SEC Women's Basketball Expenses for Fiscal Year 2019 (i.e., 1 July 2018 - 30 June 2019)

1. South Carolina: $6,833,386 (includes $1,041,232 game-day operating expenses)
2. Mississippi State: $6,115,465 (includes $1,502,041 game-day operating expenses)
3. Kentucky: $6,086,548 (includes $1,317,162 game-day operating expenses)
4. Texas A&M: $5,871,696 (includes $1,445,349 game-day operating expenses)
5. Arkansas: $5,468,462 (includes $1,358,630 game-day operating expenses)
6. Tennessee: $5,136,192 (includes $1,489,072 game-day operating expenses)
7. Ole Miss: $4,681,389 (includes $1,224,729 game-day operating expenses)
8. Auburn: $4,536,994 (includes $1,242,368 game-day operating expenses)
9. Missouri: $4,416,682 (includes $1,206,288 game-day operating expenses)
10. Vanderbilt: $4,401,360 (includes $1,100,871 game-day operating expenses)
11. LSU: $4,294,960 (includes $883,464 game-day operating expenses)
12. UGA: $4,106,089 (includes $967,935 game-day operating expenses)
13. Alabama: $3,857,300 (includes $913,287 game-day operating expenses)
14. Florida: $3,851,609 (includes $1,071,958 game-day operating expenses)

As in Men's hoops, this is an embarrassment - but the divide from top to bottom is not nearly as extreme as Men's Hoops.

All hail the Reserve Fund!

If a school aims to please the Woke crowd, shouldn't expenses for men's and women's basketball be approximately the same?

dang, why are Mississippi State's game day expenses more than $1.5M? that's more than 50% higher than UGA.

JudgeLarryDawg said:

---

If a school aims to please the Woke crowd, shouldn't expenses for men's and women's basketball be approximately the same?

---

From the other thread, I believe AFD showed that (in keeping with Title IX), we spend mostly the same but a little more on women's sports than men's sports in terms of athletically-related student aid:

• UGA athletically-related student aid spent on women: $5,947,300 (51.1%)
• UGA athletically-related student aid spent on men: $5,688,734 (48.9%)

Also, even if you remove the profits from football and men's basketball (since those are the only two sports that don't lose money), the breakdown of "financial support" in terms of covering losses is dramatically tilted (almost 3:1) towards giving money to women's sports:

• Total expenses + revenues for men's teams: $65,547,602 expenses; $136,169,577 revenue; $70,621,975 net profit. Removing football and basketball, that changes to $8,583,792 expenses; $2,402,052 revenue; $6,181,740 net loss.
• Total expenses + revenues for women's teams: $19,891,396 expenses; $2,510,563 revenue; $17,380,833 net loss

More specific to women's basketball, at a net loss of $3 million per year, I believe UGA loses more money on it than any other sport at UGA, so that shows some real commitment IMHO. If a booster or anyone on here that is "embarrassed" by the lack of spending and wants to write a check to cover the additional costs, then I am all for that, but spending more to lose more seems like a bad idea to me.

By the way, I don't mean to bring up inconvenient or unpleasant facts, and I don't say this to be callous, but if more people really cared about those other sports (which includes all of the men's sports that lose money), then they wouldn't have a funding problem.

I'm with ya, I ain't agin ya.

It's true that in terms of net total dollars, women's basketball loses more than any other sport (-$3.4MM). Baseball is second at -$1.89MM. But both programs have ticket sales as a revenue stream and most other secondary sports do not.

Women's basketball loses $0.79 of every $1 spent.
Baseball loses $0.72 of every $1 spent.

Men's golf loses $0.93 for every $1 spent.
Men's tennis loses $0.94 per $1 spent.
Softball loses $0.96 of every $1 spent.

HunkerDownDawgs said:

---

By the way, I don't mean to bring up inconvenient or unpleasant facts, and I don't say this to be callous, but if more people really cared about those other sports (which includes all of the men's sports that lose money), then they wouldn't have a funding problem.

---

Can we just pin this at the top?