Decent Read

[AnotherSoonerInTX]

not more tickets more money from tickets ..

womens basketball tickets cost very very little .. OU softball tickets are not cheap ..

this also does not include donations to buy the tickets .. in either mens basketball or softball .


and so you know if you want to sit in the first 10 rows for OU basketball you are paying 1000 a seat plus the cost of tickets ..

I should have said brought in more money. Thanks!

 

[AnotherSoonerInTX]

Does the money for softball include regionals, super regional and WCWS? The world series is wildly popular, but I have no clue how much and how teams are paid. I would assume the further you go and more games you play you get a bigger share, but how much that actually is I have no clue.
I think weekday game times are a significant factor in attendance at both men's and women's, especially with those of us who drive from OKC/Edmond. In the "good old days" except for Big Monday all weekday home games for both were at 7. Now a 7 game is rare- typically 6 or 8, and that goes without mentioning the ridiculous outlier of the men's game vs Texas at 9. Tough to get to a 6 pm game living in Edmond, and 8 game ends late and home late. Doable but not ideal. I know TV rules all and you have to go where and when the conference says and where the $$ is. But time is a factor.

I'm almost positive it doesn't include the WCWS. Probably not the regionals or super regionals, either, since those are also NCAA events and OU gets a percentage as the host.

 

[cbertus6]

For many--certainly for me--the overarching focus on money is ruining college sports. I'm not naive; I know it's always been a key factor, but now it drives everything and collegiate sports are losing their luster (for me and others). Your final sentence clangs harshly on my ear (I'm not criticizing you--I'm criticizing the state of collegiate sports). A university is not a business, and neither should collegiate sports be viewed as strictly a business. As they move more in that direction, they interest and inspire me less and less.

OU men's hoops doesn't make more money on a merit system; it makes that money because men's basketball is a one of the more popular sports. But men's sports got a decades-long head start on women's sports. If we only funnel money into perpetuating the status quo, not only is it, in my opinion, unjust, we will miss out on a great deal of fun and joy. Women deserve their place at the table. Asking that they bring in as much money as the men at this stage is not only unrealistic, it's impossible. Men's sports have an entrenched advantage that certainly isn't going away any time soon and may never do so.

I understand why it being a business is a turn off for some, but make no mistake it has ALWAYS been a business. The new era of collegiate sports has just thrown that fact into the spotlight. Programs have been getting cut left and right for years at universities because they weren't benefitting the university in any way. The ADs around the country aren't pumping millions of dollars into stadium renovations because it is beneficial for the student athletes. They are doing so to create an environment that supports furthering revenue from the sport the stadium supports.

Women absolutely deserve their place at the table. I don't think anyone is arguing to cut women's sports. But the fact of the matter is, the softball team is taking more than it is giving financially. And with the two profit-producing sports at OU seemingly in the tank right now, I can understand why fans are upset that softball is seeing all of this investment when it feels like basketball and football are being neglected in some form. I'm not saying that is precisely what is happening or even that I believe is what is happening fwiw, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to see where the contempt from some is coming from.

 

[skyvue]

I understand why it being a business is a turn off for some, but make no mistake it has ALWAYS been a business. The new era of collegiate sports has just thrown that fact into the spotlight. Programs have been getting cut left and right for years at universities because they weren't benefitting the university in any way. The ADs around the country aren't pumping millions of dollars into stadium renovations because it is beneficial for the student athletes. They are doing so to create an environment that supports furthering revenue from the sport the stadium supports.

Women absolutely deserve their place at the table. I don't think anyone is arguing to cut women's sports. But the fact of the matter is, the softball team is taking more than it is giving financially. And with the two profit-producing sports at OU seemingly in the tank right now, I can understand why fans are upset that softball is seeing all of this investment when it feels like basketball and football are being neglected in some form. I'm not saying that is precisely what is happening or even that I believe is what is happening fwiw, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to see where the contempt from some is coming from.

In another thread, someone pointed out that OU is in the black whle tOSU is $37 million in the red. Someone else responded, "They won the national title, so who cares?" (not a direct quote).

OU softball has won four straight national titles, but they still catch grief from some because of a relatively tiny deficit. Two-thirds of that $3 million deficit is thanks to Coach Gasso's salary. The arguments are terribly inconsistent. That softball deficit is just slightly more than Porter Moser's annual salary and just slightly more than 1/3 of BV's annual salary. So what are we talking about here?

 

[cbertus6]

In another thread, someone pointed out that OU is in the black whle tOSU is $37 million in the red. Someone else responded, "They won the national title, so who cares?" (not a direct quote).

OU softball has won four straight national titles, but they still catch grief from some because of a relatively tiny deficit. Two-thirds of that $3 million deficit is thanks to Coach Gasso's salary. The arguments are terribly inconsistent. That softball deficit is just slightly more than Porter Moser's annual salary and just slightly more than 1/3 of BV's annual salary. So what are we talking about here?

I'm just trying to be honest/realistic with you about why things are the way they are. If you want to talk about terribly inconsistent arguments, in this thread alone you've gone from "softball is doing great because it's making more money via tickets than basketball" to "TV money isn't what's being discussed" to "college sports are worse off because of the business side" to now "Ohio State is in the red and softball is only barely in the red so why does money matter at all"? If I'm not mistaken, you've also been on the side supporting Joe C doing a good job because he keeps the AD in the black, but I could be mistaken there.

So let me be clear, I am not going after you or your argument in any way. I am just stating that it is my and many others' belief that there has been a disproportionate amount of investment in the men's basketball program from our athletic department when compared to softball over the past few years. The frustration is not that softball is receiving this investment, it is that basketball is not. I am not saying softball does not deserve the investment it has received, and I am not saying those women don't deserve what they are getting. I am stating that it does not make sense presently to invest so heavily in a sport that is not making the AD any money when it seems that we are also simultaneously ignoring one of two sports that does.

And the thing is, if we invested in basketball and got the ball rolling there, we would have much more money to invest in other sports. Basketball revenue/profit being down hurts everyone. This is not a women's vs. men's sports argument. It is a logical "what puts the athletic department in the healthiest position" argument.