re: So back to this Women's soccer vs Men's soccer debate

Well you said the tournaments are equal and they aren't. And yes some of the women have essentially used the argument that the fact that they win tournaments and the men don't as reasons they should be paid more and featured more on platforms like ESPN. Perhaps you did not mean to support in that argument, in which case I apologize for me retort. It's just annoying that some do not realize the disparity between international support and passion for the women's game and international support and passion for the men's game.

The USWNT are the best supported women's national team in almost every way, traditionally, monetarily, infrastructure, talent pool, you name it. In contrast, the men do not share any of those same advantages.

Bc of those two factors, the women are playing against such watered competition that excelling in that area, while commendable, is equivalent to the two examples I posted. Or choose any sporting league that is inferior by a wide margin to what you would consider the top league. Is ULL winning the Sun Belt and New Orleans bowl a better accomplishment than LSU going 10-2 and losing in the SEC title game?

quote:

---

Ah, so top 16 is fine for LSU this year?

---

Again, I'm not sure if your logic is flawed or you don't understand the different positions LSU and the USMNT occupy in their respective sports. If LSU put all their resources into 5 sports, with football being on the lower end of that fivesome, while other schools put all their resources into one or two sports with football receiving by far the lion's share, then yes finishing in the top 16 would be a very good accomplishment. Also considering that if we're furthering this analogy, LSU would've only started any real semblance of a football team in about 1980, while other schools had been developing talent pools, pipelines, traditions, and passion since the 1800's.