But what's driving the market prices? Is is not an externality-- Title IX?
Aren't universities required to spend equal portions of their athletic budgets on men's and women's sports. (Is it based on % enrollment?)
My guess is that universities are overpaying women's basketball coaches to increase the percent of their budgets being spent on women's athletics.
Perhaps, someone more informed can briefly explain Title IX's role in the seemingly high salaries for women's basketball coaches given the losses almost all programs incur.
Well, I don't think Title IX is the reason that women's basketball coaches make what they do. The rule is basically that to be Division I you have to have at least 7 men's sports and 7 women's sports. I don't believe that pay is a part of it. If it was, salaries across the board for all sports would be more equal.
Universities are not going to pay women's basketball coaches what they do unless they feel IT'S WORTH IT. So, even though many on this board believe that women's basketball isn't worth it, and brings no value to the university, those who are in charge of our athletic administration believe otherwise.
Don't have the numbers in front of me but, I'll bet that the exposure that women's basketball gets today is equal to or exceeds what college baseball gets. And thus, the university would deem paying a basketball coach a "market value" salary a worthy investment. Otherwise, they'd make what the golfing and swimming coaches make...........who also coach women's teams.
This post was edited on 3/28 at 6:44 pm