I was thinking that too. I mean, just like football revenue doesn't all have to be spent on football, I can't imagine that these new women's basketball revenue credits all have to be spent on women's basketball. If that's the case, what in the world would be the argument against this being a thing?
What's kind of funny about that is that FBS football is BY FAR the biggest money maker in college sports, but the NCAA as an organization actually sees very little (like almost none) of that money (mostly because they don't control the postseason). The biggest revenue driver for the NCAA as an organization is the men's basketball postseason, being media rights (which is in the billions) and ticket sales to the NCAA Tournament and NIT. Then there's a
huge drop off, then it's the FCS postseason and WBK postseason, then maybe baseball/softball, then like everything else.
Traditionally, the NCAA has grouped everything except men's basketball into one media rights package. That's why ESPN has the postseason rights to all of these random NCAA sports. The NCAA doesn't bid out each individual sport, so ESPN doesn't go out and bid specifically for the NCAA women's volleyball tournament. It's included in a larger media rights package with everything else. When the next round of contract negotiations starts happening, the Women's Basketball postseason will start getting bid out like the men's tournament.
I'm not sure if the women's basketball model is sustainable or if it was largely the Caitlin Clarke bubble, but I'm seeing a LOT more women's basketball advertised on Fox, ABC, etc.