You had me nodding yes all the way up to "pretending women's soccer is just as important." It isn't a fan sport. It does not generate revenue. Is it important that these women participate in an athletic scholarship program? Yes. Do they cost the U as much as a football scholarship. Not even close. Their risk to injury profile is significantly less. 19 of the 20 athletes are from Minnesota. There are 4 staff members supporting the team. Is this such an extravagant expense that we can not afford it as a University? What I like about this program is that it supports Minnesotan's. It offers opportunity to these women opportunity to be champions of the University. This is a life long value to the University. They become ambassadors of the University and are likely to remain outspoken about the U for their remaining days. The return for that is maybe not obvious to you, but I bet the social return on investment outweighs the cost of the program. The benefit of the program is generally along these lines: benefit of school achievement -- higher future income. Benefit of reduced use of alcohol, tobacco and illegal drug use. Higher lifetime taxes paid. Lower crime rate. Improved health outcomes. Reduced need for social services. Greater participation in civic engaged societies. The list goes on and on. But, in your world, these outcomes don't matter as long as football needs succeed. I think if we measure football and basketball against women's soccer, the women will end up contributing more and taking less from society in terms of social costs. The return on investment is likely to be higher with them than the men's side. The men have a long way to go to make up for their higher incarceration rates, higher rates of alcoholism, family abuse and the like that football players exhibit in higher levels than these soccer players. So, lets keep it in perspective. I would rather fund women's soccer because it returns to me more in value than not funding women's soccer.
