Wow. Ole Miss football brought in $12 million of profit. Women's basketball lost $8 million.

So football funded both basketball programs

No one can read rivals.com. How did xc and track do?

Doubt they lost 8 million.

Are they really demanding equal NIL to men? I suspect the women understand that every female athlete receives different NIL money with some probably making nothing.

Good looking female athletes do well with NIL deals regardless of their ability. Is the same true for men? Truth is there are over 3X as many female models as there are male models. Why isn’t there a Title IX for male models?

Football funds the athletic departments of just about all of the P5 schools.

As far as the women go, they can get any amount of NIL that a sponsor is willing to pay them. Do you have a problem with that? Isn't the whole concept of what free markets are all about?

It's too funny how some people get so unhinged about women's sports.

This is cool and all but the total cost for those teams are actually much much higher.

Usually these numbers don’t include scholarship costs and the biggest one. Facility costs/ maintenance. Those are covered by the main campus.

I worked at two different universities when the athletic department “leased” the facilities for home games from the main campus at almost no cost. Weird accounting nonsense

It’ll be very interesting to see what happens when football breaks away and takes their money with them.

Women's basketball is a tough watch, a very tough watch. At all levels.

Don’t watch it, then

Oh, I know, you don’t watch it anyway. You’re just triggered by women and feel the need to share your worthless opinion.

Then they shouldn't get money from a successful sport.

Some get money because/when others watch them. You might not like watching Caitlin Clarke or the LSU women but many people do which is why they get paid.

If enough people were watching, they wouldn't lose so much money.

Can we all be honest about what a sham NIL is in general?

Think about it: The concept is that a business can enter into a contract with a student-athlete to leverage their name, image and likeness for advertising purposes which, in theory, would lead to an increase in sales and profit, making the deal a positive for the business (ideally).

So, we have "businesses" (really just the boosters, in many cases) throwing money at players (to seduce them to or keep them at a university), so the team is more likely to win and to make the boosters happy.

How many NIL deals are really leading to increased profit for businesses that hold the NIL rights? How many advertisements are we seeing focusing on players at all? And beyond the stars, how many ads are we seeing focusing on the second-tier and bench players that are receiving NIL money? None?

I'm all for the players benefitting from their NIL, and always thought they should have been able to. But at this point it is not a legitimate business transaction in most cases. It is booster-funded pay to play.

Football funds just about every sport at any of the schools in the biggest conferences. Are you a T&F and XC fan? How would you like it if those sports didn't get funded from football?

I understand watching tall, athletic women can be very tough for a short scrawny guy like yourself.

As stated earlier, just about every sport loses money, including ours. Should we do away with all these sports?

Athletes are advertisements for their school even if their sport doesn't make money. Successful sports programs can spark interest and enrollment.

I believe there is a Rule to be Division 1 A School must have 16 Sport Teams of which 6 or more have to be Men.

Do any schools make a Profit/Produce Revenue? Like Maybe Texas with The Texas Relays?

I don't really care about women's basketball in terms of watch-ability or popularity, but how could it cost $8M for one season of a basketball team? How many players are on the team? Even with full room and board, that's gotta be a LOT for travel, food, and lodging, no?

All those charter flights add up.