men's tourney.
The differences between then and now make a list a mile long . . . but leave it to MIR.
I didn't say drop the sport at K-State or anywhere, so why the eff you would even bring up the idiotic throw away of federal law? Thanks Captain Obvious.
It's just time to explore other sports opportunities for women at K-State, and increase the budgets for the other existing women's sports at the expense of women's basketball at K-State. Hopefully the $300K that K-State is saving on the new basketball coaches salary is going to be promptly moved to volleyball and women's track.