Nice try. I clearly posted following the Wisconsin victory, see below, and I was at an anniversary party last night otherwise I would’ve posted as well. I’m always happy, thrilled, when any of our teams win any game, match, or competition, in any sport. Don’t be so naïve.
Rutgers women’s basketball rocked with more tumult as 2nd player dismissed from team in 4 days
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
Nice try. I clearly posted following the Wisconsin victory, see below, and I was at an anniversary party last night otherwise I would’ve posted as well. I’m always happy, thrilled, when any of our teams win any game, match, or competition, in any sport. Don’t be so naïve.
1) Both men’s and women’s basketball have 13 scholarships. We were both wrong.
2) I was wrong by 50%, not 100%, But it’s really good to know that you’re fine with two girls, out of 13, being dismissed in the same week. GOD FORBID Everyone should be critical of that.
3) LOVE that the girls are playing as such. Maybe losing these two was a blessing in disguise?? I don’t know, however, let’s just hope that this type of enthusiastic play continues!
perhaps that losing these two were the blessing in disguises.....i have seen a better offense without Cryor
After Jenkins was kept from playing after her arrest , the team started on a downward trend losing the next three games
Cryor's talent makes her a loss that needed to be overcome.
Luckily there is enough talent at the guard position to overcome her loss.
But her being dismissed does hurt because before the 3 game slide Ciani had some pretty good games on the offensive end with her assists.
But as for being a scoring threat , I can see your point.
Mack stepped up in the Wisconsin route and Guirantes played lights out against Minny.
Zip distributed the ball great against the Gophers, taking the place of Cryor in that department
But Harris and Carey's foul troubles hurt the way they could play an aggressive D and shown RU's big depth is hurting without Jenkins getting minutes
Last night you found the time to reply to something dmd said, but didn't post a note of congratulation about the team beating the Gophers .
So you don't need to act so offended .
I posted a response at 1:27AM, yes, a little while after I got home. Pretty sure I rolled right over and crashed immediately thereafter. Sue me.
Just saying, you said you couldn't post but forgot you did.
You did have the time before you crashed after getting home because you found the time to see what dmd posted and reply.
No need for me to sue, as long as you take what I posted as constructive criticism :D
Rackpack, I understand your point. But, I’d really like to know what RU sport is NOT being “subsidized” and actually makes money for RU. Maybe wrestling (I am a HUGE fan). I wonder if WBB brings in more scholarship & donation money then say swimming/diving. I wonder what those facilities cost to have & operate? And compare their wins and losses. I really don’t know. I feel like people often pick more on WBB just because of “salaries” as opposed to picking on many of the other sports, including mens, that have lower salaries but still high expenses to operate. Traveling expenses are high for all sports. Maybe the exposure of WBB and the success it has does increase WBB scholarships, donations and even attendance to the point where it offsets the WBB salaries enough to be on par with other sports. I heard Volleyball is in a hole $1M a year. IMHO, comparing that to WBB and its success, even at a loss of $2M, the 1000th win was priceless for its exposure and PR alone. Standing #1 in BIG conference for over half the season also was huge. I don’t have the answers, but I do know RU struggles with many sports and money, and we could go on and on and on about managing it better. What I have difficulty understanding is the malcontent towards WBB alone as opposed to 2-3 other RU sports that don’t bring in ANY success that are costly, too. And please don’t misinterpret that statement. I don’t want those sports targeted either! I would like RU to fundraise & alumni to step up. Rutgers University to start to emulate other BIG schools and treat athletics as part of the overall BIG picture...it’s a business! RU needs to support the coaches/athletes with facilities and funds to be successful. It’s hard to do on very limited funds. There’s a lot of work to be done here. It’s a process. Hopefully, in the BIG conference, as time goes on, money comes in, it will get better. Growing pains.
Go RU!
Diane
Just to point out - and there was a loonnngg discussion of this on a UConn board that I read - actually, they are all overpaying (well, maybe except for UConn).
The point is they - pretty much every one of those schools - are not making money (and neither does UConn WBB, although it did a couple of years some time ago). The argument - not mine, just the general theme - was how do you justify paying the large salaries to WBB coaches - often more than coaches of much more successful so-called "non-revenue" sports - often for very little return. Just to be fair - Stanford's coach's salary is endowed.
CVS receives the salary she does both as payment for what accountants call "goodwill" (i.e. the value of her name) and the fact that RU would like to consider itself a contender to be a top 10 program. And she is not overpaid by those criteria.
I don't know who salaries for WBB coaches became as high as they did, but now that they are, is anyone likely to take less? That's why Rutgers will be paying a salary that is not justified by revenue to the next coach. It is the reality of the sport.
Wow, my bad, I looked at the site yesterday that said 13 but just double checked. Thank you!
And, that is why you are sitting in your home, telling your wife how great she is, and I see what reality.......MadHat you are a great guy, but put the glasses down
guy, and call them the way they are..............!
The reality is there should be a $$$$ purse for Women’s Tournament just like the Men have.
Wanna make it smaller, fine.
But in 2019, there should be something more than a plaque for the winners, runner up, Final Four and down the line IMO.
While it would be nice - it isn't discrimination. Covered in the thread I read "over there" as well - the "purse" for men's basketball comes from the income (mostly TV rights) for the tournament. It is very profitable, by far the most profitable venture of the NCAA's. The women's tournament loses money. FWIW, the NCAA does pay some of the participating team's expenses, for example, in travel.
Well with the amount of money the NCAA makes from the Men’s side (and skims right off the top before it gets to its member schools - A LOT) I think they can throw a little more to the other group who basically use the same facilities.
I know it would always be less (and fair IMO), but it should be something.
